Product photos...macro vs. other lenses

[FJC]

I'm an amateur, and many of my photos are what I'd classify as "product" photos of handguns. I don't take them to sell items (generally), but just to post on various forums.

The pictures range from full shots of the handgun (figure roughly 8"x6" subject size) to close ups of intricate detail work, such as the checkering, manufacturer logos, etc.

So far I've been doing these pictures with a Canon 300D with a 17-40mm f/4L lens, using a tripod and remote shutter release. Aperature at the max f/22 that the lens will do. I'm thinking about upping the ante with a macro lens.

Would I expect to see much of a difference in what I can do with a quality macro lens (like the Canon 60mm f/2.8 EF-S, or the 100mm f/2.8 EF)?

If I went with the 100mm, would I find I need to back the camera away significantly from the subject to get a full-on shot?

Examples of the types of pictures I'm taking (be kind, I admitted to being an amateur!):

http://www.condron.com/pics/seecamp/seecamp_6005.jpg
http://www.condron.com/pics/colt/Diamondback/colt_db_6192.jpg
http://www.condron.com/pics/colt/Diamondback/colt_db_6187.jpg
http://www.condron.com/pics/642/642_4_5854.jpg
http://www.condron.com/pics/642/642_5_5858.jpg

Thanks,
--FJC

[Leorooster]

You may also consider the Canon 50 f/2.5 macro. This lens doesn't give you 1:1, but only up to 1:2 life size. However, for the type of shots you do, it should be good. This lens is great for product shots. IMHO, the 100mm is a bit too long for your purpose.

[buddy4344]

I shoot a fair number of close-up shots. I have the 100mm macro as well as several lenses (see list below) that help my work. The 100 is a GREAT LENS, but for many shots, it really gets in too close for the overall item such as the guns/ammo you shoot. I thinkyou should consider a smaller macro or the 24-105L.

[fWord]

Yes, I don't believe you'll need a true macro lens for your work, considering it appears that the 17-40mm already lets you in close enough. But you may benefit from a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, especially on those occasions when you really need the magnification. Even if you don't, it still works well as a standard lens and can supplement your 17-40mm.

The Sigma 70-300mm is quite inexpensive and will give up to 1:2 magnification, and allow you some working distance from your products. It might be more comfortable than having to crane your neck over all the time.

[MeanGreeny]

....................... Aperature at the max f/22 that the lens will do............... FJC

Stick to f/5.6 or f/8 or f/11 and your pics will be sharper - that's the aperture that most lens/camera combinations perform best - as long as all you want is in focus

You can get something called diffraction error [on digital cameras] which, for a whole bunch of technical reasons causes images to become less sharp above approx f/16.

HTH

[fWord]

Stick to f/5.6 or f/8 or f/11 and your pics will be sharper - that's the aperture that most lens/camera combinations perform best - as long as all you want is in focus

You can get something diffraction error [on digital cameras] which, for a whole bunch of technical reasons causes images to become less sharp above approx f/16.

HTH

In addition to this, it might be worth considering if selective focus can give your photos a bit of an artistic touch. Having everything sharp may be your intention and it is certainly the case for more scienfic photographs, but utilising shallow DOF effectively can make your photos look extra special.

With a wide angle lens such as the 17-40mm, and at this magnification, DOF is quite large to start off with, but when you start to work with longer focal length lenses at the same magnification the DOF becomes shallower, and you have the opportunity to use selective focus to your advantage.

[WMS]

With a Canon 100 mm macro you will need to back out a little over 1 meter 3 to 4 feet to frame an entire medium frame hand gun. I determined this experimentally using a convent 45 acp. You will also be aple to fill the field of view with a one inch detail.

WayneM

[FJC]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the info. WMS - thanks for measuring the distance while framing a similar subject.

I'm going to do a little more experimentation and research armed with this information.

[rparchen]

I have done plenty of "product" style shots and I never used my 100mm macro (before I sold it). I found that it gave way too much reach for this type of work and I would have to be halfway across the room. I shot these two with my nifty fifty from 2-3 feet away:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Photography/LightBox/IMG_6497.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Photography/LightBox/IMG_6461.jpg

[FJC]

Thanks - I went ahead today and ordered the 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. I'll give it a try, and look into some better lighting as well. And heh, now I can start shooting bugs as well. :)

[rparchen]

I also ordered the 60mm and I'm just waiting for it to show up. I think the 60mm will work great for what you are doing with it.

[rocklyons]

I have done plenty of "product" style shots and I never used my 100mm macro (before I sold it). I found that it gave way too much reach for this type of work and I would have to be halfway across the room. I shot these two with my nifty fifty from 2-3 feet away:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Photography/LightBox/IMG_6461.jpgCould you pleasse tell me what the watch was sitting on to give the great reflection.

[rparchen]

It was sitting on a piece of clear acrylic. Using a small piece of glass would yield better results but I just happened to have that laying around at the time.