Best Lenses for Museum Photography?

...or whatever it should more properly be called, taking photographs

of statuary, paintings, and so forth in museums. Are there

particular lens types that are better suited for this?

Tilt/Shift lenses.

I'm no expert but a couple ideas come to mind. As far as statues and busts go I wouold think a short telephoto with big aperture, same as you would use for portraits, something like the excellent EF85mm f/1.8. This would be good for paintings too if you could stand 12 or so feet away. Any closer and maybe use the 50mm lens. Larger museum items such as murals might need one of the perspective control lenses. If the museum will let you a tripod or monopod would be very helpful as the lighting might necessitate a longer exposure than outdoors. And finally, since the subject will be stationary, a lens with image stabilization such as the 17-85 or 24-105 will work well and get you shutter speeds down to 1/15-1/30th. Bob.

Well, since flashes and tripods are usually not allowed (and are annoying to other visitors

even if not explicitly banned), fast lenses are important.

 

Other than that, it depends upon what you will be photographing in the museums. Some

things will require close focus distance, others a long reach, and still others a wide view.

For paintings, pick a lens with very low distortion.

 

If you want one "museum lens," maybe a fast 24-70, 28-75, or similar would be good for

film with an 18-50 2.8 like Sigma's for 1.6x digital. You won't get low distortion that way,

though. For that, maybe you should look at the Canon 50mm macro?

 

Give us some more details on what you'll be shooting.

Kyle,

In my limited experiences, many Museums and Art Gallery's will not allow the use of a Flash, so you may be restricted to available light, which dictates the use of a fast prime lens with a large aperture (1.2, 1.4, 1.8 etc.)and the use of a good stable tripod.

 

Some will even limit the use of a tripod because of the possibility of someone in the crowd tripping over it.

 

When I visit a Museum and anticipate doing some inside photography, I will usually try to visit on the "off peak" days and hours.

Fast lenses, because tripods are usually forbidden, as is flash and light is often very dim. A 50mm f/1.4 works well on a film camera, but you may need something somewhat wider and fast to capture large canvases in rooms that don't let you back up too far. Wide angles also maximise the chance of avoiding including other museum visitors blcoking part of the view of the object. Fast apertures also allow you to blur distracting backgrounds behind statues and make mesh disappear from in front of something. IMHO an IS lens is a poor second cousin for this kind of work, and you may struggle to get the combination of wide enough and fast or IS when using a crop body.

 

Even so, the images in the books, posters and postcards at the museum shop will be better than yours, because they are shot without your restrictions as a visitor - well lit, from a tripod (with MLU and remote release), camera centred on the canvas - probably even using a large format view camera. Of course if you are invited to do the shoot for their next guide book, you should head over to the Lighting forum and Large Format for advice.

The majority of this work could be well shot using a fast 50mm, however if you needed zoom, then probably the 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be the best choice. Three stops of antishake means you can handhold at f/4 down to approx 1/8 sec at 50mm, with more depth of field than the 50mm would give at f/1.4 and 1/60 sec (equivalent exposure).

Anything with VR / IS / AS. Even with ultra fast lenses in low light, you won't have enough

DOF.

I probably should have provided more information, but I wrote that post on my way out the door, and wanted to get the question out there before I forgot. :)

 

I'm a graduate student, studying Egyptology, and a teaching assistant. I'd like to get some good photos of the Egyptian and Near Eastern art collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and other similar collections. Mostly statuary, of a variety of sizes, pottery and other artifacts; not many paintings, save for a few bits of painted walls. The Met allows tripods on week-days and with prior permission, but no flash photography.

 

I'm about to order the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, which I hope will work well for smaller objects. It would be a bit of a stretch for me to purchase the EF 50mm f/2.5 macro as well, but if necessary (and if it will do the job of a 50mm non-macro lens as well), I could be persuaded.

 

I have a feeling this is veering dangerously close to the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens, but my research has left me dead-set against that. Too much distortion, too much chromatic aberration, poor build with too much dust infiltration. If it were $100-$200, sure, but I can't pay almost $600 for that. I've been considering the EF 17-40mm f/4L to handle the wide-angle side of things, but with the mention of the 50mm macro I wonder: would I be better served by the 50mm macro and either the EF 24mm f/2.8 or the EF 20mm f/2.8?

