[lmd91343]

"Macro" lenses offer two and one half things to you.

1) "Macro" lenses offer close focussing capabilities. It can eliminates the need to use extension tubes, lens reversal, or bellows. This would be helpful to you.

2) "Macro" lenses have a "flat field" area of focus. This would be good for taking photos of documents, pictures, maps, etc. Three dimensional objects like your rings and flowers don't need this.

2.5) "Macro" lenses tend to be designed (not always) for higher resolution/sharpness than normal lenses, but not always.

Your pics look nice. That extra PP makes them pop!
-Lance

[mysticcowboy]

Since you're getting as close as you want with your current setup, you could skip the Macro. I do like my 100mm one, though. Anyway, you've taken some nice photos and could just keep doing what you're doing and get better results than many, however...

There are a some things you could do with or without a new lens to make things easier. The first I'll mention is about using f-22. Most lenses resolve best at about 2-3 stops over their fastest aperture. By f-22 you are losing sharpness through diffraction, think of it as light bouncing around inside your lens. With any lens there's a point where the added depth of field isn't worth the loss of sharpness. And in the photo with the rose in it, I'd prefer to see the rose lose focus. That would draw attention to the ring and give a more romantic feel to the image.

You mentioned that you have trouble with a tripod and positioning your camera just right. We all do. If you want to continue to do macro work, it's probably worth investing in a focusing rail for your camera. I got one from Adorama for about $80. It allows me to micro adjust the camera position after I've set up the tripod. Basically I get close with the lens and focus with the rail to fine tune.

The third is a post processing/multiple exposure technique called focus stacking. Basically you can use a wider f-stop and take several exposures focusing on different parts of your subject. You can blend them in a layers base program like Photoshop or use dedicated software. Helicon Focus and PhotoAcute are two good ones.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

[GerryL]

The third is a post processing/multiple exposure technique called focus stacking. Basically you can use a wider f-stop and take several exposures focusing on different parts of your subject. You can blend them in a layers base program like Photoshop or use dedicated software. Helicon Focus and PhotoAcute are two good ones.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

I've heard Helicon focus is great.
I wish there was a free program that could do what to does.

[brecklundin]

If you do decide to go macro, though I think your shots are excellent already and, as others have pointed out, only need a bit of PP to clean them up a bit. But I also shoot a lot of jewelery and had a DA 35mm limited. I bought it with a bit of WAG because I was moving from a Sigma 180mm Macro down to 35mm...

What did I learn from the 35ltd? I learned immediately that the 35mm focal length was superb for jewelery shots because you need to be closer and as we are dealing with smaller objects, there really does seem to be a better perspective than a longer macro.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I traded that 35ltd to replace y silver 43ltd. BUT, before the end of the month I will buy a new copy because it became my product lens of choice over even my Sigma 24-60/2.8 which is also a pretty surprising performer for small items in it's own right.

I can tell ya that the IQ form the 35ltd is 2nd to none and reduced my need to process images to nothing more than standard basic cleanup of a RAW image to overcome even the tiny bit of anti-aliasing from the sensor in my K20D. So, for me where I could shoot 20-items in a day and process them over the next day or so...I shoot 30-50 items and have them ready in the same amount of time. Most without any processing then my own standard preset I created for for that lense lighting & lense combo. It just gave me the shot I had in my head right out of the camera in RAW and that just blew me away.

Here are a couple samples I found that had not a lot of processing, as far as I recall...

Exif intact, handheld and just lying on my bed...hahaha...I goofed because it's upside down...we still have not found info on the goldsmith marks. but we will...


Not what I felt was a good shot but for the piece it was fine and it sold in under an hour...so something was right and I got a great price:


Here are a couple to show how the close focus ability is a huge advantage when going form close focus to near macro only needing to get closer ("dumb" tubes kill that option):




So those are some examples of using a regular macro lense over a standard lense with tubes. In this case I am using the 35ltd but any of the better macro lenses will work. I just find the 35ltd to be the best performer for my needs. You can see more jewelery shots here but there are only a few and not really much different than shown above:

BreckLundin's Place : Jewelry


I would add one caveat about the 35ltd macro...it does not have a good working distance for 1:1 shots outside of your studio/work area because the minimum WORKING distance is around 1"-1.5" making bug shots kinda difficult, but flower shots are fine. Anyway, I found the 35ltd on my K20D for product shots more versatile than my previous shining star in the Sigma 24-60, even at the 35ltd current $550ish price these days. That is especially true if you earn money with it...and I have tried many other well loved macro lenses from the Canon 100mm & 50mm, Sigma 150 & 180, Canon EF-S 60mm, Sigma 70mm Macro ( nice lense here as well)...needless to say a LOT of modern macro lenses. By far the best of the bunch, for me, was the 35ltd even with the MWD being so short...maybe because I'm not really using it as a true macro but more of a very close focus lens.

The real issue I run into is too much detail when I don't feel like polishing/resurfacing a vintage/antique piece. So, your pieces need to have pristine surfaces or even the smallest completely invisible to the nekkid eye surface marks will look like the grand canyon...I have to force myself to f22 in order to use diffraction limiting to be my friend on these pieces...or end up driving myself nuts in PP....hehehe...

Right now I am avoiding jewelery shots because nothing I own works well enough for my tastes when using tubes. And my lens options don't exactly stink. If I have to shoot a macro I find I like the results I get from my SMC 50/2 with tubes better than the results with either of the FA limiteds or the Helios. And your 50/1.7 would be even better than my 50/2...I think what you will enjoy is the ability to move further away and still focus on your subject with the rendering ability of the optics in a higher end macro lens.

