$300 or less Product Shot / Macro lens (Nikon)

[bmilcs]

These shots are from before I began learning about photography. There is no relative items aside from the seashells so I guess that doesnt help.

 

[Dao]

If you are not really looking for details closeup, then I think a regular telephoto lens (instead of a macro lens) should do the job as far as focal length goes. With the telephoto lens, you will have less issue with the perspective distortion as with the iphone photos. And there is a higher chance for you to adjust the settings so that the entire subject(s) is in focus. (DoF control).

 

[bmilcs]

If you are not really looking for details closeup, then I think a regular telephoto lens (instead of a macro lens) should do the job as far as focal length goes. With the telephoto lens, you will have less issue with the perspective distortion as with the iphone photos. And there is a higher chance for you to adjust the settings so that the entire subject(s) is in focus. (DoF control).

I am actually . I want super sharp details.

 

[bmilcs]

If you are not really looking for details closeup, then I think a regular telephoto lens (instead of a macro lens) should do the job as far as focal length goes. With the telephoto lens, you will have less issue with the perspective distortion as with the iphone photos. And there is a higher chance for you to adjust the settings so that the entire subject(s) is in focus. (DoF control).

I think that's where I'm slightly let down by the 35mm. The closeups of small items aren't as detailed as I had hoped. Even after post shot editing, with high contrast, etc. That's after using max F-stop, slow shutter speed and 100 iso.

 

[Dao]

Since most likely you tried to get as close to the subject with your iphone or D7000 w/35mm lens. And that make the DoF so thin that you need to choose the smaller aperture. However, with the small aperture, the image quality suffered (due to diffraction). I really think if you use a decent telephoto lens so that you are not too close to the subject, the result should be better.

 

[Braineack]

That's after using max F-stop, slow shutter speed and 100 iso.

That's the problem, you should be shooting more like f/11-16 for ultimate detail. At f/1.8 that lens is still soft but for the very very center.

Plus the DOF is significantly reduced--the 35mm has a min focus range of 12" and at 12" of distance using f/1.8, you have a focus window of approx. a quarter of an inch.

That's after using max F-stop, slow shutter speed and 100 iso.

If you're hand-holding and using a slow shutter, that could be another possible reason the images are soft.

I'd rather sacrifice a bit of iso in order to keep the shutter speed to a point that won't capture blue from my movements.

 

[bmilcs]

Sorry I meant F/22 I believe. The other end of the spectrum. Not 1.8. I understand how dof works but I lack the vocab

I was using a tripod, high Fstop #, slow shutter speed (multiple seconds). The images were pretty good after playing with them but I want a more efficient lens for the job. Also had a timer on it to avoid shake.

 

[Braineack]

f/22 pushes to the point of diffraction and leads to softness as well

good read: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


if you're like me and dont like to read, find the section called "what it looks like" and change the f-stop to f/22 on the example pic.

 

[bmilcs]

Does it? No kidding!!! Good to know. So ideal is in the middle of the road?

 

[bmilcs]

I assumed more dof, better quality.

 

[Derrel]

The iPhone has the advantage of a small sensor and a very short lens, like 3.4mm I think it is, so you can get tremendous depth of field even on close-up shots, but it requires an accessory case/holder with tripod mount to keep it steady at the 1/15 second to 1/30 second speed you'll probably get with many light setups.

For less distortion of the actual SIZE of close objects, you need to keep the camera "farther back", rather than closer-up...moving too close causes the foreground objects to look unnaturally larger than even things one,two, or three inches distant; like it would make the head of a razor look LARGE, but the handle would look unnaturally "tapered", getting more and more slender over even the short length of a classic double-edged razor's twist-lock handle.

The Tamron 90mm AF-SP Di macro is available used for around $300 to $325 normally...I have an older one...it's a nice lens, and gives some "distance", and it works pretty well for smaller objects on a small, desktop type still-life setup. On a crop-body like D7000, my 60mm AF-D is also quite okay too, but again, you are physically CLOSER with that lens than with a longer lens. I like the longer macro lens and the way it allows me a bit of room to work.

 

[Dao]

Usually, lens has a sweet spot. The sweet spot is where the lens perform the best optically and it usually (not always true) 2 to 3 stops from the max aperture.

i.e. a f/1.8 lens may perform the best at f/5.6 or f/8.

For small products such as a size of a cell phone, I will shoot at f/8 to f/11. If I use the 85mm lens and position about 6 to 8 feet from the subject, the DoF is at least 1/2 to 1 foot. Since the camera is not close to the subject, so it will have less issue with perspective distortion. (like the end that is closer to the camera is much bigger)

 

[bmilcs]

Wow. Thank you. I had no idea. I haven't had a lot of time to read up on this sort of thing. That would explain a lot .

 

[Scatterbrained]

A few things from someone who doesn't shoot Nikon. First, yes, you'll want a longer focal length macro lens like a 105mm. Second, for small product photography you will actually be better served with an 85mm Tilt Shift lens. When you get up close, DOF becomes very narrow, with the tilt shift you can adjust the plane of focus to get most (or all) of the subject sharp without having to push into diffraction territory (which still won't give enough DOF for truly small items). You're not going to get a shot like this with a standard lens, even at f/22:
Reaction Watch: Kenneth Cole by tltichy, on Flickr

Granted you could opt for focus stacking instead. . . . . . .

If you want to know where a lens is sharpest, you can head to sites like Photozone.de and check their test results. They provide resolution results at different apertures so you can not only see where the lens is sharpest but also see how much it fall off as you stop down. They also provide those results for both full frame and crop sensors, which is quite handy to have. For example, I've found that on my camera most all of my lenses are sharpest either at f/4 or f/5.6.

 

[Scatterbrained]

On a more budget friendly note, it would be worth looking into focus stacking in conjunction with that 60mm lens. DOF is measured in mm when shooting macro, and it's better to shoot the lens at it's sharpest aperture and stack focus than to try and stop it all the way down and hope for the best.