Looking to photograph jewelry

[rich_decristo]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am looking to take photos of various accessories including necklaces, bracelets, earings, etc. I am using a nikon D80 camera and have a few lenses. I was wondering if someone could give me some guidance if I can use the equiptment I have, or if something else is needes. <br>

I plan on having a foam core background and have two softboxes with 85W 5600k lamps. I plan on using my D80 and have the following lenses:<br>

- Standard kit lens (Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens)<br>

- Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED Lens)<br>

- Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF<br>

- Nikon 35mm AF-S DX Nikkor f/1.8G<br>

- Nikon AF-S DX 3,5-5,6/18-105 VR<br>

I realize there are probably better options, but I need to be mindful of budget as well. Will this setup work or should I consider another (reasonably priced) lens.<br>

thanks<br>

Rich</p>

<p> </p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>It sounds like you have the basic stuff you need to get started, so why not set up some shots and see how you do? The only lens you list I'm familiar with is the 50 1.8, and I'm not sure that will focus close enough to fill the D80 frame with jewelry. You will need a lens that focuses pretty close, depending on how small the jewelry is. What do you intend to do with the images? If posting online, you will need a frame filling shot so it can be seen well.</p>

<p>So give it a try - put the 50 on the D80, put the rig on a tripod, set up your lights and softboxes and do some test shots. Then, you'll have a better idea if you need additional equipment.</p>

[rich_decristo]

<p>Thanks Ted,<br>

Yes they will be posted online. Just out of curiosity, what would some lens alternatives be (within reason), and by that I mean less than $500, and preferably around $350.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Least inexpensive option would be a closeup diopter lens. Now if those earings are stud type with small stones, you might need a 1:1 macro lens with a focal length of around 100-200mm so the lens isn't parked right on top of them.<br>

i</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's old, but updated 5 years ago, but is still a helpful intro to the broader subject of macros at http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/<br>

Jewelry doesn't move around a lot when you're photographing it, so even the shorter focal length macro lenses will work. In addition to the more costly Nikkor alternatives, I have found the Tamron macro lenses to be cost-conscious quality alternatives to the others. I have the (classic from older versions) Tamron 90mm f/2 Macro.<br>

Be sure if you look for it used (or new for that matter) that you are looking at the most recent version, instead of the similarly named Tamron 90s going back a long way. It should be right in your price range.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I suggest you buy and read the book "Light - Science & Magic" it will explain how to light shiny objects to control reflection and shadow.</p>

<p>Jewelry is the most difficult subject to photograph. Don't expect professional results without lots and lots of practice.</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I find that Nikon's 60/2.8 Micro (the older "D" version, no need for the newer AF-S version) is very useful for jewelry when shooting with a DX format body like the D80. What's your tripod situation? Those lights aren't very bright, so to shoot with the D80's nice clean ISO100 setting, you're going to need to stop down to f/8 or so for useable DoF, and that's going to mean some LONG shutter speeds. Results should be just fine, but a stable camera support will be important.</p>

[lwg]

<p>The problem you will find with your lenses is that they don't focus close enough to fill the frame with smaller objects. If you want to try your existing lenses you will want to get a set of extension tubes to allow you to focus closer. Or as a better alternative get a dedicated macro lens. You don't need autofocus, so you can choose an older manual focus lens such as the 55mm AIS, which is pretty good. My favorite macro lens is actually a Mamiya 645 120mm mounted on my Nikon with an adapter. It's very sharp, has nice out of focus rendering, and focuses down to 1:1 without extension tubes. I've used it on both a D7000 and a D800 and been very pleased. I think with the D80 you will need to meter manually, but that's easy enough in the studio.<br>

Have a look at Ming Thein's site. He does incredible work photographing watches. And he sometimes writes up how he works. Should be good for some ideas. http://blog.mingthein.com/category/watches-horology/</p>

[rich_decristo]

<p>Matt, They are 500W equivalent lites. Not sure if that makes a difference.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>As everyone mentions, for the most part you have just fine equipment, and the only issue is worrying that any of your lenses will focus close enough to make the jewelry large enough in your photo. Try your lenses and see if they will work for you, when my mother had the same issue, the NEX-3 with 18-55mm lens that I got her was just fine for her needs. I got her a lightbox which you seem to already have. I'll just tell you what I told her: be mindful of your aperture to ensure that everything is in focus, keep your ISO low (400 or less for the D80, but preferably 100), and be willing to use a stabilizer of some sort. Look at B&H's site, I think I ended up buying her the Manfrotto 143 Magic arm kit (it clamps to the edge of a table), but replaced the regular arm with the Manfrotto 244N variable friction arm. It holds her camera so that she can use manual focus and just keep her camera in place, not have to change any settings, and can work quickly.</p>

<p>If you do find that you need more magnification, there are many lenses that would work great for you. I'll break it up into 3 tiers, going from most expensive to least, and will only discuss new lenses. Feel free to go to your local camera shop, however, once you've set a baseline for price and performance, and see if there are any used lenses like the 55mm micro or 60mm micro mentioned above:<br>

