Best Nikon lens for shooting large paintings on a DX-Format DSLR

<p>Hi everybody!<br>

I have a brand new Nikon D7000 SLR. I need some advice as to what DX lens would be the best for photographing oil and acrylic paintings (approx. sizes between 12" x 16" and 20" x 30"). I have a small studio and can back up about six feet away from the artwork to take photos. I have an excellent lighting set up with two lights at 45 degree angles on either side of the easel. I have a polarizing filter that I can put on the camera. I used to use Olympus but now I have this Nikon, which came with an 18-105 zoom lens. It's a nice lens but my primary concern is to get the sharpest and most accurate results possible with very little distortion. I have a feeling I may get better results with a different lens. The photos will be used for print reproduction. Any suggestions you can give me would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>The problem with zoom lenses, especially long range ones, as a class is that they often show noticeable barrel distortion at the wide end, and even pincushion distortion at the long end ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_%28optics%29 ). Photozone.de has reviews of lenses ( http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#nikon_aps ) that include data on barrel distortion and the like.<br /> This is correctable in programs like Photoshop, but it's always nice to get it right "in the camera" as they say.<br /> If your paintings are consistently about the same sizes you would probably do best to find an appropriate prime focal length, say 60-70mm on a 35mm sensor, or roughly 28-35mm on a DX body-- in your case, for the sizes of paintings and distances you indicate.</p>

<p>60mm Micro Nikkor.</p>

<p>I would try that 18-105 near the middle (say, 30 to 40mm) range at f8 or f11 @ base ISO on a tripod and see how you like it before buying another lens. I worked for a oil painter myself and most buyers bought repros because of the paintings themselves, not the quality of the reproduction. I did the best that I could with a P&S at the time...</p>

 

<p>You want a lens that has a flat field of focus so that it can give you a sharp image of a flat painting from corner to corner. The 60mm macro Dan Brown suggests is a good candidate. I am not sure a 60mm lens on a DX body can cover the entire 20x30" subject within the space limitation of your studio, though.</p>

<p>Dan beat me to it! You can use your existing zoom lens to make sure that your working distance lends itself to shooting at 60mm, and if it does, that's the lens for you. You can get the one-generation-ago "D" version at pretty aggressive prices if you hunt around. The newer "G" version is arguably a better lens in some small, nitpicky (relative to the stated use) ways, but that's the first lens I'd reach for. Nice flat field, razor sharp. <br /><br />You don't mention what sort of lights you're talking about - but if they're not strobes, don't forget you're going to need a solid tripod.</p>

<p>Both the 60mm F2.8D and the 60mm 2.8G ED say that they are for copy work.</p>

<p>OP:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>can back up about six feet away</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This would work well with 60-70mm with a <em>35mm sensor</em>, but not so well with DX, as I've already said. Try it yourself and you'll see what I mean.</p>

<p>Here's a museum shot taken with a APS-C camera at 45mm focal length. This by the way was "Degenerate Art" to some back when.</p><div></div>

<p>My old Olympus was actually a film camera with a 50mm lens. I used to shoot only slides of my paintings 'til recently. (Also used a medium format (Hasselblad). How does a 50mm lens meant for film cameras compare to a 60mm meant for digital cameras? I assume you just have to stand a little further back? Please excuse my ignorance. I'm not a pro photographer -- I just shoot for fun and for reproducing my paintings. And I must say, I'm very, very picky about the quality of my reproductions. Sharpness and clarity are paramount but would rather shoot digital than film.</p>

<p>60mm on DX is 90mm on film. 60mm should work around 6 feets though maybe a little tight, see it for yourself...</p>

<p>On a tighter budget, you could buy a used 55mm /f2.8 AI-s Micro Nikkor and get the job done quite nicely too. KEH has them in EX condition for about $150.</p>

<p>OK, I tried taking some pictures of various paintings at 60mm using my existing lens. With the space I have to work within, I can fit a painting up to size 16" x 20" in the viewfinder, but not anything bigger than that. So if 60mm is good for 16" x 20" and smaller, what do I do for paintings bigger than that? (Thanks, by the way, for all your responses)</p>

<p>I have heard that the Nikon 18-55mm is an excellent lens. Do you think that would be a good possible candidate for my needs? Would the fact that it's a zoom lens (though not as long as what I have now) still cause quite a bit of distortion or not so bad? Like I said, my primary concern is sharpness and accuracy. I have Photoshop so I can fix distortion as long as it's not that bad and as long as it doesn't mess up the detail in the painting.</p>

<p>Get a D700 :-) A FF camera will give you a wider angle view with the same subject distance. Or it might be cheaper to knock out a wall.</p>

<p>If you can shoot from 6 feet away, you'll be fine with a 60mm Micro Nikkor. Using f/Calc, the field of view at 6 feet with a DX (APS) lens is 19 x 35 inches.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like I said, my primary concern is sharpness and accuracy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 60mm micro is much more suitable for what you're trying to do than the 18-55mm. As JDM said above, it is better to get things right in the camera. The 60mm micro will be significantly sharper at micro distances, as one would expect.</p>

<p>This is the type of work that make "Wider" macro lenses shine I think, because they are designed for flat field low distortion reproduction.<br>

A nice example for something like this would be a "Tokina AT-X M35 PRO DX" , which is not realy expensive,<br>

If you don't want to go macro, a "normal" nikon 35mm 1.8 could also prove to be excelent for this, because you do not have to realy get close-up for this work... (at this price it's a "must have" for DX anyway...)</p>

<p>Tokina makes a 35mm /f2.8 macro lens. That's the widest copy lens I am aware of. </p>

<p>No comment on quality, I have no experience with it.</p>

<p>Nikon E series 35mm f2.5. V.Sharp@ f5.6. Flat-field with no distortion on DX, cheap as chips etc...Easy to manual focus.<br>

Errr, just had a thought ..will the 7000 work with AIS lenses? Better go check....</p>

<p>Years ago, we used to use an older AI 28mm f3.5 lens (sorry, I do NOT know any specifics) for this kind of shot and got good results. I think the Tokina 35mm Macro would be worth looking at, though. (Nothing like that existed then, else we might have used it.)</p>

<p>Mike, the D7000 can be set-up to run up to 9 AI lenses. It's a really nice feature on that camera. Even has the AI ring on the lens mount.</p>

<p>Cheers Dan, I guessed that was the case BUT I'd hate to give bogus info!</p>

<p>If a 50mm worked on film for you then use your zoom at 35mm and see what the results are. If the field of view is good but the quality is lacking then look for a 35mm that meets your quality criteria.</p>

<p>i'd recommend the tokina 35/2.8 AT-X macro, which will give you an approximate FL of 52.5mm, can do 1:1, and close-focuses to 5.5 inches. it's under $300 as well.</p>

<p>Field of view on my zoom at 35mm is definitely better than 60mm. Hmmm. What about the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D lens? I hear it's one of Nikon's sharpest lenses yet a lot less expensive than the 60mm micro.</p>

<p><em>If the field of view is good but the quality is lacking then look for a 35mm that meets your quality criteria.</em></p>

<p>you're basically looking at the tokina 35, since there's no other macro available in that FL for DX. none of the nikon 35s will be totally distortion-free, and none of them close-focuses that close or does 1:1.</p>

<p> </p>