Good lens for up close shots

Hey Greg, It appears in Bruce's test shot to be the classic problem in close-up photography which is lack of depth of field. My guess is the lens was wide-open and about at its close-up limit. Macro/micro lenses are designed not only to get close but to have optimum performance at that end. Many lenses boast macro capability but it only means that they focus close and may not necessarily be sharp at that setting. Most, but not all, lenses are sharpest at infinity and mostly in the center.

The test picture could probably be improved as far as depth of field by use of a tripod and stopping the lens down all the way which creates a new problem of diffraction both in the diaphram blades and the sensor dots themselves. The middle f stops are usually the sharpest unless the lens is specificly designed for optimum for wide-open performance.

Close-up photography can be a real challenge in that everthing is stacked against you. Special lenses are required and light falls off exponentially the more you magnify the subject. I even have a special Nikon 85mm Micro Tilt/Shift lens that in the tilt position can be used to "lay down" and extend the depth of field at least in one plane.

Anyway, I guess I'm just trying to explain that there are problems for everybody in this field! It's the Laws of Physics working. Keep after it Gang.

Max

Hodakamax

 

The test picture could probably be improved as far as depth of field by use of a tripod and stopping the lens down all the way which creates a new problem of diffraction both in the diaphram blades and the sensor dots themselves. The middle f stops are usually the sharpest unless the lens is specificly designed for optimum for wide-open performance.

 

Agreed, but as you know, probably not enough without focus stacking.

I think you've confirmed that I am seeing what I thought I was seeing in the sample shot, thanks for that, Max.

The point being, Bruce, that maybe your existing lens can focus closer than you think. I think that was brought up already and maybe that is repetitive on my part.

And Greg and Gang. I should have mentioned focus stacking which is shooting several shots at different focus settings and digitally assembling them for a sharp overall pictures. There are also special cameras that record all parameters of focus and assembles the final product. I've only read about this and in my semi-retirement probably won't pursue this process but it probably will be within everyone's reach in the future.

As for now the Gang does a pretty good job of illustrating their work and I enjoy every bit of it. Improvement is a goal for all of us even for us guys who are supposed to know what we're doing whether model building or photography. I try to learn something every day. My definition of an "Expert" is someone who has stopped learning. (Something I used to say to Photography students).

Anyway Gang, just trying to share some of the things I've learned the hard way. Keep after it I say!

Max

If you've got a modern camera with a high pixel count, there's a simple, effective way to increase depth of field in model photos.

Rather than fuss over ways to shoot from a position an inch or two from the model, step back and use a zoom or telephoto lens. As the focal length of the lens increases (all other things being equal), the depth of field increases. If you put your tripod two or three feet away from the model, and set the aperture as small as possible (acknowledging an exposure time of a second or more), the whole model probably will be in focus. Then, when you make a print of the picture, crop it so it only contains the area you want to show in closeup. With a 20-pixel camera you can take excellent "closeup" pictures that way. Just don't try to blow them up to poster size.

Every May I take pictures for our ship model club, and I rarely find I need to get closer than a foot. I usually use a 16-55 zoom lens (Pentax), and I have yet to get any complaints from the builder of a model.

A lot of our club members build sailing ships. If you position your camera a few inches from such a model, it's almost impossible to avoid getting a big, blurry thread in the foreground. Step back a bit, and that thread will be in sharp focus.

I've got both closeup "filters" and tubes, but I rarely find them necessary.

More good advice jtilley, cropping big megapixel files is sometimes necessary and successful. Thanks for bringing that up to add to our discussion!

When your shoot and crop you are in effect making a telephoto effect. Telephotos have a narrower angle of view therefore show cropped version of what you would see with a normal lens. As with someone with lots of equipment, I would just use a longer lens to get perspective and high resolution.

The bottom line is does it meet the requirements for the medium such as computer screen or final print. My professional Nikon bodies are all high megapixel and there certainly is an advantage in being able to crop from them for a close-up. Whatever works  to get results is all legal in photography! 

Max

Wow, gang! This thread really took off! I apologize, I was on vacation, and believe it or not, I was off the grid!

Anyway, thank you all for the comments, I will do my best to explain further. When I read Bakster and Max's comments about a point and shoot camera, I remembered I do have a Nikon CoolPix S4. But after a fresh set of batteries, the screen is black which indicates the CCD has gone bad. I may look into purchasing another one, but not at this time.

Jack you are correct, I am too close to the subject. I was basically moving within a couple inches (Sorry, about 6cm) from the subject, then pull back until it would take the picture. I do realize this is not a preferred method, and a main reason for this thread. Also, i'd rather purchase exquipment for a small portrait studio, and have quality lighting, than purchase a new lens.