1. There are the 90-110mm lenses. It doesn't matter whether you get the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm, or Nikon 105mm (expensive though!), they all work incredibly well and take amazing photos. The advantage of these longer focal length lenses is that you're much further back from the subject: you have a longer working distance.<br>

2. The Nikon 60mm micro and Tamron 60mm macro are great lenses that would also be useful for portraiture and other short telephoto work.<br>

3. If you want to save money and need the lens JUST for this kind of work, get yourself the Nikon 40mm micro. Amazing performance lens.<br>

One thing to keep in mind is that although the focal lengths of these lenses are all different, they will all provide the same amount of magnification. Longer focal lengths just mean you don't have to be so close to your subject. Make sure that if you're using a 40mm lens, that you aren't too close to end up blocking the light from your lamps. Conversely, make sure that if you find a 90-110mm macro, that you won't be too far away from your work stand, as the working distance may be a little too long for indoors work.</p>

[rich_decristo]

Wow thanks Ariel. If I were to look into

the tamron 90 or 100, is there a variety

in this flavor or just one option to look

for. Ie, does it need to be macro? Thx

[JDMvW]

<p>1) Beware of zoom lenses marked "macro" - most of them are simply close-focus at best and rarely would one of them be good for your application.<br>

2) The Tamron is<br>

<strong>Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF Di Macro Lens for Nikon AF</strong><br>

At the big stores it's about $450 now with a rebate, it's gone up since I bought mine. Nice looking, nearly new ones in box on eBay have been going for $300-400 recently.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[rich_decristo]

So would the tamron 90mm be the better choice over the Nikon 60mm D?

[ariel_s1]

<p>Rich, the Tamron 90mm or Tokina 100mm will both have macro in the name; you can't get the wrong one if you tried. Make sure that they're also Nikon mount (I think the Tokina may be only made in Nikon mount, while the Tamron is made for most/all DSLR systems). As to whether to get the 55mm/60mm macro or the 90mm/100mm/105mm macro, well that's a question for the ages ;) Do a bit of creative google searching of 60mm vs 90mm macro, and 60mm vs 105mm macro, plus even 60mm vs 100mm macro to get a few of the Canon discussions as well. I'd think that the 60mm would probably be an easier working distance vs magnification to deal with indoors, but it's your call. At the closest focusing distance, the front of the 60mm lens will only be like 2-3" away from the subject, which for you may be too close, but I have never had an issue with it blocking any light (I actually use the older version, the 55mm manual focus micro Nikkor). There are TONS of discussions on the issue, from forums such as this to Youtube to Flickr groups. Maybe even consider buying locally and test the two lenses out at your local shop before you purchase one. Take a wristwatch or whatever in with you, to get an idea of the magnification you'd get.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just to add:</p>

<ul>

<li>There are versions of the Tamron 90mm that have an in-lens motor, and (older) versions that don't. This doesn't much matter for a D80, but if you ever plan to get a low-end Nikon body that can't autofocus screw-focus lenses (such as a D3200, if you decide you want more detail), it might be worth planning ahead.</li>

<li>In the comparison shots I've seen, the 100mm Tokina might be slightly better at controlling LoCA, which might be an issue for jewelry with out-of-focus highlights. Neither are likely to be as good as a 150mm Sigma APO, but that would be blowing your budget by some margin (I mention it only in case you decide the cheaper lenses are unacceptable).</li>

<li>I only have amateur experience of shooting jewelry, but lighting is everything. I concur that the 90mm Tamron or 100mm Tokina would give you working distance that's likely to be helpful for positioning lights (and not having the an obvious reflection of the camera), more than (say) the 40mm or 60mm Nikkor versions.</li>

<li>The 85mm Nikkor has comparatively poor reviews, and I'd steer clear. The 105mm Nikkor seems better, but is expensive compared with the Tamron and Tokina (and 105mm Sigma) and - for macro - probably not any better.</li>

<li>For ultimate budget, the 55mm manual focus Nikkor micro that Ariel mentions is popular, but if the jewelry is small enough you may need extension tubes (it only goes to 2:1) and the working distance is an issue.</li>

<li>I'd think about a cheap macro rail, and possibly a remote shutter release (and, obviously, a tripod). That's likely to be even more useful on a D80, since you don't have live view for accurate macro focus (another reason to consider a future acquisition of a D3200 or similar) so you'll have to rely on trial shots.</li>

<li>Depending on the jewelry, I'm not sure that soft boxes will be your friend. Many gem stones - especially diamonds, cubic zirconia and opals - split directional white light into colours, and when viewed under very soft lighting the colours all blend back into white. There's a reason that jewelry stores have lots of small spotlights. I'd consider either some spot lights (some small table lamps), sunlight (possibly with a mirror or two to give extra light sources) or smaller torches. White LED torches are very convenient for this, although they tend to have a slightly odd spectrum that may not be quite as effective as an incandescent source. With a long enough exposure, they don't necessarily have to be very bright. All this is less of an issue with jewelry that's mostly metalwork, or coloured stones.</li>

