Recommend Lenses for Product Photography

[l_l24]

<p>I am looking at a new setup for product photography, new body and lenses. The size of the items I've been shooting with my current setup (Rebel XT + 18-55mm) range from very small (size of a quarter) to several ft. wide (8-10ft).<br>

I'm leaning towards a D7000 body. My lighting setup is continuous and I usually hand-hold (I know I know, but speed and mobility is a concern). I am wondering what lenses you guys would recommend for what I do? I'm looking at the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0, which seems like a wide zoom but don't know if it would be best for what I need to do. Should I look into a macro lens like the 105mm? I've never used a macro so I don't know whether or not they would even work well for the wide products. I do like how they have less distortion though since one of my biggest problems with the 18-55mm is barrel distortion when shooting the product boxes.<br>

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course any lens at all can be used to one purpose or another -- from super wide to super telephoto, depending on the effect you're trying to get.</p>

<p>However, there are a couple of Canon lenses that are designed and made to meet the ends of product photographers, to wit, the<br /> TS-E 45mm f/2.8 http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ts_e_45mm_f_2_8<br /> and the<br /> TS-E 90mm f/2.8 http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ts_e_90mm_f_2_8</p>

<p>product photography is the 'raison d'etre' for these lenses. It is this sort of thing that makes Canon such a good choice for people doing this kind of task.</p>

<p>They ain't cheap, though.</p>

[l_l24]

<p>Hey JDM. Thanks for the response. I was looking at some of the Nikon tilt-shift lenses prior. Outside of telephoto and wideangle, I have no clue how these other specialty lenses work. From my understanding, the tilt-shift much like a bellow is used to get everything in focus, correct? My main concern here is I will probably have a budget of <$1500 for lens/es, but I'll need it to cover everything I shoot, product photography wise. From very small items to something spanning across a 10 ft. table top. Do you think the 45mm will be able to cover that duty? I guess I am just a bit nervous since on the 18-55mm, I would sometimes have to back myself up and get the lens down to 18mm just to fit a product in frame.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I confess that at one time I was very puzzled as to what the use of the tilt-shift lenses above 35mm focal length could be. I am primarily interested in architectural photography where the shift is rather more important anyhow, and I had trouble seeing how a 45mm or 90mm lens was of any use to me at all. I actually have a <strong><em>shift</em></strong> adapter to let me mount 6x6cm Pentacon 6 lenses like my 80mm Biotar, etc. on my Canon EOS cameras, but couldn't see much use for it.</p>

<p>Then my daughter who trained in product photography at one of the Art Institutes, enlightened me about both tilt and longer focal lengths in that field.</p>

<p>I have subsequently looked into adapters for these larger format lenses that also allow TILT, they would certainly be another solution to buying the very expensive TS-E lenses. However, two things make this a little less attractive than formerly:</p>

<ul>

<li>the P6>EOS tilt adapters themselves are fairly pricey</li>

<li>the P6 lenses like the Biotar 80mm f/2.8 and the Biotar 120mm f/2.8 have become more expensive than they were when I got mine.</li>

</ul>

<p>However, getting a tilt adapter like ( search eBay for "Hartblei Tilt Adapter for Pentacon Six Lens - Canon EOS" and such like) costs something like $135<br>

and then you've got to get the P6 lenses like the 80mm mentioned above for about another $135 or so (recently completed sales on eBay).</p>

<p>With the two, you have a roughly $270 long tilt lens (but no shift). I have contemplated this, but haven't tried it myself, so you try it at your own risk, but it <em>is</em> a lot cheaper than either a Nikon or Canon T/S lens.</p>

<p>I think the Canon TS-Es are probably worth it for the control over both focal plane and angular 'distortion'. I personally, however, am still doing architecture and am saving my pennies while my daughter is still in school for the TS-E 17mm lens! :)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>L L : How will you be lighting your subjects, and does that have to figure into your budget as well?<br /><br />Regardless .. I'd probably go with a 60mm macro and a quality wide-to-mid-tele (like a 16-85, or a 17-55, etc). But this is going to depend a lot on the working distance between you and the products, your need to control depth of field, and more. It will help a lot if you can describe your actual shooting circumstances in a little more detail.</p>

[l_l24]

<p>@JDM<br>

I've read unfavorable things about those adapters but I'll look into it some more.</p>

