Lens recommendation for product close ups / stills?

[M. Gilden]

Ok, I guess I should really be asking this in a forum geared more for stills (as DVXuser is really supposed to be about filmmaking), but I already know and trust the opinion of most of the users here. So I'd rather ask you guys if that's ok.

When I was first purchasing lenses, I really only had video in mind. As such, I've been using manual focus vintage glass exclusively (Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, 75-150 f/3.5, and vivtar F-mount 28 F/2.0). I've been super happy with them, especially considering that I paid less than $300 combined!

Lately, one of my regular video clients has asked me to shoot product stills for a deal-a-day sites. You can see an example of one of the products I shot here:

http://www.mmahq.com/Cleto-Reyes-Headgear-with-Cheek-Protectors-2011-02-03.html

I'm finding that for product stills, the manual focus is KILLING me. The look isn't bad, since it is supposed to be grungy-looking (mixed martial arts gear), but I have to put a lot of extra effort into making a picture sharp, and even then it doesn't always pay off. So I started using the kit lens with studio lights. Its not bad, but I feel like using better lens might make a difference.

However, keep in mind I don't have a lot to spend on this, and I'm really not expecting photography to become a regular gig of mine. So, if there is something affordable that would give better results than my kit lens for this kind of shot, I'd like to consider it.

Again, I'm not looking for L-series or anything fancy. In fact, so far my client has been super happy with the results, so I'm not even sure it would be worth spending the money at all. Opinions?

 

[Kastro]

Get a viewfinder to help w/ your focus and shoot w/ LCD since it'll just be for the web. Plus w/ the LCDVF you can use it for video too! win win!

 

[M. Gilden]

Get a viewfinder to help w/ your focus and shoot w/ LCD since it'll just be for the web. Plus w/ the LCDVF you can use it for video too! win win!

LOL- no, the workflow is different. The camera is mostly handheld and often operated with one-hand as I adjust lighting, angles, try to prop things up with a stand... I sometimes literally have seconds to snap the shot before something falls out of place or the model needs to move, and worrying about focus on top of everything else is a major PITA.

 

[Kastro]

LOL what kinda place is that! Ok.. how 'bout you have someone hold the object in front of the cam so you can focus, then throw the object in the air and quickly move out the way while you hold your finger on 'the trigger'.. ah? ah? lol j/k

I unno man.. I'd just tell them that photos aren't your forte' and they should hire a professional because you do video. ORRR have them buy you some lights in return for the pics.. win win? (then you just have to worry about the prop, but it'l just have to lay on a table or have someone dangle it by a string)

Or just use the oncamera flash + kit lens.. if they want something better then they have to pay.. just my 2cents GL dude..

 

[M. Gilden]

LOL what kinda place is that! Ok.. how 'bout you have someone hold the object in front of the cam so you can focus, then throw the object in the air and quickly move out the way while you hold your finger on 'the trigger'.. ah? ah? lol j/k

I unno man.. I'd just tell them that photos aren't your forte' and they should hire a professional because you do video. ORRR have them buy you some lights in return for the pics.. win win? (then you just have to worry about the prop, but it'l just have to lay on a table or have someone dangle it by a string)

Or just use the oncamera flash + kit lens.. if they want something better then they have to pay.. just my 2cents GL dude..

LOL- ummm... ok, well at least I appreciate the response, but this isn't exactly helping, man!
Ok, how about I rephrase my situation here:

I already have lights and they ARE paying (in fact, some of my gear officially belongs to them)!!

They are a regular part time gig that has me coming in every couple of days to do various media-related work.
They bought their own lights, mics, reflectors, a backdrop, etc... I just show up with my camera, and they tell me what I'm working on today. I decided recently to buy a DSLR for video to replace my older DVX-based setup, and they got excited to have a pro quality camera in the office to shoot stills as well. So, now they have me doing this in between video work, but its not something I'm planning on doing outside of this office so I don't want to spend my own money on it. Since the arrangement is that the camera and equipment are mine, they are unlikely to pay for a lens either. Especially since they are pretty happy with the pictures as they are now, so it would be hard to explain the benefits.

Take a look at the link I posted above for an example of the kind of stuff I'm shooting for them. The idea is to get a gritty looking product shot, usually things like a boxing glove standing up on a slightly reflective table in front of a brick wall. Here's another example:

In this shot, the gloves are swaying ever-so-slightly, so I was waiting for them to be in precisely the right position for my shot, take it, then move on to the next product. Just today I had some gear propped up on a stand to balance it standing up, but it kept falling over when I shook the table. Very annoying. Shooting manual focus in these situations would have driven me crazy!

So, I'm using the kit lens for now. Allow me to rephrase my question:
Is it worth buying a different lens, or should I just continue using the kit lens like this? They seem ok with it now, but I wonder how much better it could be.

 

[Kastro]

Ah.. sorry.. I thought I was actually helping.

I'd say keep the kit lens unless you want a faster lens. Actually if you replace your kit w/ tamron 17-50 2.8 you would gain a faster lens for lowlight wider shots *just looking @ your sig and I dont see anything wider than the 50 (dont know what the vivitar is). Its sharper than the kit lens and you could benefit, again on the video side, better wider, lowlight shots.

Also, you could shoot at faster shutter speed whilst bringing in more light.. Then you can do some burst shots and pick out the best one.. maybe?

What are your settings when you shoot those?

*hopefully thats helpful*. i'm trying.. i'm trying

 

[M. Gilden]

Ah.. sorry.. I thought I was actually helping.

I'd say keep the kit lens unless you want a faster lens. Actually if you replace your kit w/ tamron 17-50 2.8 you would gain a faster lens for lowlight wider shots *just looking @ your sig and I dont see anything wider than the 50 (dont know what the vivitar is). Its sharper than the kit lens and you could benefit, again on the video side, better wider, lowlight shots.

