Lens suggestions for bowl photography

[Zach LaPerriere]

Hello All,

We're stepping up our photography a bit, and looking for suggestions. There's plenty of great advice on this forum on photography, but I haven't found much on lenses.

I understand that plastic lens are inferior to glass, I know that lower f-stops give a greater depth of field, but beyond that...I don't know much.

I have a Canon T3i and I'm not so impressed with the kit lens that came with it: the 18-55mm w/ plastic lenses.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated!

Zach

 

[Justin Stephen]

In general, a faster lens at about 85mm or so is a good general "product photography" lens, but that is on full frame. As you have a T3i, you have a cropped sensor so something more like 50mm is a solid choice. So, one very solid option that is also very inexpensive is the cheapest of the Canon 50mm primes, which also happens to be a fantastic lens for the money:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html

Keep in mind that with prime lenses, you have no zoom so you'll have to "sneaker zoom" to compose the shot you want. Having a tripod is always a nice thing for this or for this type of photography in general. If you don't have one, consider picking one up.

Another option, and perhaps one more practical, is to just upgrade your kit lens to something quality but flexible. It has been a bit since I have paid much attention to new Canon lenses out there, but the Sigma "Contemporary" 17-70mm is a great "all around" lens for Canon crop bodies, is reasonably fast (either f/3.8 or f/4 at 50mm if I recall correctly) and also does pretty solid macro as well:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

When I mostly carried by Canon 70D around, this was the lens that was usually on my camera unless I was shooting wildlife or something and I also took several woodworking shots with it with good results.

Honestly though, on a tripod, you should probably be able to get perfectly good shots with your kit lens. I don't think the lenses are plastic, just the body, assuming we are talking about the 18-55 EF-S kit lens.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

Thanks, Justin. I appreciate your thorough response. I've used the lower end 50 mm lens, and it seemed pretty good, but nothing like the much higher quality 85mm Ultrasonic that weighs three times as much—but as you said, the 85mm on a crop body makes for some "far back photography"!

I'll look into the Sigma 17-70 you mentioned. Do you think that lens would be nearly as high quality as a higher end 50mm ultrasonic like this one:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html

Honestly, most of my pictures are decent quality, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist with way less than perfectionist quality photography skills. I know it's not just about the lens or camera...

Thanks again!

 

[john lucas]

Don't know why you would need a fast lens. Usually on shooting bowls you need all the depth of field you can get so your shooting at f16, f22 or more if you can. I like to use a longer lens than normal for shooting any kind of artwork. Anything from 85 to 200mm lets you stand far enough back so you can move lights or add reflectors etc to improve the shot. Longer lenses also make rounded objects look more normal. We are talking about a 50mm lens on a full frame camera as normal. If you have one of the smaller sensor cameras then a 50mm might be considered long. I just suggested one of those to a friend who wanted a shallow depth of field portrait lens. I was telling her she needed an 85 or 105 and they were too much for her budget. Then it dawned on me she had Nikon with smaller sensor so I had her get a 50mm 1/8 and she's very happy with it. She wanted a 1/4 but couldn't afford that either.
I am also a fan of Zoom lenses to shoot art work for the same reason Justin stated. You can set the tripod in one place and zoom in and out to fill the frame with whatever your shooting. In the Studio I had a rolling studio stand so tended to use fixed lenses but now that I'm retired and my table saw is my shooting platform and I have a typical tripod a zoom lens is almost a must.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

Thank you, John. This is very helpful.

Yes, we shoot very slow, especially because natural light seems to deliver the best results, and this is rainy Alaska, land of short, dark Winter days.

I have a half crop camera, or whatever the right term is. I like the zoom idea.

Now I'm doing my homework.

 

[Justin Stephen]

Yeah, John is right, you really don't need a fast lens. I don't know why I said that other than having a fast prime around is excellent for photography in general. I think most of my own woodworking photos were taken at f/8 or so.

 

[Justin Stephen]

I'll look into the Sigma 17-70 you mentioned. Do you think that lens would be nearly as high quality as a higher end 50mm ultrasonic like this one:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html

Oh, probably not. I own this lens as well, actually. The Sigma does take very good pictures and is a substantially more useful all-around lens though. When the 70D was my primary, it was the Sigma 17-70 and the cheap Canon 55-250 and my 50mm prime. 90% of the time, the 17-70 was on my camera. On the occasions I needed a bigger zoom for wildlife, I'd rent it.

Now I carry a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 for its lighter weight/smaller size and for 4K video.

