Which Lense is best for up close pictures? Such as of jewelry..

[mercedes_smart_potter]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I am new here and have some questions. I have a Nikon D5300 camera and am currently using the AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX and am having problems taking up close pictures. I am the manager of CowboyJewelers.com and am in charge of taking pictures of the new designs as they come through. Any suggestion of lenses or settings is greatly appreciated!</p>

<p>Sincerely,<br>

<br />Mercedes</p>

<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I would recommend the </p>

<h1 title="AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G">AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G.</h1>

[CvhKaar]

<p>I think that the short Distance 40mm does not allow you for proper lighting , better go for the 105mm micro or a Sigma 150mm so that you can get enough working Distance at 1;1 maginfication for proper lighting.<br>

Also spend a bit of money on some led continiuous light devices (at least 2 ) which help you to get enough light off a neutral collour (>. 5500 kelvin) to show the proper colours of gems & diamonds , and idealy add a "light tent"of some sorts to get the lighting even ( no shadows for jewelery photography) and to avoid reflections of the surrounding area</p>

<p>Obviously you'll need a proper tripod, since jewelery requires tack- sharp pics, no movement from hand-shake is allowed for this subject...</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`d follow C.P.M.`s good advice; just to add that maybe it could be a good idea to have a small studio for such macro work as I did... a small drawer or kitchen cabinet should work.<br /> I alvo have some derivations; instead of a tripod (which is certainly a bit clumsier on my work space) I just have a big tripod head (actually the biggest on its class) directly attached to a piece of chipboard, over the table. Another interesting accessory could be a macro focusing rail, not essential but a great help to keep magnifications under control. With current LED bulbs illumination is easier than ever.<br /> In my case (small manufacturings, jewelry sized items, maybe slightly bigger) a 105mm lens is my choice.</p>

[ShunCheung]

With a D5300, I assume the OP is not spending a lot of money on the macro lens. With that in mind, the Nikon 85mm/f3.5

DX AF-S VR macro lens is an option. The 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro is great, but that is heavy and fairly expensive. There are

some third party 90mm macro options.

 

If you use flashes to lit the jewelry, camera shake should be a non issue. Not sure you need to figure flashes and lighting

into your budget.

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 85 is probably a GREAT option if you need or want AF, metering, etc. I'd favor the Tamron 90 if I were buying an AF micro lens, myself.</p>

<p>If you are not afraid of setting the exposure manually with no metering (which with a still object like this is, I promise you, NO problem at all), buy a used manual focus (you want to focus manually for close-up photography of still objects anyway) 55mm f2.8 or f3.5 micro lens. They cost about the same as a good filter.</p>

<p>I love mine so much that when I left Nikon last year to go to Olympus µ43, I kept just that one lens and bought an adapter.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Another option could be the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G or Tamron 60mm f/2 lenses (Sigma 70mm f/2.8 another option); if you can live without AF indeed the old manual focus 55m lenses Peter mentioned.<br>

There are hardly any bad performing macro lenses out there, and the third party options can be significantly cheaper, so I wouldn't limit myself only to Nikon lenses.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here are a couple of images to illustrate a similar set up for macro jewelry photography. Instead of some ring, I used a 50 cent Eruo coin and a US quarter. The two coins are similar in size and are perhaps a bit larger than the diameter of your typical ring, without any diamond/stone on.</p>

<p>Similar to the OP, I set up a DX-format D7100 body with the Nikkor 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro lens. With just one ring or one piece of jewelry, the overall subject size is perhaps smaller than two coins together, but I think 105mm on DX should be a good focal length for this purpose. There is still plenty of working distance to light your subject.</p>

<p>Also see the discussion when I reviewed the Nikon 40mm/f2.8 macro lens: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/<br>

For something that small, you want a longer macro lens to give yourself some working distance. That was why I suggested the Nikon 85mm, which I don't have. The 105mm I used here is quite close to that. Again, there are some good third-party 90mm and 100mm macros.</p>

<p>I don't think anything shorter than 85mm would be a good idea unless your jewelry is much larger than a typical ring.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Image from that set up: D7100 body + 105mm macro lens. The camera and subject positions didn't change, but I added a flash to the above set up to capture this image.</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

<p>It comes down to how large the items are and the quality required, I think. If you want really high photos of details on estate rings, for example, you want that 105mm lens or the newer model Tamron 90mm (or the one everybody always forgets, the Tokina 100mm, though that would be manual focus only on your camera so I'd only recommend using it with a tripod). You'd also need a tripod with a macro rail added and some lighting. If you are only looking for photos of a web site and you don't need to get super close in on details you could use the 40mm, the 60mm Tamron, or the older model (but with motor) 90mm Tamron.</p>

[richard_meyers]

<p>A suggest the 60mm f/2.8 AF Macro. Less expensive(used?) and good working distance for small items. Consider buying or building a light tent or dome. A translucent dome with an opening for the lens. This produces good shadowless lighting. Once setup and tested you can ignore lighting and just switch items and shoot. Of course, a good tripod is a must.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

For jewellery, I'd steer clear of the older 90mm Tamron.