Also, you could shoot at faster shutter speed whilst bringing in more light.. Then you can do some burst shots and pick out the best one.. maybe?

What are your settings when you shoot those?

*hopefully thats helpful*. i'm trying.. i'm trying

Ah, see, THAT's what I'm looking for. That Tamron has come up before, seems like a good deal. Not sure if I can swing more than $300 right now on it, but it definitely seems worth that price. I wouldn't bother buying anything less than a 2.8 at this point anyway. My zoom is a F/3.5, and that's PUSHING it, I'd rather have more stops to work with for better bokeh.

By the way, my Vivitar is 28mm. Thanks for catching the error there, I'll have to update that sig.
So, for video, I usually shoot with 28mm, 50mm and a zoom for 75-150. Yeah, I could use something wider than 28mm, but its covered my wide end pretty well so far.

 

[Kastro]

Yea its pretty interesting that the sigs here are mostly equipment.. kinda like a badge of honor.. its cool.. feels like a little community... GL man.. you'll like the tamron if you do get it. I havent taken it off yet except a couple times I wanted different 50mm. Other than that this beast hangs on my chest..

 

[saneproductions]

Have you considered the canon 50 1.8? The AF on that is good and it is a very fast and sharp lens. I think you would also like the Tamron.

 

[M. Gilden]

Hmm... I actually have not considered primes for this. I was so hung up on my primes being for video that I assumed I wanted a zoom lens to do this right.

I spoke to my boss at this gig, and I think the $450 price tag of the Tamron took him by surprise. He's willing to put in some money, maybe go halfsies on a cheaper lens. So I'm still up in the air on this. That's an interesting idea, Sane. Maybe I should experiment shooting with my 50 Nikkor prime next time just to see if i'm comfortable with being stuck at that focal length.

Meanwhile, I'm still open to any other interesting suggestions, thanks guys!

 

[steventimothy]

Get a prime, it's ridiculous to have a zoom for product shots. You can move backwards or closer as much as you want If you have a 1.6 crop camera then a 50mm or 85mm would be great. The 85 might be better if you can get only one. You want to be able to keep you and the camera away from the product if necessary, in order not to flag it by mistake! (Cast a shadow on it.) If you're on a budget, get a Canon 50mm f1.8 and something used in an 85mm macro lens. You don't need a particularly fast lens, just sharp. Macro would be ideal. I think Canon also has a 60mm macro lens. (Edit: They have a 50mm f2.5 macro lens. Duh! I used to own one. It's the sharpest 50mm Canon you can get, probably. Sold it for $450.00.)

Anyway, good luck. But don't get a zoom.

 

[M. Gilden]

Get a prime, it's ridiculous to have a zoom for product shots. You can move backwards or closer as much as you want If you have a 1.6 crop camera then a 50mm or 85mm would be great. The 85 might be better if you can get only one. You want to be able to keep you and the camera away from the product if necessary, in order not to flag it by mistake! (Cast a shadow on it.) If you're on a budget, get a Canon 50mm f1.8 and something used in an 85mm macro lens. You don't need a particularly fast lens, just sharp. Macro would be ideal. I think Canon also has a 60mm macro lens. (Edit: They have a 50mm f2.5 macro lens. Duh! I used to own one. It's the sharpest 50mm Canon you can get, probably. Sold it for $450.00.)

Anyway, good luck. But don't get a zoom.

I considered the plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8, but it feels superfluous next to my Nikkor manual focus 50 at 1.4.

I know a lot of people here carry lenses with redundant focal points since they can serve different purposes, but considering I really only have 3 lenses (not including the kit), I think I'd rather cover more versatile use lenses before I start carrying redundant ones, especially if both are fixed 50mm primes. Does that make sense?

So here's the thing- ideally, yes, a prime makes more sense as there is not much added benefit to a zoom here. But what is the DISadvantage of a zoom, especially if a "good" prime is $450?? For that price, I can get the tamron zoom at 2.8 that others have been suggesting all over the board as a great carry-around general use still/video lens. Especially if I'm going to be paying for part or all of this, does it really still make sense to spend the same amount of money on a very specific use lens?

 

[ROCKMORE]

I considered the plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8, but it feels superfluous next to my Nikkor manual focus 50 at 1.4.

I got the 50mm 1.8 on a "what the heck for the money buy" Turned out to save my a$$ on a few product shoots where I had to shoot close up details of a car instrument panel with low light to see the LCD display. The display shot was zoomed in for the final edit. I would rather have had a macro lens, but got through the payday with the 50mm 1.8 never the less.

The Tamron 17-50mm non VC has become my daily driver after I sold the 550D along with the kit lens for a 60D. Good low cost upgrade. Not many choices (none) for a faster prime wider than 18mm for the price. The shot below was a night walk around hand held test the week I got it.

These are uncorrected 1080 HD frame grabs Neutral 0-0-0-0.
Exposure 50th sec. wide open.

 

[steventimothy]

For video, zoom vs. prime might be irrelevent on a DSLR, but as you mentioned stills, then a prime lens will have better optics, including sharpness, colour balance, etc. than a zoom. At 18MP, there will be a difference. On the other hand, if you're shooting a wide-range of products that may occasionally require you to be wider or closer, and can't afford a bunch of primes, then a zoom would have to do. What's your budget?

If you have a gig that pays well enough, you can always rent a high-end prime. Next time you have the budget, try the Canon 50L f1.2, you can get it for $50 for 4 days (lensrentals.com). You'll feel differently about your Nikkor 50 1.4 afterwards