 

[John Torchick]

John was a professional photographer, FWIW. I would just like to know what he has forgotten about photography. I do remember, "Say cheese! and Watch the birdie!""

 

[john lucas]

Yea I photographed art work as part of my job at Tennessee Tech University. I got to shoot Art work sometimes 3 or 4 days a week and sometimes all day. I photographed for well over 100 artists and have photos in many major publications that feature artwork. It was fun and I learned a lot about what it takes to be a full time artist and the stuggles they go through. Also learned a lot about what type of photo best serves their needs and gets them into the top shows.
When I started shooting (back when we used stone tablets and wheel was still being invented) Prime lenses were quite a bit better than Zoom lenses. If you stay with the top brands that is still the case but the difference is so subtle that most of us can not tell unless we actually run some kind of resolution or contrast test. Quality does go down when you go to the lesser brands but is still very very good on lenses made by sigma, tokina, and tamron.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

John was a professional photographer, FWIW. I would just like to know what he has forgotten about photography. I do remember, "Say cheese! and Watch the birdie!""

I would be tickled to know HALF of what John has forgotten!

Thanks, John. That's great advice on the zoom lenses coming up in quality. As with everything, practice makes better.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I use a Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM that I primarily use for nature photography, but because of the focal length it is also ideal for this purpose as well. The set up that I use is to have the camera about eight feet away from the subject which means that the FL (focal length) will generally be in the range of 80 to 120 mm. For a DSLR this seems ideal because it closely emulates human eye perspective from a typical viewing distance.

While having a fast lens (meaning a large aperture) is desirable for many other types of photography, you definitely do not need a fast lens for this type of product photography. In fact just the opposite is the case because you will need to stop the lens aperture down quite a bit ... approximately f/11 to f/16 to gain sufficient depth of field so that everything is in focus. That is actually a good thing because large apertures mean a heftier price tag.

Many other woodturners use wide angle to normal zoom lenses, large aperture, and shooting up close. The problem that I see with that approach is considerable perspective distortion especially at the shorter focal lengths (the "fat nose" effect).

There are several affordable standard to medium telephoto zoom lenses that will work, but you are right that the kit lens that came with the camera while not terrible also isn't great. Just don't let price be the primary deciding factor. Zoom lenses are always a set of design compromises and two things exacerbate the compromises -- low price and wide zoom range. The price part is probably self-evident because a $200 lens isn't in the same league as a $1000 lens. Zoom lens designs have to make compromises in sharpness of focus, astigmatism, and chromatic aberration. Usually, a wide range zoom will be sharp at the shorter focal lengths, but not sharp at the long end of its zoom range. I used to own the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens which is Canon's lowest cost lens in this category. It is OK except at the long focal lengths focus isn't sharp and it has more than its share of chromatic aberration at the long end. It shouldn't be confused with Canon's four 70 - 300 mm lenses that have better performance (and cost more).

Here is a link to a Canon EF-S zoom lens with a focal length range of 55 - 250 mm -- EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. The list price is about $250. While it is towards the lower price end of Canon lenses, I have heard good comments about its performance. Generally the performance drops off at the long FL end of these lower cost lenses which isn't really surprising. Note that EF-S lenses will only fit on Canon's APS-C format DSLR bodies just in case you are contemplating going to full frame sometime in the future.

Another especially good zoom lens with a very good price considering its performance is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lens That sells for about $600.

Don't forget that you will need a tripod ... a good sturdy one and a way to remotely trigger the shutter if the camera doesn't' have a built-in timer.

 

[Justin Stephen]

I use a Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM that I primarily use for nature photography, but because of the focal length it is also ideal for this purpose as well. The set up that I use is to have the camera about eight feet away from the subject which means that the FL (focal length) will generally be in the range of 80 to 120 mm. For a DSLR this seems ideal because it closely emulates human eye perspective from a typical viewing distance.

Also the #1 wedding lens there is and a fantastic portrait lens. He is on an APS-C sensor through, which is why I recommended 50mm as a starting point.

Here is a link to a Canon EF-S zoom lens with a focal length range of 55 - 250 mm -- EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. The list price is about $250. While it is towards the lower price end of Canon lenses, I have heard good comments about its performance.

I own this lens and shot about 1000 pictures at Wimbledon a couple of years ago with it on an APS-C. I cannot complain about the quality of the shots at all, especially considering the price tag on the lens. However, I don't love it at 55mm. The Sigma 17-70 I mentioned above is the better lens there.

Some great advice in this thread though. I probably should be stopping down my woodworking shots a lot more than I am. I am usually paying so much attention to lighting and framing that I don't think about anything else too much.