Greg in the picture is a .050 piece of round stock and a wire that was bent into a spring. Greg you and Bakster are correct that the camera focused on one end of the stock and not on the other end or the spring. I attribute this to being to close to the subject, which I believe I can improve upon. 

Now, Mr. Tilley really lit my light bulb when he mentioned the pixel size and croping. So, I decided to take another picture. This time I took off the 18-55mm and put on my 70-300mm IS lens. I stood back several feet, zoomed in and took the picture. Here is the result after I cropped the picture with Paint:

I am please with this result. 

Granted, I still want to spend a few dollars for better lighting and different back grounds for different subjects. And I'll be practicing more. Thank you all for the suggestions and comments. 

By the way, the piece you see in the picture is the front landing gear for a MQ-1 Predator. I did not like the plastic shock that was molded, so a cut it out and scratch built a proper coil over shock. 

Thanks again to all who commented, you definitely helped me out! 

Thanks for clearing up the mystery, Bruce. Good that you found a fix, too.

Welcome back and thanks for the clarification, Bruce.

Interesting to read your additional comments, Max.

Bruce, I did get out of control while you were gone. Can you tell I like to talk about photography along with airplanes and motorcycles? LOL

Max

Max,

LOL! That was not getting out of control, I'm glad you were able to pass on some great information! It's refreshing to see your passion for photography. Definitely helped a newb like me!

One more tidbit on cropping from high megapixel cameras. Since you are cropping smaller portions of the image, the quality and sharpness of the lens comes into play. With a high megapixel camera the sensor is recording what comes though the lens. Megapixels don't alone make sharp pictures, it's the lens. When shooting an assignment that requires large sharp files I use the best lens possible and try to shoot at the f stop that's optimum for that lens. When you see a $100 24MP camera don't be tricked into thinking it shoots better pictures. It just creates bigger files. 8MP cameras are enough to make large prints.

Max

PS--It will be hard to get Max stopped on the subject of Photography. LOL

A bit of testing lately on the point and shoot vs DSLRs. Wow, the point and shoot wins hands-down on the DSLRs in the depth of field arena. The DSLRs are sharper but their limited depth of field is a distinct disadvantage in model photography. The smaller the focal length the more depth of field you have. Small sensors require short focal length lenses which helps the depth of field problem. More with examples if anyone is interested.

Max

Hey Max, that is interesting. Yes, I would be interested in seeing the examples. 

Yes, I would be interested too.

Here is a picture I took last night:

Looks like it's focusing well, but, I still have a lighting issue. And I didn't even try to crop it. 

I just bought a refurbished Nikon Coolpix L29 for $59 with free shipping. I'll give it a try once I get it and post more pics!

Hey Gang, here's an example of what I'm talking about. The DSLR with its longer lens couldn't keep the wing tip and the canopy sharp at the same time. The point and shoot despite its lower tech had more depth of field due to its shorter focal length. Other examples were the front was sharp but the extremes were fuzzy on the DSLR. I even stopped the DSLR lens down to its minimum aperature which added more depth of field but began to get soft closed down all the way due to diffraction. (another complicated law of physics.) I'm still checking all this out and will hopefully have a more complete report soon.

Later,

Max

 I'll also try to get some basic lighting set-ups for you. The good news is that simpler is better. Not Rocket Science.

Yes, I see the same thing in my picture above. The closer fenders are sharp, the farther fenders are fuzzy.  

Some quick answers are to stop the lens down to a smaller opening. This increases the depth of field but results in a need for more light which means longer exposures and/or higher ISOs (more sensitive to light settings) or just a tripod to steady the rig during longer exposure times. On an automatic camera this is not always an option, sometimes it can be fooled but cameras with manual settings are prefered for close-up work. All complicated huh! The bottom line is, the closer you get, the less depth of field you have.

Max

The problem in using a telephoto (long) focal length to simulate a closeup is that it alters perspective.  Long focal lengths compress distances, short ones expand distances, making an object look more massive than it is.  This is normally what we want to do with completed models.  Using the long focal length to show detail larger, as in WIP shots is fine, but for the completed model I like to use as short as possible.  That is why I love my Nikon 18-55. It is macro at all focal lengths, while many macro zooms are macro only at longest focal length.  That is a feature to look for when evaluating macro zooms.

While we're on the subject of good lenses for close-up I should mention that there are other solutions to the depth of field problem. This specialty lens, a Nikon 85mm Micro PC, addresses two problems in photography one being in Architectural Photography where you need to keep building lines vertical. In this case the camera is leveled and the lens is shifted to position the picture. The building will then be the same width both top and bottom.

For product photography (models) we can tilt the lens which tilts the plane of focus which can be lined up with both objects near and far at least in one plane. It also has extra f-stops for even more depth of field if needed. Even this lens has limits but is certainly a good tool for this type of work.