 

I know that I could get the best-quality photos by purchasing them, but, quite apart from the pleasure of taking the photos myself, lessons learned in the Met may translate well to the field. Assuming that when I get out to the dig site, I happen to trip over an undiscovered colossal statue. :)

Don't worry about dust infiltration. Most lenses will get some dust inside, which will

generally NOT affect picture quality. The 17-85 is a fine lens, with moderate CA at the wide

end(which is easily correctable if you're shooting digital).

 

Perhaps a few different lenses will satisfy your needs. I wouldn't throw out the 17-85 out of

hand, though, as it's a very handy lens.

Check to see if they allow flash photography. If so, a 17-40L would be great. A 28-135 IS would be good if flash isn't allowed or a fast 50 like 50 f1.8 or 50 f1.4.

When I last talked to the AV guys the told me that there were slide projectors in the major lecture theatres for Art History. Almost everyone else uses the digital projectors but the Art History folk use projected slides since they are much higher resolution (this is a result of the projectors not the digital capture).

 

If you intend to take digital photos and projecting then I would go for a wide lens, like the 17-40 or 10-22, and use software tools to remove distortion and do perspective correction. If you are going to resample for projection (or even small book prints) you can do some extreme correction. Removing distortion is very successful and generally doesn't adversely affect quality. Perspective correction for more than a few degrees tilt does affect quality. For top quality you wish to keep the sensor plane parallel to the main plane of the artifact.

 

If you are going to photograph exhibits behind glass then a polarizer or velvet dark cloth (depending on how friendly the Museum staff are - tell them what you are studying and doing) are very useful for eliminating reflections.

 

Cool subject Kyle. One of my friends is studying forensic Egyptology.

Hi Kyle,

 

I've been commissioned to shoot inside a few museums but admittedly not to take individual items - more the general exhibition spaces.

 

I have used the 17-40L lens lots for this type of work (always with the camera mounted on a tripod) and I must admit I love this lens. I did own a 24mm 2.8 prime lens but never used it as the 17-40mm is just as sharp and I have read that it is also sharper than Canon's 20mm prime lens although I haven't put this to the test myself.

 

I also own the Canon 50mm macro lens and I use this lens lots too. I also used to own a 50mm 1.8 Mk1 but again I sold this as the 50mm macro is sharper and less prone to flare. I also have a set of Jessops (cheap) extension tubes that work really well with the 50mm macro and these give me really good close up shots.

 

Maybe you could save money on a 100mm macro and get the 50mm macro with extension tubes (not Canons life size converter - this is quite expensive) and get the 17-40 lens also.

 

A good sturdy tripod like a Unilock or Benbo that allow for really flexible positioning of the camera would also be very useful to you.

 

Best regards

Dave Thrower

 

www.redshift-photography.co.uk<div></div>

Important Note - I have a 1.6x camera.

 

I visited the Egyptian exhibit at the Met last week. Since you'll have a tripod, be sure to take a polarizing filter, as the glass they use is quite reflective. A 16x20 sheet of black foamcore for you to wave around to block lights might also be useful (I remember wanting one).

 

Unfortunately I went on a no-tripod day. It's so dark in the Egypt section that the only halfway sharp pictures I got were with the front filter pressed flush to the glass. With this style I found myself using the 17-40 almost exclusively (as opposed to the 50/1.4 I also took). Statues are 3 dimensional objects and the low DOF of the 50 at f/2 (where it's sharp) and small FOV make it of marginal utility for large objects.

 

Also noteworthy, take a tripod that will put the camera at least at eye level if you're doing close-ups. There's plenty of stuff at or slightly above eye level in that exhibit.

 

There is _so much stuff_ in that museum (how can I emphasize this more) that you will not have time to set up a tripod for every shot. You will want to take a fast prime lens for handhelds. A 50 if you're into small objects, a 35 otherwise. Another note - take your own food to minimize time in lines.