 

[Bill Boehme]

When I got into DSLR photography a decade ago, I was certain that I would be going to full frame soon because I had been shooting SLR film for about forty years. However, all of my cameras are still APS-C format (Canon XTi Rebel, 7D, and 7D Mark II) and really the only thing that I miss is the super smooth bokeh on a large aperture portrait lens. The stuff about focal length being different on an APS-C camera than it is on a FF camera is nothing more than marketing hype. Given that the distance from the lens mount to the focal plane is exactly the same on both formats means that the physical size of an image projected onto the focal plane is exactly the same. The rationale used to justify the marketing hype has to do with printing an uncropped image onto the same size paper for both formats. It's a weak argument especially these days where most images aren't ever printed on paper. These days photo editing software can be used to crop and resize images with very little effort which means that in the end most people can't tell what format sensor was used to capture an image.

 

[john lucas]

the biggest difference is the price and size of lenses. The smaller format lenses are usually considerably less expensive. I'm thinking about going back to the full frame simply because I have some older lenses that are fabulous for me but not worth anything to sell. I'm going to start looking at mirrorless cameras so I can use some of the more unusual or rare lenses. I have a friend who shoots hassleblad and Nikon. He bought a fuji mirror less camera and uses those lenses on it as well as others. He does research on what lenses have a reputation for being really great and buys those. He has some Contax lenses, a few Canons and of course the Hassy and Nikkor lenses that all get used on that camera.

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

Not into the upper end of photography. I started with Minolta SLR and had 2 of them . When I went digital started with and Olympus c-60 and wanted more so got digital SLR with the Canon EOS XSI . When that one died bought a Canon T5 , better camera for less money. For the Canons I have a Tamron 17-270 so I do not have to carry a lot of equipment. The price was about 650 when I bought it and now is smaller and around 300 plus or minus. It has served me well and as Bill said with a zoom there are tradeoffs, but I do not get paid for this just like to keep records of what I have made and since posted on internet then shots look really great. Most of us do not do prints much anymore so I guess that may be a mote point.

 

[Emiliano Achaval]

I just got accepted as a writer for a major magazine. I had to pass a photography test. Writing is much easier than taking good photos!! None the less, I passed!!
I made my own background paper with what we call "Luau paper" its a huge roll of white paper to cover the food tables at Hawaiians Luaus. I spray painted it with grey paint. Then I built an oversized light box. All with scrap lumber around my shop. Then I bought at Costco the LED work lights. And also some "chicken lights" at my local feed store, and I added LED 100 watts equivalent "DayLight" bulbs. My "turning of the Week" last week, the photo was taken with my home made lightbox contraption. I was born in Argentina, I hate to spend money on expensive things when I can make it . Looks like it works. I hope some of my ideas will help you, dont hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

 

[john lucas]

When I was teaching artists to photograph their work I started off with quartz shop lights. They are close enough to Tungsten white balance to work but they are very hot and it's easy to burn your hands and you have to make any light modifiers fire proof. Any panels need to be at least a foot or more away to avoid that danger. they worked but weren't the best. Then CFL lights came on the market. A much better choice because you can actually lay a piece of material on them and not have a fire. I bought some and even got a soft box for one of the bigger lights. They aren't very bright and required me to shoot my work after sunset or the windows caused problems with my lighting. I haven't tried LED's yet. The ones I played with weren't really any brighter than the big 85 watt CFL's. They might have better ones now but they are just a little to expensive to just buy to play with. Nick Cook asked me if I wanted to help him photograph a book he plans to write. I decided it was time to quit this amatuer lighting stuff so I went on ebay and purchased some White Lightening 1600's. Those are almost too powerful which I thought I would never say because we used 3200 and 6400 watt second lights in my studio. In my smaller shop with the lights closer I'm using them near their lowest setting. It is so much nicer having enough power and easy adjustment of the power. I also bought a softbox and some grids and barn doors to help modify the lights. I rarely ever use a photo booth anymore. I prefer a soft box or large reflector light as my main light and then a reflective panel or second light through a panel for fill.

 

[Mike Johnson]

The MR16 lamps come in different Kelvin ranges which provide plenty of light output for their size.

 

[Mike Brazeau]

I have had a Canon T5i for about a year and use the 18-55 lens, but have been playing with manual settings and focal position and seem to get reasonable results. My problem is that I don't do it often enough so have the manual on my iPad and can look up what buttons to push. Good thread. Will have to try Bill's note on using the 55-250. Some days I just take a quick shot with the iPad if it is for Facebook.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I have had a Canon T5i for about a year and use the 18-55 lens, but have been playing with manual settings and focal position and seem to get reasonable results. My problem is that I don't do it often enough so have the manual on my iPad and can look up what buttons to push. Good thread. Will have to try Bill's note on using the 55-250. Some days I just take a quick shot with the iPad if it is for Facebook.