For our use, this lens probably goes beyond our needs for internet resolution, but for hi-resolution work such as magazines or large prints this can be a useful tool for the photographer. The lens has the disadvantage of always having to be on a tripod and takes some training to operate. Best used on a full framed camera. Everything is manual and mechanical, quite klunky and slow to use I must say, but cleverly designed for specialty work.

Max

Say Max, that is very interesting and very cool. Nicely presented as well!

Maybe you would be so kind and give me some advice. Though I like my PS camera for WIPs and closeups, I would like more DOF control for my completed assembly shots. I have tried using the kit lens that came with my camera, but I am not impressed with it when used to image subjects at this scale. You alluded to the problem earlier on in that the more you close down the lens, the closer you reach a point of losing overall sharpness.  That is precisely what I have experienced. And in the end, I was not even been able to reach the DOF that I wanted.  

Don mentioned a lens that he uses that seems to do well for this, his being a Nikon. Can you offer me some options that I might consider for my camera?

Canon 6D, EF 24-105 F4 IS lens.

Hope I don't get yelled at for bringing this up again, but focus stacking works on wider finished assy shots too.

IMO, lens physics are lens physics and there comes a time it's the only way.

This continues to be an interesting discussion, good stuff.

Hey Greg, (and I'm not yelling! LOL!) can you enlighten the Gang a bit on focus stacking and how you do it?

And Steve, Don's 18-55mm kit lens is a good lens in that it focuses fairly close at all zoom setttings. Also the wider the angle, (18mm on this lens), the greater the depth of field. Point and shoot lenses are wider yet (shorter focal length) due to a smaller sensor. My Nikon P330 P&S has about a 5mm-25mm lens which has a much greater depth of field. Sounds complicated but smaller sensors require smaller focal lengths which have greater depth of field. A 4x5'' view camera would have a "normal" lens of over 200mm which would be a monster telephoto on a small sensored point and shoot. With a 200mm normal lens you don't have much depth of field and almost all view cameras have tilting front lens mounts to help with the problem.

We are always limited by the laws of physics and sometimes we just have to put our subject in the limited depth of field we have. An overhead shot for instance doesn't require as much depth of field as a sharp angled one.

Many lenses focus close but unless they are designed as a micro/macro they might not be as sharp as they are at greater distance. All complicated for sure and that's why photographers need special lenses for special purposes.

Hope this helps a little, if not keep asking!  

Max

Yep, a little. I certainly understand the limitations of the system, but I think that I should be able to do better than I am by using a different lens. Dons lens sounds like it might do the trick, and I like the idea of it forcing perspective. Unless I get a different recommendation, I will rent one, and see how it performs for me. 

Greg, no yelling from me my friend. Please do enlighten us on your focus stacking process. 

Two things I want to add. 

If you are using a tripod and your camera or lens has Image Stablization, you need to turn it off.  It is great when hand holding but actually will give you a blurry image when the camera is locked down.  I wasusing a Canon 7d with 17-55 f2.8 lens on a tripod shooting cityscapes from Brooklyn of NYC.  Got home and could not figure where the blur was coming from.  Someone explained the problem to me and after that i had no issues.

Secondly a lot of software can correct lens distortion.  With Canon, the software determines the lens and focal length and automatically corrects the "pin cushion" effect.

Those are very good tips, David. Thanks for sharing them. In my case I can rule out the IS because I always turn it off when using a tripod. I do so for the reason that you mentioned. It is definatley something to keep in mind. I don't know if this is true, but I was told that on newer equipment that the problem has been fixed. In either case, I will turn it off. 

Hey Steve, you mentioned a kit lens for your Canon. What is it. Sorry, being a Nikon guy, I'm not up to date on Canon products.

Max

Hey Max, the kit lens is as follows: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF lens.

Hey Steve, I had to look up a few things about Canon stuff, being focused on Nikon, so to speak. Don's probably using the Nikon DX system which has a smaller sensor and his standard lens is the 18-55mm. Your Canon 6D has a full 35mm sized sensor. Putting a 24-105 on Don's camera it magnifies the image by 1.5X and would give Don the equivilent of a 36-157.5mm lens. Your 24mm setting is already wider than Don's equivilent 27mm. (18mmx1.5X=27mm.) Shorter focal length lenses do have greater depth of field and Don's 18mm setting would have greater depth of field than your 24mm setting even though yours is wider. That's why point and shoots with a small sensor may have a 5mm wide angle with much more depth of field. Confusing huh. 

Hopes this helps a bit more.  

Max

Max, sorry to bother you about this but one last thing.

"Don's 18-55mm kit lens is a good lens in that it focuses fairly close at all zoom settlings."

What is you opinion of the lens that I have regarding focusing across its zoom range?

If this will take a lot of research to answer, don't worry about. Not a big deal. 

Thanks for the help.