It's a fine lens and very sharp, but it does have a bit of

LoCA that tends to show up on shiny metal (having tried

it). The new one appears to be better, as is the 100mm

Tokina and the 150mm Sigma (I'm unsure about the

105mm). I've heard some similar concerns about the

105mm Nikkor. LoCA gets better as you stop down, so it

depends whether you want arty blur or if you're focus

stacking (for which you might want AF). Lighting is the

critical thing - for small jewellery, don't rule out the

merits of cheap LED torches (you want point lights for gems, especially diamonds and opals, but a light tent and more uniform lighting help with metal). Good luck.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i looked at the site, appears they've been around for awhile. how did they take their product shots before?</p>

<p>in any event, tripod and lighting are as important as focal length here. i would maybe consult with adorama or b&h about kits they have just for this purpose. this is a road lots have traveled before so you're not reinventing the wheel.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>What is your budget?</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Taking photos of jewelry is a challenge. I used to do this for several national accounts and built a "tent" to take the photos in. Extraneous reflections from the surroundings can be a real problem introducing objects and unwanted color. Controlling the light with both a diffuse source for general lighting and an off-access point source for sparkle is a good setup.</p>

[bnelson]

<p>I learned from sad experience to never use a flash on diamonds. Ambient lite only. I use an opaque tent with side lights. Flash on diamonds create way too many light problems.<br /> I also use the Nikon 105mm vr macro which gives me room to move around. Would love a rail but I'm not into jewelery that much anymore.<br /> Coins and other non refractive/reflective jewelery are a lot simpler as Shun demonstrated.<br>

If you really want to add some pop, use something like helicon focus to make up for the shallow depth of field.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Check out the Venus 60mm F2.8 2X macro lens. On a cropped frame Sony A77 II (or Nikon version), it's a 90 mm lens which reduces the vignetting and gives a little more shooting room. I just got one from China and am in the process of learning how to use it. Technique has to be perfect. I've mounted a LED ring light on the front since it's best to shoot at F16 and you have to focus at F16, which can be very dark. The digital view finder also helps as would Live View on the D7200. There are no electronic connections on the lens so your body has to be instructed to release the shutter when the shutter release is pressed. I also just bought a 6" adjustable camera platform since shooting from a tripod is a requirement, especially at 2X. Of course the main benefit of the lens in that it goes to 2X with no extension tubes. It looks like B&H has begun to sell the lens. Now I just need to find some spiders.<br /> http://petapixel.com/2015/02/02/review-venus-60mm-f2-8-worlds-first-21-macro-lens-infinity-focus/</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should point out that the OP mainly asked about lenses for her jewelry photography, and my example is to demonstrate that, in my opinion, something close to 105mm would be appropriate to photograph rings using a DX body. The lighting in my example is, as far as I am concerned, fairly poor. It is diffuse light and not at all dramatic. Again, the main purpose for the image sample is to demonstrate appropriate lens focus length, not how to lit such subjects.</p>

<p>Lighting is yet another complex subject that can easily justify its own lengthy thread.</p>

<p>BTW, I had a chance to check the OP's web site. They seem to be selling rings that are typically several hundred dollars in price Therefore, their target customers seem to be general consumers, and the OP is using a consumer-grade Nikon D5300 with a 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S lens. I would assume that we are not talking about very demanding product photography for the highest-end jewelers and the budget for equipment is fairly limited.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>the OP is using a consumer-grade Nikon D5300</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's twice you've knocked the D5300 as being too amateur to be taken seriously or worth putting nice glass on.</p>

<p>Used tethered with a decent macro, say a Tamron 90mm or a Sigma 150mm (non OS), it will produce identical shots to the way more expensive D7100 or D7200. For ring sized stuff I'm happy to use the Tamron 60mm.</p>

<p>Sure, it hasn't got such a nice VF, but this is static, manual focus product photography. It's just fine for that. Nothing to do with 'pro' handling or AF accuracy, buffer capacity etc etc.</p>

<p>The only thing 'wrong' even with the D3XXX series is Nikon's stupid choice not to make them tetherable.</p>