Even though I have three DSLR cameras, I probably use my iPad more than than the "real" cameras because it is so handy and does amazingly well for posting pictures on the web.

I mentioned in another thread that I really like a high powered LED light from Keystone Lighting (GL-50 LED Utility Light) that I bought at the local Rockler's store back in November. Several of my recent images in the gallery were shot using that light. I like it so much that I bought a second one a few days ago. They are around $40 apiece. The light output is 4400 lumens, the color temperature is 4000K, the CRI is rated at 80. They claim a rated life of 50,000 hours. The way that lifetime is determined on fluorescent and LED lights is when the light level drops to 70% of the original brightness. These lights use 55 watts of power and barely get warm. My 500 watt tungsten photo floods put out about 10,000 lumens, get hot as an oven (the globe actually melted on one of them when I left it on too long), only last six hours, and cost about $13 apiece (several years ago) at B&H. The color temperature was rated at 4800K, but in reality it was a moving target and I had to continually get a new reference by shooting a white balance card or an x-rite color target to create a new color profile. With this LED light, I can soot the target at the beginning of a shooting session and the light is stable for the entire session. My personal opinion is that these lights have excellent spectral purity and colors such as blue that are typicall very drab under tungsten lights are as vivid as natural sunlight with this high powered LED light. I'm sold on LED's.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

Thanks Bill for the good word on LED lights, and in particular, the Keystone lights. Your gallery is great. I really like the depth in your photos. I'm impressed.

Bill, can I ask how you hold the lights? Are you just using a regular cliplight? Are you improvising a softbox, or using one?

Finally: are you using other lights or reflectors? Thanks in advance.

My wife and I tried the suggestions of using a zoom yesterday. We haven't edited the photos yet, but the viewfinder looked pretty good. Thanks everyone!

 

[Bill Boehme]

Thanks Bill for the good word on LED lights, and in particular, the Keystone lights. Your gallery is great. I really like the depth in your photos. I'm impressed.

Bill, can I ask how you hold the lights? Are you just using a regular cliplight? Are you improvising a softbox, or using one?

Finally: are you using other lights or reflectors? Thanks in advance.

My wife and I tried the suggestions of using a zoom yesterday. We haven't edited the photos yet, but the viewfinder looked pretty good. Thanks everyone!

Zach, I think that starting at post #31 in the thread titled Got a new Moffatt style Lamp that some of your questions are answered.

I am using low cost light stands and typical clamps that are designed for use with them to hold umbrellas and other such stuff, but whatever works is just fine. I don't have a softbox yet so I am just shooting the light through an umbrella on advice from John Lucas. Originally I was shooting the light into reflective umbrellas (one white and one silver umbrella) when I was using the 500 watt photo flood lights. I really wasn't happy with that arrangement because using two lights washed out the shadows too much and I could see the umbrellas in anything shiny that I was trying to photograph. The one light arrangement that John suggested was much simpler to manage and the results were far better. I just use some white and black foamboard to either bounce the light if I need to fill in an area that is too dark or block the light if I need to darken a shadow area.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

Zach, I think that starting at post #31 in the thread titled Got a new Moffatt style Lamp.

Bill, that is outstanding. Thanks so much. Several pictures are worth several thousand words! I'm sorry I must've missed that post while on our family boat trip.

Now: Do I need the Area 51 alien action figure??

 

[Bill Boehme]

Bill, that is outstanding. Thanks so much. Several pictures are worth several thousand words! I'm sorry I must've missed that post while on our family boat trip.

Now: Do I need the Area 51 alien action figure??

Yes, the alien is critical to the set up. So is the Einstein actionless figure. BTW, I accidentally hit "Post Reply" before I finished typing so you might want to go back and read the rest of the story.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

Thanks again, all. Once again, this forum has really been beneficial.

Just an update: I'm really happy with my upgrade to the Canon EF-S 17-85 F4/5.6 IS USM. It's a huge step up from the kit lens. I found one on Adorama for a hundred bucks. Here's a quick picture of my wife signing the bottom of a bowl.



We're also experimenting with the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM prime and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 for gallery pics.