<li>If you're really keen, you might want to consider a polarizer, which would give you some control over which reflections are dominant (and might let you "see into" a stone more than normal). I've never bothered, so I can't vouch for how well this might work.</li>

</ul>

<p>Good luck, I hope that helps and it's not scared you off!</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Ah, Andrew, thanks for mentioning the Nikon 85mm micro! I forgot about it, but I'd add it to my tier 2. I am unaware of people being unimpressed with its performance. I have *limited* experience with this lens, and only in a store environment, but I liked it well enough. The only bad things that I've really heard or seen online about about it are:<br>

1. That it's a DX lens, complained about by all of the people that are too busy building themselves their wishful FX lens kit while shooting with a camera like the D5100. It's a moderate pet peeve of mine, if you're shooting a DX camera then just buy the lenses that will work best for you. You aren't saving any serious money by buying your lenses early, you probably don't even need to go FX even in 5-10 years, and you're just limiting your photography today by not allowing yourself to get the better lens for your situation.<br>

2. That it's a rather slow lens for being a prime; people expect if they aren't going to zoom, then they had better get something with a really wide aperture, minimum f/2.8 but hopefully faster. Being f/3.5, many expect that they aren't going to end up using this as a portrait lens, although wide open you get a shallower depth of field with this 85mm than even the Tamron 60mm f/2, since the focal length is so much longer. f/3.5 is only 2/3 of a stop smaller than f/2.8. I assume that Nikon did this because being moderate aperture, it's easier to optically correct for solid performance, and I've read somewhere that to go 1 stop faster, your lens elements end up costing many times more to produce. The AF-S and VR are more useful for general photography, as they're of limited use in macro photography, but still nice enough to have. My 55mm is actually the f/3.5 version, and I'm very happy with it. You're always so stopped down in macro photography anyway to get any sort of acceptable depth of field, so it's nice to not have to wield a large lens.<br>

Still, might as well consider it. I don't think that you can effectively argue that optically, it won't be as good as the other 90mm or 100mm macros. Just more options to confuse the buyer, I love choices!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I should clarify that I've no personal experience of the 85mm (I only have FX cameras, so I pretty much ignored it). I've seen a few reviews that have claimed it's not up to the standards expected of a Nikkor micro lens, but couldn't tell you how justified they were (or, now, which ones they were). Of course, the VR does make it a vaguely useful portrait lens, but then so does the f/2.8 aperture of the other lenses.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I can add this: on a DX body, 40mm or 60mm is about as long as you're going to want to get for general-purpose jewelry shooting. When you get to 90mm, you need to be half way across the room to get in a whole necklace.</p>

[rich_decristo]

<p>Well this is quite a bit to absorb. I think I am limiting my choice down to the Tamron 90mm and the Tokina 100mm. I was strongly considering the Nikon 60mm but I think as an amateur, having more flexibility around working room and lighting it will be more beneficial to me. The Tamron is probably about 25% cheaper so I am tending to lead in that direction, plus I believe it is not as plastic as the Tokina. I have read that the Tokina has amazing clarity. I just want to understand if I am sacrificing anything else by choosing the Tamron lens. I understand the magnification is the same on both. thanks again</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I've never seen the Tokina, but the Tamron is still a bit plasticky, although it's seemed solid enough. The newer versions autofocus on cheap (no screwdriver) bodies, unlike, I think, the Tokina. My understanding is that the Tamron may be slightly better wide open, but they're both extremely good lenses. The Tokina has more working distance (being longer), but you'll get the same (1:1) reproduction size, just from a different view point. The front element of the Tamron is very deeply recessed, so the working distance isn't as much as you might think; I can't vouch for the Tokina.<br />

<br />

I agree with Matt that on DX you'll be quite a distance away to fit in a whole necklace - but then arguably you don't need a macro lens at all for that (and if you're really keen you might want to start looking at tilt-shift lenses instead...) On the other hand, if you want to fill the frame with an engagement ring, it's useful to have some more working distance. If you want to fill the frame with an earring, you might need to start looking into reversing rings, but that's another world.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, focus stacking may be your friend for small items (see the <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/focus/stacking/harold-davis/">helpful guide</a> on the subject). HeliconFocus is a widely-used commercial solution, but there are free approaches.</p>

[rich_decristo]

<p>Matt - FOr some reason I did not see your response before I mentioned I was going to change my shortlist. Thanks Matt and Andrew for the clarification. The Nikon 60mm is a bit cheaper so I'll look at that.<br>

thx</p>

[rich_decristo]

Just picked up the Nikon 60mm on eBay for $245. Thank you everyone for the guidance.

[Matt Laur]

<p>Good call, Rich. If this becomes a regular thing and a bigger part of how you spend your time, it's not going to be the only lens you use for such projects. But it will definitely get you going in fine style. Thus armed for now, everything else about this area of work is: light, light, light! Hope you'll post some images along the way - good luck, and have fun!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The 60mm is known for being optically extraordinary. I'm sure you'll be very happy, Rich. Good luck, and I too will be interested in your results.</p>