Nikon 55~200 AFS

[Quovadis]

I know I'm a newbie because when I have to change lenses, I get nervous

 

[Braineack]

if there was only a way for you to tell what focal length you were shooting at...

Wait i will mount my 55-200 and tell you, Im pretty sure it was around 160mm

 

[Quovadis]

Ok
at 9 feet from the subject.
Large bags and totes 90mm
Medium bags 103mm
Small bags 112mm

 

[Quovadis]

large bags are approx 15-17" long by 12-14" tall
Medium bags are 11-13 long by 7-9 tall
Small bags are 7-9 long by 5-7 tall

 

[Quovadis]

so if my thinking is correct the average mm I need on a prime is 101 mm / 1.5?
Around 70mm???

 

[astroNikon]

The 70-200 is way out of my budget for now. Also I do not need VR.
I think i would need a good 105mm.
I have a DX so 105mm would be about 130mm is this correct?

Nikon DX is about a 1.5x crop factor
so 105mm x 1.5 = 157.5

the 105/2.8 macro is an excellent and sharp lens. I was going to recommend it but unsure of your setup, etc etc etc. and I use FullFrame.

Do not hesitate to make recommendations.. I can buy try and return if need be.

70-200/2.8 but that's above your budget as you've stated
so 105/2.8 is a very good alternative.

 

[Designer]

If I were doing this type of project, I would set my camera at a certain distance and leave it there, and set my lens (or mount a prime lens, as the case may be) and just leave it there. I would then do all my post-capture editing in batches of 10 or 20 bags, and that would include resizing and cropping to make a uniform size photograph throughout the entire project. This would not only save time, but would give customers a better idea of how big the bags are relative to each other.

All that constant moving and changing is of little value, and may in fact be the wrong approach to photographing lots of similar items. And it will soon wear you out, and you'll forget where you are and make unnecessary errors.

but that's me

 

[Quovadis]

If I were doing this type of project, I would set my camera at a certain distance and leave it there, and set my lens (or mount a prime lens, as the case may be) and just leave it there. I would then do all my post-capture editing in batches of 10 or 20 bags, and that would include resizing and cropping to make a uniform size photograph throughout the entire project. This would not only save time, but would give customers a better idea of how big the bags are relative to each other.

All that constant moving and changing is of little value, and may in fact be the wrong approach to photographing lots of similar items. And it will soon wear you out, and you'll forget where you are and make unnecessary errors.

but that's me

Yes indeed, very good approach.

 

[Quovadis]

The 70-200 is way out of my budget for now. Also I do not need VR.
I think i would need a good 105mm.
I have a DX so 105mm would be about 130mm is this correct?

Nikon DX is about a 1.5x crop factor
so 105mm x 1.5 = 157.5

the 105/2.8 macro is an excellent and sharp lens. I was going to recommend it but unsure of your setup, etc etc etc. and I use FullFrame.

Do not hesitate to make recommendations.. I can buy try and return if need be.

70-200/2.8 but that's above your budget as you've stated
so 105/2.8 is a very good alternative.

Let me see if tokina or sigma make a 70-200 2.8, maybe i can find a used Nikon also.
Before I started asking questions on this thread I was investigating the Tokina 100mm.

The problem I have is 100mm is actually 150 mm on a DX right? So that's too much. I would have to stand further than 9 feet away? Now i'm confused

 

[astroNikon]

The Nikon d3000 series, d5000 series, d7000 series and d500 series current production cameras all have a smaller sensor than the "Full Frame" models. Because of that, in short, the image is kinda like blown up in a way. It's 1.5x the size per say once the images are equalled. (long story.

So with any lens take it's focal length, say 85mm and multiply by 1.5 which 85x1.5 = 127.5mm


or for more detail ==> Please explain like I am 5 -Crop factor DX


btw, all lenses made are not equal. Check into the image quality throughout the range, and also any final image color deviations due to the glass in the lens.

 

[Dave442]

If it was 160mm with your 55-200mm lens then the prime would also be that 160mm. You don't need to be taking the crop factor into account, that would only apply if someone here was using full frame (FX) camera and told you to use 200mm and then you would know to divide that by 1.5 to get to the focal length range you would use on your crop factor (DX) body.

I still like the 60mm f/2.8G AF-S lens, but an alternative is the larger 105mm f/2.8G micro. Both will work well from the normal 4 to 10 foot distance for the bags and then work very nice for close up shots of any details (even the grain or stitching).

I only went with the 60mm as it was smaller and cheaper, but gave the detail I was looking for. For a 12" tall object I am usually about 6.5 feet (2 meters) away to have it fill most of the frame with a bit of space.

With the lights you can put additional diffusers (white fabric) between the lights and your light box.

 

[Quovadis]

Wow, thanks for the info. Actually, in my case, from what I understand, the DX or Aps sensor helps me because I do an additional crop in photoshop (I want the bag and not all the white around it.). So for small photos I think a full frame would be a waste of money.
I am still very confused about the mm. If I buy a 100mm it's a 150mm in reality. I need to be around 9 feet back at 100mm not 150mm.

 

[Quovadis]

If it was 160mm with your 55-200mm lens then the prime would also be that 160mm. You don't need to be taking the crop factor into account, that would only apply if someone here was using full frame (FX) camera and told you to use 200mm and then you would know to divide that by 1.5 to get to the focal length range you would use on your crop factor (DX) body.

I still like the 60mm f/2.8G AF-S lens, but an alternative is the larger 105mm f/2.8G micro. Both will work well from the normal 4 to 10 foot distance for the bags and then work very nice for close up shots of any details (even the grain or stitching).

I only went with the 60mm as it was smaller and cheaper, but gave the detail I was looking for. For a 12" tall object I am usually about 6.5 feet (2 meters) away to have it fill most of the frame with a bit of space.

With the lights you can put additional diffusers (white fabric) between the lights and your light box.

Gosh!! good idea ...white shower curtain fabric. Jumps to mind. I need to be 8~9 feet back..maybe a 60mm is not enough...I guess the next size is 85mm? I don't know. We are getting closer to the answer though.

 

[Quovadis]

So an increase in mm = an increase in price?
Are higher mm lenses less sharp than lower mm lenses?

 

[astroNikon]

So an increase in mm = an increase in price?
Are higher mm lenses less sharp than lower mm lenses?

NO

You need to figure out a budget, then find the best lens in that budget.

example: ==> Nikon 58mm f/1.4
==> Nikon 14mm F/2.8

of course, this is a BAD example to throw in here ==> Nikon 800mm F/5.6