 

[Bill Boehme]

The EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 is an OK lens, but it has some shortcomings. The low price makes you overlook that it isn't the cream of the crop. The main issue is that it isn't sharp at the long end as you approach 300 mm focal length. So I wouldn't consider it for nature or bird shots. However, I think that it is an acceptably good lens from 75 to about 150 mm.It doesn't have as much contrast as more expensive lenses due to internal light scattering and it suffers a bit from chromatic aberration at the longer focal lengths. I think that it must be the internal light flare that sometimes causes purple fringing when shooting really bright outdoor scenes. I hadn't used mine in several years so I gave it to Mark Hepburn. He sent me some wood in return which was mighty generous of him since I didn't expect anything in return. I was just happy that it was going to somebody who would use it. Anyway, if you get it for shooting your turnings I think it will be satisfactory. My trouble is that I got ruined when I bought a Canon L lens, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. The price made me really squirm and sweat, but when I saw the pictures that I could get with itI was hooked on L. If you ever do any nature photography. I can highly recommend the EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM prime lens. It is insanely sharp and compared to its supertelephoto brethren it is a bargain at only about $1100. "They" claim that it won't work, but I have stacked two teleconverters onto that lens to give a FL of 1120 mm and used it for lunar shots. Here's one of the Lunar Alps (Montes Apenninus) where I stacked the teleconverters onto the lens.

If you look really close and squint, you can see where Apollo 15 landed.

 

[Owen Lowe]

If you look really close and squint, you can see where Apollo 15 landed.

Ayup, Jim’s dune buggy is plain as day… hoax my Aunt Fannie.

Very impressive bit of telephoto-ing Bill. I wouldn’t have thought you could get that much detail from 1100mm. (When considering the moon’s curvature in the upper right, those are some really big holes on the surface.)

 

[John Torchick]

Kind of looks like west Texas.

 

[Arkriver]

Seems to me that Bill and Jophn need to co author a basic photography article for one of the AAW publications. Probably a lot of folks like me that want to go beyond a basic camera or cell phone but don't know where to start, Allyn

 

[john lucas]

I can talk to you all day about lighting, but there are so many cameras out there now days that I stay away from that. I can talk F stops and speak at length about circles of confusion. I can talk about swings and shifts and Scheimpflug and how to use them. I'll even try to explain lens angle of view but when it comes to any kind of digital language, file sizes, etc i'm in the dark. I am working on a couple of articles for More Woodturning online magazine. I have also written several for American Woodturner which you can find if you do a search for John Lucas in the American Woodturner archives.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I can talk to you all day about lighting, but there are so many cameras out there now days that I stay away from that. I can talk F stops and speak at length about circles of confusion. I can talk about swings and shifts and Scheimpflug and how to use them. I'll even try to explain lens angle of view but when it comes to any kind of digital language, file sizes, etc i'm in the dark. I am working on a couple of articles for More Woodturning online magazine. I have also written several for American Woodturner which you can find if you do a search for John Lucas in the American Woodturner archives.

Count me in on the book collaboration if you can derive the Scheimpflug principle from the Schrödinger wave equations.

I know all about photons, Bayer arrays, the science of color, physical electronics, and raw image processing, but from a practical point of view, all of that is information overload when you're just wanting to grasp the basics of taking a picture and trying to wrap your brain around the interaction of shutter speed, aperture, and film/electronic photodetector sensitivity to light.. I can see how somebody new to photography gets overwhelmed by all of the controls on a modern digital camera. I think the best way to learn is to be handed a simple manual SLR film camera to get grounded in the basics. There are some things about film that I don't miss like loading in a roll of film and not seeing the results until you finish the roll, send it to the lab,and get the processed film or prints back a few days later. But, it did teach discipline.

 

[john lucas]

I miss printing by hand. There was just something magical about that. I ran a full service photo lab for the University so I processed probably 20 or more rolls of film a day. Can't even tell you how many prints I made. Thousands and thousands. I was also in charge of repairing the machinery. Every tried to read a schematic that written in German. I did ask the lady who helped me repair our Ilford processor if she would marry me. She had the sweetest english accent.
I really miss my view cameras. I saved really hard to buy that Wista 4x5 field camera. When I finally got my 8x10 film was going out and I never really got to use it much.The compression of the images using that 310mm lens was so beautiful and seperation of tones incredible. Haven't seen anything in digital that matches. I know you can get high resolution with digital but the image just doesn't look the same. It really hurt when I sold my spot meter. I had the sensor replaced with one that read all colors accurately. That was one sweet tool and I could nail the exposure every time. Just don't need it anymore with a digital camera. I worked really hard to buy that thing. I think it was $300. I remember showing it to my dad and he just shook his head. $300 in his day would have bought a car.