| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2005 08:03:25 PM · #1 |
Hey all,
A museum wants me to photograph some guns for an upcoming exhibit. I guess it's for their catologue, webpage etc.
I assume it will be lit by the museum, so I'm not worried about lighting and I guess, I'll be able to get close to the guns. Since I'm not into this stuff that much, does anyone have a suggestion for a macro lens for this type of work? I was thinking a 30mm macro lens should be good for me to frame the whole gun and to get in closer for a tigher shot. Am I in the ball park in terms of the focal length? I'm looking to spend less than $500 and I'm not a lens snob, so non Canon lenses are fine with me.
Thanks |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:06:04 PM · #2 |
Canon's 60mm f/2.8 should do admirably at roughly 450 bucks. I've never heard of a 30mm macro lens but I wouldn't want one even if it existed. 50mm is about as short as you can comfortably go, subject-to-lens distance figured in.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:10:42 PM · #3 |
Tom,
Just get some extension tubes and use the 50/1.8. You'll be using a relatively large aperture, like f/16, and if you're using the museum's lighting, you'll most definitely want a tripod.
Don't go too short on the focal length, it will distort the perspective too greatly.
OK, belay that, LOL. Even the 12mm tube is too much magnification! Maximum FoV is about 4 inches, just tried it :-P
For a true macro lens with great versatility, it is really hard to beat the Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM. Shoot headshots with it wide open as a normal short tele lens, and I guarantee you will be in love :-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 20:16:27.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:16:08 PM · #4 |
I'd agree with the extensions tubes. Bring your 50/1.8 and your 70-200/2.8 in case. Working indoors the 50mm will probably be the more valuble lens. If you do get a Macro lens find a short zomm or a 50mm to 60mm prime. Nothing longer.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:19:49 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
OK, belay that, LOL. Even the 12mm tube is too much magnification! Maximum FoV is about 4 inches, just tried it :-P
|
The macro is more then likely going to be for photographing close-up details on the unique firearms. An extention tube will work fine for that.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:22:32 PM · #6 |
For about $400 you can get the Sigma 105mm. Good macros, a little soft at 2.8 but otherwise a strong performer. Even useful in portraits, produces nice background/Bokeh
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:25:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by marmalade1121:
For about $400 you can get the Sigma 105mm. Good macros, a little soft at 2.8 but otherwise a strong performer. Even useful in portraits, produces nice background/Bokeh |
FWIW Tom, I got my Sigma 105 (non DG) off eBay for $275 (with shipping). You know this of course.. and the possibility that you'll have to get it rechipped.. ;) - that being said, I really like it.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:48:27 PM · #8 |
Thanks for the reply so far.
I need a lens that will cover a specific part of the gun and the whole handgun in the frame. I don't want to shoot from a mile away. I'd prefer to be relatively close (a foot?). I'm looking at the Canon 100mm f2.8 now. Tamron 90 and the Canon are very close in performance, but for once, Canon is cheaper at B&H. I think the Sigma 105 is just a bit below the Canon in performance. The 60 EF-S is nice but I'm trying to stay away from EF-S lenses, in case I upgrade in the future. They are paying me to do this, so I thought it would be a good opportunity to use the funds to buy another, yes another, lens to my collection since I don't use photography to make moeny. I don't want to buy a tube and a macro lens, so it's looking like macro, since I'll need a bigger FOV than 4 inches per Fritz.
Now my question is, if a handgun is about 12 inches in length, How far do I have to be away from it for it to fill the frame? I hope it's not from across the room, but I'm starting to think that the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro is looking like the right lens at $469 at B&H. I'll also look around to see what the price is like at other places.
Any further thoughts from the Macro kings/queens out there?
P.S. Thanks for the advice so far folks.
Oh BTW, has everyone seen this nice test of the Canon 100 vs Tamron 90 macro?
//photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 20:52:23. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:55:36 PM · #9 |
I'm a little confused, as you mention macro but also wanting to fill the frame with the entire handgun.. I don't think you can have both in one shot.. ?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 09:16:23 PM · #10 |
The 60mm fills the frame with a normal book at about 4 feet, give or take. The 100mm probably will shoot the handgun from around 5-6 feet, I'd guess, allowing for a little background.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 09:40:25 PM · #11 |
I didn't know that I'd have to be 6 feet or so away to fill the frame with a 100mm macro.
As you can see, I'm not into macro photography and don't even know if I need it unless I'm intending to shoot detailed parts of the gun. Maybe that's it, I'll use the fifty for the whole gun and a Canon 100mm macro to get detailed parts of the gun.
How does that sound? I'll also bring along the 70-200, and the 17-35 Tamron just in case as well. No bigma though. :)
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 21:55:38.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 06:28:51 PM EDT.