<p>@Matt<br>

I have 2 continuous lights. A large table and a roll of white backdrop paper. The 2 lights just act as side lights on left and right side of the product. I do not have a hair light, backlight, or anything fancy.<br /> What I am hoping to accomplish with new glass is less distortion, being able to get more of the item in focus, and still be able to shoot without a tripod. Most of the time, I'm simply working 1-3 ft. from the product. Sometimes I need to get back to 5-6 ft in order to fit everything in frame. Other times, I'll stand on table to get an overhead shot of the products, which would put the camera close to 6ft.<br /> I try to get the backdrop as white as possible when I shoot and clean up the rest in PP.</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>If you really want to do it right, get a view camera and a 210mm or so lens...and get a copy of Norbert Nelsons' "Photographing Your Product for advertising and promotion"; its and old book, but a very good one. After you get the picture on 4x5 you can make it into a digital if you need to.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>What I am hoping to accomplish with new glass is less distortion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can get rid of barrel, pincushion, etc. optical lens distortion with post-processing in Adobe Lightroom, DxO, or NX2 for supported cameras and lenses. All 3 detect supported cameras and lenses and make lens distortion corrections automatically. Don't know about NX2, but LR and DxO can batch process your images, so you can correct distortion for hundreds of images at a crack. Shift on a T/S lens can get rid of some/all convergence distortion, like you get from looking up at a building. AFAIK, only a view camera can get rid of more complex perspective distortion. Some perspective distortion from wide-angle lenses (e.g. edge curving) is just the nature of some WA lenses. The only thing that really helps is keeping the camera level and plumb. Really wide (ultra-wide angle) lenses probably shouldn't be used for this type of photography. For really sweeping views, consider taking multiple shots and stitching them. There's automatic software for that, too, but you may end up with a tripod. That's not the end of the world if you invest in a good quick-release setup for the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>being able to get more of the item in focus, and still be able to shoot without a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A tilt lens will do that if the depth of field problem is along the lines of Scheimpflug principle (no pun intended). For all lenses, stopping the aperture down (higher f/number) will increase the depth of field. If the lights are brighter, you can stop down without losing shutter speed, so hand-holding will still work. VR can also help if the subject is static. Raising the ISO can keep shutter speed up, but even if there's little digital noise, you'll still increase contrast and lose tonality. How much of that is ok for what you shoot is up to you.</p>

<p>What I'd do: get Lightroom or DxO and some brighter lights, and see if that doesn't solve it. You can do that for less than getting a T/S lens. If that doesn't work, then try a different lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should I look into a macro lens like the 105mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might go wider with an APS-C camera. Maybe a 60mm macro, but a 105 macro wouldn't be too bad. You <em>will</em> lose depth of field shooting at close distances, which is what a macro lens does. Focal lengths being equal, as distance from the camera increases, so does depth of field. HTH.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Get some strobes. It will give you far, far more latitude when it comes to working hand-held with stopped-down lenses. You're fighting a losing battle, otherwise.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Scheimpflug principle<br>

That's your word to Google™ for.</p>

<p>It's true a view camera does this sort of thing very well, but it's also true that most customers these days will not want a nice 4x5 negative, much less an 8x10. At some point, you have to digitize, and much as I love to shoot with film, digitizing film adds another level of possible problems and certainly more time to the process.</p>

<p>Frankly, it's amazing what can be done with a Kleinbild kamera (small picture), and you may not be ready yet for a $45,000 medium format digital.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Have you thought about the 70-180 Micro Nikkor? And if you use Helicon Focus to stack the images you can get some amazing results....</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>LL: A tilt-shift lens doesn't get "everything" in focus - it lets you change the focal plane, so that it's not parallel with the image sensor (as people have said, google Scheimpflug). This means you can get the front and back of a product in focus, but possibly the top and bottom will be out of focus. If you want the whole thing to be sharp, you're looking at focus stacking, which requires some effort. Bear in mind also that tilt-shift lenses aren't autofocus, and that - at product distances - if you're not on a tripod, it's very difficult to have perfect control over the focal plane. I used to use a 300D (digital Rebel) with a Hartblei super-rotator, and for landscapes it was possible to wave the camera around until the focal plane was roughly correct - but it's hard to see sharpness clearly without using live view, and it's hard to move around a live view image while hand-holding a camera.<br />

<br />

Tilt-shifts aside, can I ask why you're thinking of switching from Canon to Nikon? I assume you don't have a large collection of Canon lenses that you were expecting to use. Not a criticism of your decision - I went from Canon to Nikon myself, and there are advantages to the Nikon system - but since Canon arguably have the better tilt/shift range and their 100mm f/2.8 IS macro is arguably more advanced than the Nikon equivalent (particularly, the stabilisation works better at macro distances hand-held), I want you to be sure of your switch.<br />

<br />

If you're shooting very small objects, I'd definitely consider a macro lens. I'd also consider third-party macros, like the 90mm Tamron, 100mm Tokina and 150mm Sigma - especially compared with the 105mm Nikkor, since its VR is less useful at macro lengths anyway. They're much cheaper, and arguably optically better.<br />

<br />

Good luck!</p>