What lens for photographing jewelry?

[DocFrankenstein]

I need to be able to fill the frame of the APS size sensor with a ring, earring or something similar and small.

It's gonna be a light tent of some sort.

Right now I am thinking of either:
50mm 2.5 macro
100mm 2.8 macro

I'd want to stick with canon on this purchase.

What do you recommend?

Thank you

[cmM]

I really doubt 50mm is enough to fill the frame with an earring, even though its macro. Either 100, or maybe even the 180mm macro

[RJSorensen]

You might want to think about tubes . . .

[mdr]

If you go for the 50mm you'll need the additional life size converter. My wife uses my 20D with 100mm f2.8 for taking shots of jewellery. It is ideal for taking closeups of hall marks without having to get too close to the object. If you consider 2nd hand, go for the non-USM version as it's a lot cheaper and you'll be focussing manually anyway.

[iwatkins]

100mm just for the ability to be further away and not casting shadows while you work.

[jbradc]

I would say at least a 100mm Macro longer if you can afford it (Canon 180mm is nice) this should give you plenty of working distance and up to lifesize image magnification.

[Jon]

100 and/or tubes . . .

[DocFrankenstein]

My wallet is about to have a heart attack. :confused:

180mm L you say... :D

Thank you for the replies everybody. :)

[Jon]

I thought this looked familiar. Why'd you post almost the same question (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=60385) twice, Doc?

[DocFrankenstein]

I know... it's kinda double posting...

THAT post was more about lights and general tips.

This one is just about the lenses.

But also because here you get more replies

[Citizensmith]

I think you'd be fine with either the 100 f/2.8, the 50 f/2.5 with lifesize converter, or wait a little and get the EF-S 60 f/2.8. They'll all do lifesize, which unless the jewellery is absolutely tiny will be enough. They all cost about the same too. Sigma has a very good 105 macro and Tamron a very good 90. If you can accept a thrid party lens the tamron in particular is stellar.

[DocFrankenstein]

Would I be able to get away with Kenko extension tubes on my sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ?

If yes, I just might save a bunch of $$ :D

[mbze430]

They doc, I will grab a few peice of jewelry from my wife and see how the 180mm works out. But personally I think it will be too close. Will let you know in a few hours

[Jon]

Would I be able to get away with Kenko extension tubes on my sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ?

If yes, I just might save a bunch of $$ :D

ISTR I ran the numbers on that for you (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51952&highlight=70-200+extension+tubes) here before.

[DocFrankenstein]

Thank you!

[Andy_T]

Would I be able to get away with Kenko extension tubes on my sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ?


I'd try it, if I were you.

What resolution do you need for the final picture?

If you crop the picture from the 70-200, it might be sufficient, even without tubes.

Best regards,
Andy

[mbze430]

Okay, I didn't set up the tent...and besides this is a framing test right...I am not getting graded for lighting....right?? :P

First shot.

24-70mm f2.8L with EF12II extension.

Second shot.

180mm f3.5L.

[mbze430]

Just for kicks.


3rd shot.

180mm f3.5L with EF12II extension.

My working distance didn't change, as you can see, it brings the image even closer, more fill of the frame.

[Jon]

Only thing I might change is use a less-reflective surface to put them on.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd try it, if I were you.

What resolution do you need for the final picture?
That's the problem. Most of the shots are for websites... and for catalogues...

BUT: Some of them are gonna be used as full page photos. So the quality should be good on all of them... supposedly.



If you crop the picture from the 70-200, it might be sufficient, even without tubes.

Best regards,
Andy
Without the tubes, I have 1.6 meter working distance. It would look strange. Plus the lights might give flare, because they are shining directly in the pic.

If it wasn't for that "poster" requirement, I'd probably just use the 50/1.8 and macro filters:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12284781.html

Thank you for the images mbze
My working distance didn't change, as you can see, it brings the image even closer, more fill of the frame.
What was the initial working distance?
How is it possible that it didn't change? :confused:
Shouldn't you be able to focus closer with the ext tube?
Would that mean 70-200 with extension tubes is gonna have the same 1.6 m minimal focusing distance as before?

