What (macro?) lens to improve this kind of photos?

I want to further develop this kind of photography. I'd like to get a lens that's a little better in the focal range(s) used here. I use a 40D and want something that can be reused on FF. These photos have been taken with a EF 28-135 and a EF-S 18-200. According to the EXIF info left they have been taken (of the whole sets) most things are at 60mm straight, then 38-80 mixed. Some of the best ones are longer but I think I can still manage with a prime by leg-zooming. I figure that sharpness and edge snarpness are more important to me than bokeh. Not that I mind fast lens, of course. I also figure that maybe I can do some product shots of smaller objects so I toy with the thought of getting a prime macro lens.

I think my best bets are:

• if I want to go for light Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
  
• if I want a macro the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro
  

• which of those two?
  
• is the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 actually better than Canon's short 50mm f/2.5 macro? I might save a penny here to put towards a landscape or zoom lens
  
• should I try to combine it with having a good tele and get Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 macro?
  

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org …s/010__img_4042​_1280.html

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org …/020__img_0863_​edit2.html

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org …g_8920_burnylpc​-head.html

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org/gu​itars/040__img_1477.ht​ml

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org …/050__img_8876_​greco.html

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org …img_1510_morse_​edit1.html

IMAGE LINK: http://www.cons.org …/070__img_8757_​morse.html

For this stuff having an f/1.8 lens to me would be pointless, You'll be using it at f/8-f/11 a lot more than f/1.8 and the MFD will be a little bit of a problem, so the 85mm f/1.8 is out to me

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro isnt a real macro, so if thats what you really want, Forget it, Same with the 18-50, In fact most any zoom with the word "macro" in it, isnt

Why is a FF lens so important? if you're thinknig of "saving for the future" the future isnt -now-, Buy what works best now and forget the future

That said, For a real macro, No real macro is bad, The Canon 50mm one cant go to 1:1 without a converter, so keep that in mind, keep in mind working distance, For these objects which are larger a shorter macro would be ideal...

The Tamron 60mm f/2 would be my ideal choice given the subjects....It offers the f/2 aperture to serve as a portrait lens as well as a macro, which is really nice, and optically well..its a macro, its good

If you like to do product shots, try looking into ts-es like the 45mm and the 90mm.

Thanks, guys. As I said, I'm not fixed on anything. I just put my future plans into the first post and of course I do other photography.

I don't think I'll need 1:1 or close to it. But as I said, I spotted the 60mm f/2.0 Tamron as an attractive one before.

I agree that for the sort of shots you've posted, a TS-E lens would suit best, but they're pricey. You could rent one first to see what you think - give yourself a while as they take a short time to get the hang of. By using the tilt facility you could have the whole guitar sharp.

Hmmm, I think that would be over the top. Maybe after somebody pays me for this.

Does anybody actually own the Tamron 60mm macro? We don't seem to have a sample pics thread. On the other hand I could be first Penguin (testing the water for sharks, seals and orcas ).

You don't need a macro for those types of shots...

A macro lens with 1:1 focus capability can fill the frame with ar area as small as 15 x 22.5mm on a 1.6x crop camera...

I doubt if you need to get this close for your guitar portraits. You simply need a lens with relatively close focusing capabilities. Most general purpose medium-range zooms can focus close enough to get this type of image...

As an example, the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens has a capability to focus to a 1:3.5 ratio. This means that a 1.6x camera can fill the sensor with a subject area of 52.5mm (2.07 in) by 78.75mm (3.10 in)...

I doubt if you need to get much closer than that...

You can also control perspective using Photoshop and possibly with other photo editing programs...

However, for some shots; you might look into focus stacking to increase depth of field...

The advantage of the Sigma 70 over the 50 is that it is reputed to be sharper wide open and has a longer focal length and more working distance at high magnifications. For what you are doing, I would think that the Sigma 50f2.8 would be fine. The shorter focal length would be an advantage for shooting larger subjects. Both would be fine, but the shorter macro might be just what you need. You won't be using f2.8 for taking photos of the guitars, and at smaller apertures - the Sigma 50 is very good. The 50 may have more chromatic aberations than the 70 at macro distances, but you won't be that close. It has no obvious distortion.
I have the Canon 85f1.8 and it is a fine lens. You don't need the fast aperture for the sort of work you will be doing. I'd be more likely to choose a macro for these photos, since it should give you better results.

I figured a 1:3 capable "semi-"macro would do fine.

I guess it's between the 50mm and 70mm Sigmas macros and the Tamron 60mm if I waive the full-frame concern (can be had with a $100 MIR right now).

The only crazy idea left is using the 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma macro which would "combine" with a general zoom lens, and for $800. I'm not sure I am thrilled with the example photos, though. I don't want to have to go out and get a different 200 later and then be stuck with this brick for macro.

Sorry to go off topic. But do you know the model and make of the Alnico 5 staple pickup in the black Les Paul

Supersignet wrote in post #11061400
Sorry to go off topic. But do you know the model and make of the Alnico 5 staple pickup in the black Les Paul

It's Seymour Duncan's "Phat Staple". It's like one of those P90 shaped rod magnet staple pickups from a 54 LP Custom, but in humbucker format. Problem is they are very tall, couldn't mount the neck pickup so far because I have to route out the neck pickup route.

I checked those pickups before, but thought they were a little pricey. How does it sound?

Supersignet wrote in post #11067488
I checked those pickups before, but thought they were a little pricey. How does it sound?

I got them as a forum special at a discounted price. Some people there think we might get SD to do another run if we just whine enough.

The sound is great and unique for sure. It has a Telecaster like attack (rod magnets, no passive polepieces), the sustain of a Les Paul and the body of a P-90. Can't wait to hear the neck pickup.

Now, if I was just brave enough to route out the neck pocket of this guitar. But since I can't use a router base I'm afraid to slip. Would be bad to have a router bit running amok across the top of this guitar, no

I like manual focus enlarging lenses and they can be used on M42 tubes. One focal length with the adapters and tubes will cost about $100, two focal lengths will cost about $130 (the enlarging lenses are about $40).

Enlarging lenses are very sharp for macro. They are all manual including stop down aperture setting. They are very small and light weight and inexpensive making it possible to get several focal lengths without taking out a loan. I like the older el nikkor enlarging lenses, but there are several other brands that produce wonderful results.

Yeah, you don't need a macro, not for close focusing/magnification​, at least. You do need a tripod (haven't seen that mentioned, apologies if it has) and you need to stop down. TS would be best. I've gotten my best (amateurish) results with FL in the medium tele range, that way straight lines stay straight (I'm sure that longer would work, as well, but the working distances would get to be a pain in the butt).

IMAGE LINK: http://farm5.static.fl​ickr.com …67702927_1bc9d0​2573_b.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm5.static.fl​ickr.com …67702909_6ea466​c931_b.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://farm5.static.fl​ickr.com …67702923_1396db​f651_b.jpg