[albatross]

There are a some things you could do with or without a new lens to make things easier. The first I'll mention is about using f-22. Most lenses resolve best at about 2-3 stops over their fastest aperture. By f-22 you are losing sharpness through diffraction, think of it as light bouncing around inside your lens. With any lens there's a point where the added depth of field isn't worth the loss of sharpness. And in the photo with the rose in it, I'd prefer to see the rose lose focus. That would draw attention to the ring and give a more romantic feel to the image.

I have always used the smallest aperture for depth of field and was not aware that I lost sharpness because of that. I will certainly try different f stops and check out the results. The problem will be in reducing the light coming into the camera - the light box has a flash top and bottem and no way of controlling the light output. A polarising filter enables a couple of stops so perhaps a neutral density might help.

You mentioned that you have trouble with a tripod and positioning your camera just right. We all do. If you want to continue to do macro work, it's probably worth investing in a focusing rail for your camera. I got one from Adorama for about $80. It allows me to micro adjust the camera position after I've set up the tripod. Basically I get close with the lens and focus with the rail to fine tune.

I have just purchased a manfrotto focusing rail and it certainly helps (I must confess that I didn't think of a focusing rail before).

The third is a post processing/multiple exposure technique called focus stacking. Basically you can use a wider f-stop and take several exposures focusing on different parts of your subject. You can blend them in a layers base program like Photoshop or use dedicated software. Helicon Focus and PhotoAcute are two good ones.

This is an area that I am not at all familiar with so will need to do a bit of work on PP!

[brecklundin]

One thing I will add...I mentioned it in passing in my post. I find there are times when the diffraction limiting actually adds to your shots when shooting jewelery and the added softness is better than too sharp. I would not think twice about an f22 shot were it to give me the results I was after without needing to spend time in post attempting to create the look I could have gotten straight out of the camera.

There are reasons these lenses can go well beyond the point where diffraction limiting sets in...and one is just as with wide open shots to limit DOF, closed down shots will help control the sharpness preventing undesired looks if always shooting at the "best" aperture. I know there are many out there who feel this is a heretical thing to say but, as I mention, there is a reason your aperture can be set waaay beyond the onset of diffraction limiting.

My suggestion, as you are doing well already is to shoot just RAW, become more familiar with PP. The software from Pentax is not all that bad and is free, I find I prefer Lightroom over PS for 99% of my shots because I just don't need to spend an hour in post to make the shot 'perfect' and when shooting products time is money just as much as poor images cost you money as well. And remember that a 'perfect' shot is not the shot which can be quantified with any set of parameters, the perfect shot is the one which shows your subject/product at it's best in line with how you envisioned the shot....so, experiment.

BTW, nice move on a focus rail...I have been debating one for a while and because I had mostly been using a zoom, I kept putting it on the back burner, but now with my going pretty much all primes, I have one on my list.

Oh, focus stacking is a great tool, but again, consider how much time you can afford to invest in a shot, I am assuming you are doing this to sell these items or for a client who needs them for a catalog of some sort (online or otherwise). But focus stacking is an art and takes time to learn. There is a very nice FREE app which a lot of the best macro folks I know use and that is an app called combineZP. It's an excellent app, as is Helicon and PhotoAcurate...so try them all and see which works for you. Also don't forget to think if an item is worth spending 1-2hrs of your time working on a single shot to get it just right. Your shots are already good so with a few adjustments in technique and probably a true macro lens, I am willing to bet you need not even consider more PP than your Picasa allows now. Remember the more you get done when taking the shot the less you need do in post though pretty much all RAW shots need at least a light bit of sharpening, color balancing and such...but no more than 5-mins of your time if the shot is right out of the camera.

[Class A]

I have always used the smallest aperture for depth of field and was not aware that I lost sharpness because of that.

With f/22 you are reducing the resolution to the point at which it could be captured by a ~2MP sensor. But if you need the large DOF there is no way around this, unless you are using focus stacking in post-processing.

...I will now try to get my hands on different macro lenses to compare photo quality.

Make sure to include the Sigma 70/2.8 EX MACRO into your considerations. I love this product shot of a watch done with it. Forum member ll_coffee_lP says the Sigma 70/2.8 "renders metal colours like no other lens I've ever used". I'll have my copy at the end of January. Let me know if you want to try it.

I think your images are very nice in terms of composition and lighting but they seem to lack crispness. The Sigma is one of the sharpest macro lenses (The photozone test rates it sharper than the Tamron 90mm and says it's bokeh is "very smooth and buttery". PopPhoto calls it "faultless"). But in principle the 50/1.7 on extension tubes should yield very sharp images as well. Could be due to the high f-stop you used.

---

Last edited by Class A; 01-16-2010 at 07:10 PM.

[lesmore49]

I have a Pentax 50 mm Macro F2.8...but your Macros look good to me with your 1.7 normal lens plus extension tubes.

[albatross]

Make sure to include the Sigma 70/2.8 EX MACRO into your considerations. I love this product shot of a watch done with it. Forum member ll_coffee_lP says the Sigma 70/2.8 "renders metal colours like no other lens I've ever used". I'll have my copy at the end of January. Let me know if you want to try it.

Would love to - my attempts at finding any macro lenses in wellington have drawn a blank so far!