If it wasn't for the full page poster it would've been easier. :)

[Jon]

ISTR I ran the numbers on that for you (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51952&highlight=70-200+extension+tubes) here before.

And the ballpark numbers were 70 mm: life-size at about 14 cm, and 200 mm: 1/2 life size at about 60 cm.

[DocFrankenstein]

And the ballpark numbers were 70 mm: life-size at about 14 cm, and 200 mm: 1/2 life size at about 60 cm.
:o:o:o OMG I couldn't find that thread.

Thank you for calculating that.

That would mean I can go larger than 1:1, right?

Does the focal distance change when I zoom in?

Cause if I can focus at 14 cm with 70mm... and then zoom in... would the focus still be on 14 cm? or 60 cm?

[mbze430]

What was the initial working distance?
How is it possible that it didn't change? :confused:
Shouldn't you be able to focus closer with the ext tube?
Would that mean 70-200 with extension tubes is gonna have the same 1.6 m minimal focusing distance as before?

If it wasn't for the full page poster it would've been easier. :)

Dang it, the server got too busy...okay now I am gonna really summerize it...this would be my 2nd time typing it :(

The initial working distance from the 24-70mm at 70mm + EF12II was 13-14inches.

From the 180mm I had to step back another 6inches because it will not focus down that close. I set the 180mm to 1:1, and step back with the camera till the object is in focus. That's how I got the 19-20inches.

When I said the working distance didn't change I meant with the 180mm and the 180mm + EF12II. It just made the object larger in the viewfinder, everything else was in focus.

I have the chart here for the Extension tube. Each of the 70-200 2.8, 2.8 IS, and 4 have different focusing distance and working distance. Let me know which one you got.

[Jon]

There's a link to that thread in my reply above. And, no, at 70 mm, you'd be focussed on nominal 14 cm; at 200 mm a nominal 60 cm, so you'd have to back off.

[ron chappel]

Jeez they sure are trying hard to part you and your money! 180mm macro indeed

There are heaps of good cheaper options-if the extension tubes don't work out ,look into a add-on diopter for one of your lenses

[Andy_T]

I stand by my first view ... you might try without any extras first. If you need it only for web shots, crop might be sufficient.

Use a light tent with continuous lights (e.g. spots) a good lens (e.g. 70-200/2.8 @ 5.6 @ 135 mm), 1/125 shutter on tripod at 100 ISO and crop the results.

Also, I assume that you've throughly searched the forum before and found these two links:

http://www.bhwebphotoschool.com/lessons/c5050diamondRing/index.html
http://www.webphotoschool.com/Lesson_Library/Free_Lessons/Techniques_for_Shooting_Jewelry/index.html

MBSZE: nice shots, I love the one with the 24-70!

Best regards,
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

Yeah, I've read those links.

I highly doubt I'll be easy to achieve proper lighting with ghetto setup...

Diffusion should be no problem - just a milk jug. But the "spark light" is gonna be a problem, if I only need to shine on the stone. :confused:

[Jon]

Punch a hole in the milk jug on a direct line between the light and the stone. 1/4" ought to do.

[DocFrankenstein]

But I need to be able to adjust the angle of the light too, to get the "sparkle"

Maybe a flashlight in a black box with a hole. LOL

I'm gonna experiment with this over the weekend.

[mbze430]

get some quartz lights, they use them at the jewelry stores to bring warmth and sparkle to the diamonds.

[DocFrankenstein]

get some quartz lights, they use them at the jewelry stores to bring warmth and sparkle to the diamonds.
Where do I get those quartz lights?

I was hoping to get away with tungsten, as they will be diffused through the "milkjug"

[mbze430]

Well, the ones at the jewelry stores are MR16 type lights, not medium-screw mounts. but I have heard of Quartz halogen, they might be the same type...not sure. I am sure the hardware store would have a load of them. Searching adorama, they seem to have Quartz lights too.