<p>Infact, good old DXO has the D5300 as having superior DR to the D7100 and the D3300 has better colour bit depth than the D7100. They both have superior high ISO than the D7100.</p>

<p>Now the D7200, that a different kitty on the block!</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"it's best to shoot at F16 and you have to focus at F16, which can be very dark."</em> - Michael</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No experience here, but... Why not to focus wide open, and then stop down for metering and shooting?<br /> <br /> This Venus lens looks interesting, but I wonder about the working distances from 1:2 to 2:1. I have checked some "reviews" (!), but still I`ve not clear if it is an "IF" design, some says it has a "built-in extension tube", or it really extends from infinity to 2:1 inside the casing (... with no focus breath?)<br /> <br /> Think that the working distance of usual 55-60mm Micro-Nikkors @ 1:1 is around 50mm.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Actually, the D5x00 series is high on my list of recommendations for macro shooting, because of the flip-out screen (and high pixel density). I'd rather be using a D5x00 series for this than a D7x00, or even D750. But I will state again that the older and much more affordable Tamron 90mm macro (without VC) is a bit LoCA-prone for jewellery, so unless the new ones are in budget, I'd be looking more closely at the Tokina 100mm and accept the lack of autofocus/metering - though this is a problem if you're going the helicon focus route and want automated stacking.<br />

<br />

Jose: That's an interesting-looking lens, though I'm not sure how useful 2:1 is on a crop sensor (except, maybe, for stud earrings - most jewellery I've seen would take up a reasonable chunk of a 24mm x 16mm DX frame at 1:1 magnification). I'm guessing if you have to compose at the shooting aperture, the lens lacks the convenient feature seen on my Hartblei, Peleng and Arsat lenses, all of which lack any communication with the camera: a "set" aperture with click-stops, and a free aperture ring that can toggle between the set aperture and wide open, for focus. Though this should still be possible even with just the click stops, it's a bit more painful that way. I trust this lens doesn't have a huge amount of focus shift on stop-down!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>That's twice you've knocked the D5300 as being too amateur to be taken seriously or worth putting nice glass on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Mike, you have no right to misinterpret what I wrote.</p>

<p>The D5300 being a consumer-grade DSLR is a fact. Pointing that out is not "knocking" it. Please don't make things up such as "being too amateur to be taken seriously or worth putting nice glass on." I never wrote that and never meant that.</p>

<p>What I am pointing out is that the OP is using a DSLR that costs a few hundred dollars and is selling rings that also cost a few hundred dollars. I can't speak for her, but I don't think she is spending thousands of dollars on camera equipment, and we aren't talking about very demanding image quality that require sophisticated lighting and skills. Otherwise, the OP wouldn't be asking a fairly basic question here. If I am totally off the mark on those assumptions, the OP is more than welcome to correct me.</p>

<p>I would appreciate that people can frame their answers with that in mind. The primary reason we are posting on this thread is to help the OP. As usual, there will be some different opinions and I expect some debates.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>What the OP want's to know is the best value for money lens to fit a DX camera to shoot jewellery. That required info is body non-specific. </p>

<p>Much better a 'cheap' body and a more costly lens, than an expensive body and cheap glass. That's been a well established concept for ages, especially when upgrading. </p>

<p>Handily, non-Nikon lenses lose their perceived 'value' quite quickly and their 2nd hand price drops quite fast too.</p>

<p>If you have a camera store locally, take your body along and see what focal length suits your needs. There is a rough correlation between focal length and cost. The longer, the costlier. Something between 70mm and 150mm should suit ring-sized targets. Features such as Auto Focus and Image stabilization don't really matter as you'll be manually focusing on a sturdy tripod, maybe with a focusing rail too. They can be picked up quite in-expensively and make adjustments simple and straightforward.</p>

<p> </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Mercedes, imaginations run wild around when unconstrained. There have already been some good suggestions above, but can you give us a ballpark budget? </p>

[Mike D]

<p>Jose, I don't know if there is focus breathing because at 1:1 or 2:1, any slight movement and you'll lose the subject. Also because the DOF is so narrow, you really have to shoot closed down. I don't have any expectations that the $360 lens will hold focus as it is stopped down. I took a couple images of an amethyst ring yesterday and reflections off the stone's facets are a real problem. (The lens is so sharp it shows every imperfection in the stones. Ugh.) I have a 62 mm polarizer on the way. At 2:1, the Venus lens seems to open up a whole new field of macro photography for me. The story behind the lens is also interesting. Some guys, in a macro photography group in China, were tired of using extension tubes and closeup filters so they designed and manufactured their own 2X macro lens. </p>