best lens for jewelry?

**barondla** · 12-13-2007, 07:53 PM

What is the final use for the images? Will it be on a website or large prints? If website I wouldn't bother with a macro lens. This from a guy who owns 5. Take your 50 1.7 and a set of extension tubes. This will give a macro lens a run for its money resolution wise. Don't spend a bunch of money untill it proves needed. For jewelry would rather have extension tubes and focus slider than macro. It would be very hard to tell difference between macro and 50 1.7 on website. It is actually hard to tell in prints as long as subject isn't flat (like old prints).
Have been helping people do some jewelry shots. It is a learning experience. We are using three continuous lights. One to each side and in front of subject and one on the back ground. The background is white. We took a piece of white copy paper and cut a small slit in it to mount a clear ring holder. The copy paper was folded in half and taped. This sets on the white background and can be slid back and forth to achieve focus. Have found this as easy as using the focus slider! The lights are the Cloud Dome flourescents. They have good color balance for diamonds. They aren't as manueverable as some setups. These people had us shooting rapid shots 30 pieces an hour. It works pretty well. We shot them all at 6mp. It was a waste for the website. Ended up using 4mp. Can't tell the diff on the site. Might try 2mp next. Websites don't want huge file sizes or it takes to long for people to down load. Hope this helps.
thanks
barondla

jmdeegan · 12-13-2007, 07:59 PM

that use is still TBD, but odds are it's going to be emailed to customers, and if i can convince him perhaps some website--if i feel like putting one together for him.

for me, its experience. if i get good enough to make something more than that, great

hll · 12-17-2007, 04:14 AM

i appreciate your sharing, brondla!!!
it is quite helpful...
halil

Nesster · 12-17-2007, 07:15 AM

I was inspired by all this to trot out the various macro setups I have (with extremely primitive lighting: mainly available light, though through large windows on two sides)...

report: Tamron SP 90 2.5 + 2x flat field converter: too long! Had to back way off to get a reasonably sized brooch fully in pic. Plus the whole thing's too heavy for my puny tripod.

Tamron SP 90 by itself: better! Reasonable working distance. However, I find manual focus with the K100D can produce unpredictable results. The in-focus flash in the viewfinder isn't always fully accurate. Flash integration with the K-A mount is decent though.

Super-Takumar 50/1.4 + extension tube. Similar focus problems as with the Tamron, and there's little flash automation (with my set up, with an auto thyrsistor controlled by the flash it should be better). The working distance is fairly close - a 12mm extension tube is sufficient.

Schneider Componon 35mm enlarger lens, held to the 12mm extension tube. This one surprised me, I was expecting a bit further focus... extreme close up, greater than life size, had to get pretty close to the subject. Nice results - I could see temporarily attaching this with bubble gum

without the tube for some fun.

Overall, I'm not overjoyed with the results - it was during the weekend nor'easter so light wasn't great, the tripod really is too puny - but it was fun. Thanks for the inspiration!

Samples of the main two setups:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/2117842482_3d1fe1a954.jpg

And the close up produced by the Schneider, these are tiny rhinestones

Based on this, I think a 50mm will give you a 6-10 inch working distance.

digitaldevo · 12-17-2007, 08:50 PM

Yes, the GBJ site is active, just have not got it updated for my Wife. I suffer from RSD and have been bed ridden for a long while now, sadly. Just drop her an email. Thank you for the compliment. I try my best.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
high-key jewelry look	uccemebug	Photographic Technique	49	02-03-2010 08:14 PM
Children's Jewelry	graphicgr8s	General Talk	48	01-12-2010 09:27 PM
Misc Jewelry	scott-devon	Post Your Photos!	7	01-01-2010 11:40 AM
First few macro jewelry shots	terret	Post Your Photos!	10	01-26-2009 09:06 PM
Jewelry Photography	PaulAndAPentax	Post Your Photos!	8	11-28-2007 04:43 PM

12-13-2007, 07:53 PM	#31
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,716	What is the final use for the images? Will it be on a website or large prints? If website I wouldn't bother with a macro lens. This from a guy who owns 5. Take your 50 1.7 and a set of extension tubes. This will give a macro lens a run for its money resolution wise. Don't spend a bunch of money untill it proves needed. For jewelry would rather have extension tubes and focus slider than macro. It would be very hard to tell difference between macro and 50 1.7 on website. It is actually hard to tell in prints as long as subject isn't flat (like old prints). Have been helping people do some jewelry shots. It is a learning experience. We are using three continuous lights. One to each side and in front of subject and one on the back ground. The background is white. We took a piece of white copy paper and cut a small slit in it to mount a clear ring holder. The copy paper was folded in half and taped. This sets on the white background and can be slid back and forth to achieve focus. Have found this as easy as using the focus slider! The lights are the Cloud Dome flourescents. They have good color balance for diamonds. They aren't as manueverable as some setups. These people had us shooting rapid shots 30 pieces an hour. It works pretty well. We shot them all at 6mp. It was a waste for the website. Ended up using 4mp. Can't tell the diff on the site. Might try 2mp next. Websites don't want huge file sizes or it takes to long for people to down load. Hope this helps. thanks barondla

12-13-2007, 07:59 PM	#32
jmdeegan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: nyc Photos: Gallery Posts: 564 Original Poster	that use is still TBD, but odds are it's going to be emailed to customers, and if i can convince him perhaps some website--if i feel like putting one together for him. for me, its experience. if i get good enough to make something more than that, great

12-17-2007, 04:14 AM	#33
hll Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: new york Photos: Gallery Posts: 297	i appreciate your sharing, brondla!!! it is quite helpful... halil

12-17-2007, 07:15 AM	#34
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	I was inspired by all this to trot out the various macro setups I have (with extremely primitive lighting: mainly available light, though through large windows on two sides)... report: Tamron SP 90 2.5 + 2x flat field converter: too long! Had to back way off to get a reasonably sized brooch fully in pic. Plus the whole thing's too heavy for my puny tripod. Tamron SP 90 by itself: better! Reasonable working distance. However, I find manual focus with the K100D can produce unpredictable results. The in-focus flash in the viewfinder isn't always fully accurate. Flash integration with the K-A mount is decent though. Super-Takumar 50/1.4 + extension tube. Similar focus problems as with the Tamron, and there's little flash automation (with my set up, with an auto thyrsistor controlled by the flash it should be better). The working distance is fairly close - a 12mm extension tube is sufficient. Schneider Componon 35mm enlarger lens, held to the 12mm extension tube. This one surprised me, I was expecting a bit further focus... extreme close up, greater than life size, had to get pretty close to the subject. Nice results - I could see temporarily attaching this with bubble gum without the tube for some fun. Overall, I'm not overjoyed with the results - it was during the weekend nor'easter so light wasn't great, the tripod really is too puny - but it was fun. Thanks for the inspiration! Samples of the main two setups: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/2117842482_3d1fe1a954.jpg And the close up produced by the Schneider, these are tiny rhinestones Based on this, I think a 50mm will give you a 6-10 inch working distance.

12-17-2007, 08:50 PM	#35
digitaldevo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: PA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154	Yes, the GBJ site is active, just have not got it updated for my Wife. I suffer from RSD and have been bed ridden for a long while now, sadly. Just drop her an email. Thank you for the compliment. I try my best.