 

I'm still sorting through images but I'll glance through the Met files tonight and try to post a few so you can know what kind of lighting to expect.

Thanks, Alistair; and forensic Egyptology is a fascinating side of the subject of which I know, unfortunately, far too little. I'm studying the language and literature, which will probably mean a life of writing boring articles about whether or not the Egyptian poets wrote in couplets. :)

 

Thanks also, David and Pieris. The 17-40 is sounding better and better, especially as I can't afford the $1200 lenses that may or may not do a better job. To put a strictly monetary limit on it, the 17-40 is all I can afford for this purpose, that or another solution at the same price. I'll also be getting the 100mm macro lens, though, so hopefully that will handle close-up shots and smaller objects.

 

Pieris, thanks for the offer to post your photos, I look forward to seeing them. :)

Kyle,

 

Unless you want to focus on really small items and make big prints of them I think you would be much better served with a 70-200/4 and Nikon 6T dual element close-up lens. A little more pricey than the macro but much more flexible.

I'm also buying the EF 70-200mm f/4L, but yes, I do want to take photos of very small objects. Between the 70-200, the 100mm macro, and the 17-40, ought that be enough to handle basic nature and macro photography as well as the Met? Or am I being an obstinate Luddite in my refusal to buy the 17-85 when that would obviously better suit my needs?

I'd say the camera is far more important than the lens in this situation. In my experience, you'll be shooting at ISO 3200- especially if your subjects require any DOF. Your money might best be used toward whatever the latest DSLR is that works with your existing lenses.

example of reflective glass. Camera was held against the wall for this one.<div></div>

example of small artifacts. They tend to be better lit, but here too reflection artifacts can be seen.<div></div>

last one. Sorry about the hasty white balance. All my shots were pretty much "the Met was cool" vacation pictures. The combination of reflections, high ISO noise, and motion blur make a tripod mandatory. It makes no sense IMO to buy a $600 lens for the sole purpose of photographing at the Met w/o tripod.<div></div>

Thanks, Pieris! Those are very good photos for such poor conditions. Had you not already told me, I wouldn't have known of the glass between you and the artifacts. I will *definitely* be adding a polarizing filter to my kit.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it seems that my current plan will work well for the Met as well as photography outdoors: EF 17-40mm f/4L, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 70-200mm f/4L, and EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. That seems as if it covers the full range, with L-series quality for most of it (and every review I've read says the 100mm macro is akin to a "hidden" L lens, it's so sharp and clear).

 

And thanks for taking so much time to help with this!

Excellent selection of lenses, Kyle.

 

It is almost identical to my selection (I have a Tomron 90mm/2.8 instead of the Canon - in the UK the Tamron is significantly cheaper than the Canon. I also have a 35/2 for lowlight, and a 1.4x teleconvertor for extra reach on the 70-200/4. I have a 550EX flash that sees almost daily use. Depending on your type of shooting you may or may not need an external flash.

 

If you need a flash then the 430EX looks great. You could also save some money by getting a 420EX. The 430EX has on camera controls and more features than the 420EX. It supposedly recycles faster too. The 550EX/580EX flashes are more powerful, which is useful for telephoto flash, but are bigger and heavier, which is never useful.

The only use I'd have for a flash right now would be for taking snapshots, and the little flip-up flash on the 20D seems good enough for that. I don't have any real interest in portraits at the moment. I don't know anyone locally whose face really calls out to me to spend $1,000 or so on the ability to take a high-quality photo of it. :)

 

I think I may get that 35mm f/2 you mentioned, and let the 17-40 wait until I meet a landscape that begs for a wide-angle photo. I live in central Pennsylvania (right next to Penn State, if the name means anything to you; it's in the U.S. on the eastern side of things, if it doesn't). We don't really have beautiful landscapes out here. We have some nice bits, if you can avoid getting the overgrown town, the unnecessary ski trails, or the scars of old mines in the picture. But nothing Rocky Mountain-ish. So, if I could (as I hope) get enough use in the Met from the 35 f/2, I think I'll get that and put the $400 toward a tripod.

 

Thanks again! :)

Oh, who am I kidding? I'll buy the 17-40 and eat ramen for a month. :)