Evening

by w.hrybok

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The stock lens on my Canon T2i (18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) does a good job; as good as the two much more expensive Macro lens I've used. The trouble is that it's very plasticy and flimsy. I have to set up about 500 shots with a polarized filter and every time I move the filter the whole things sort of shifts/ not something I have a problem with on the macro lens.

This is all in regards to shooting artwork. I had some great help on here which advised me to go with a Macro lens for the flat optics. I found a great 35mm one by Tokina that allows me to get closer than most other macros. However I also found the stock lens took great photos too (just as sharp and indistinguishable from the Tokina) from the 35mm to 55mm setting. This I found to be ideal because it meant I didn't have to move the whole camera for every shot. I could just zoom in a bit.

However, zooming out, anything lower than 35mm, I start to notice the distortion (fisheye, or bubble effect). This in itself is correctable, but if there is a lens that can zoom that minimizes this that would be ideal too. I have no idea if this is possible though as I'm sure zoom lenses will always have distortion.

Ideally I'd take all the shots with the 35mm macro. But with the amount of work I have to photograph and the time it takes to adjust the copystand, well it's just not worth the extra effort, when software can easily make some minor adjustments.. I know not all will agree with this, but I'm not unhappy with the results even from the cheap stock lens. So if I can minimize issues then great. Another good lens will be worth the investment for this project. I'm not sure if there is an advantage to going USM. I don't' need quiet, I just need to be able to micro focus from the computer with the Canon utility, and that I can easily do fine now with all the non-usm lenses.

My results have been quite sharp, but if there is a lens that can get even sharper I'd like that too. Plus, my copystand is limited and if I have larger works I have to get on a ladder to check the settings and polarizer filter on the 35mm setting, and this is just not feasible. With the zooming lens I can take photos of all the work from a much closer distance. I don't' need quite as far as the 18mm setting but a lens that starts not much higher than this would be ideal.

A couple other things of note for anyone photographing artwork. I did receive a lot of great help here. I went an got a nice light kit and set it up at 45degree angles, etc... But no matter what I did I could not cut the glare of the light off the canvas and colors were washing out. I had read about cross polarization but frankly in all the help I received no one mentioned it. I can tell you now that if you are photographing oil paintings, or anything with a moderate degree of reflectivity, you have to have cross polarization. This isn't just the filter on the camera, but also the lighting has to be polarized too.

You actually need to block out virtually all other light in the room. You then need linear polarizing filters for the lights (I found some that covered my softboxes entirely) as well as a circular polarizer for the lens. I must say, it's like magic how it makes the light disappear before you very eyes, yet still lights the subject! I actually found a great post on here discussing cross polarization and how it works for artwork, but I can't find it now! However this blog posting by artist Mike Sass has a couple of great examples of the cross polarization results: http://sassart.blogspot.com/2010/08/photographing-artwork.html

On top of that I was put in touch with a photographer from a major auction house who photographs artwork every day. In a nutshell, they go with a wide angle lens and shoot as far away from the subject as possible (I was surprised but that helps keep everything in focus). They shoot at as high an f-stop as possible, with 100 iso and long exposures with strobes, with only polarized lighting on most oils. They always use software to make corrections, from lens distortion to color, as polarizing filters do certain things to certain colors.

They also keep their tripod on a track so it's always centered. In a way I'm glad I didn't' get all their advise ahead of time because I would not have had the studio to make it happen, nor the time. Doing the copystand approach means I can photograph all the various work laid down and easily centered, in the same profile, and I don't have to hang anything. And this means I can do the mass amount of unframed work too.

Also to note for anyone that's doing a similar project, I'm taking pictures with a gray balance card and a color balance card in every shot, so no matter how off the original RAW captures might be for these 1000 or so photos, I'll be able to correct them in the future. You wouldn't normally have to do this for every shot as you can create a profile with just one, but as my lighting sometimes has to change, or with adjustments to the size of the work, whether it's polarized or not, etc... it just is easier to leave the balance cards in each shot next to the subject.

Anyway, sorry to ramble on, but this project is overwhelming my life! I knew there was no way to really learn without doing it, but now I've confirmed it!

share|improve this question
5  
Sorry, I'm having a hard time extracting the question here. It sounds like you're looking for a recommendation for a zoom macro lens that's of higher quality than the 18-55mm kit lens - is that close? The other notes aren't really helping the clarity of your question. –  D. Lambert Mar 29 '11 at 18:11

3 Answers 3

If you really want to maximize the sharpness and quality of your photos in tight spaces, you might want to look into a Tilt-Shift lens. Tilt/shift lenses give you the most control over focus, DOF, focal plane, amount of light and sharpness. With tilt, you control the plane of focus. If you are stuck in a tight spot, and can't get a piece of artwork properly angled such that part of it is not fully in focus, you can use the tilt feature will allow you to change the plane of focus instead. With shift, you can adjust the perspective of the scene being imaged, and correct for distortions caused by shooting angle. A third feature, rotation, allows you to rotate the lens and change the planes that tilt and shift work in.

Most tilt/shift lenses also offer greater sharpness than any other lens from a manufacturer. One such lens from Canon is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II series lens. With this lens, you should have a wide enough field of view to capture your artwork in close quarters, be able to shoot wide open, and have perfect, precise control over your focal plane and depth of field. You won't be able to get better shots than with the TS-E 24mm.

I'll say up front, this is an expensive lens, but its quality is unsurpassed by pretty much any other Canon lens save maybe the 24mm or 14mm primes. The TS-E 24mm is also a manual-only, prime lens, so it does not zoom, but its focus ring is very smooth and has a wide throw, so it will give you very precise control that you won't find on AF lenses. You'll get the clearest, sharpest, best oriented photos with the most precise focus of any other lens with a TS-E lens.

If the TS-E is out of the question, then there are a variety of lenses that might work. For the T2i, the best lens I can think of would be the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. This is not an L-series lens, however it is one of the sharpest lenses for APS-C cameras like the T2i that Canon makes. It has very low distortion and has a nice, wide maximum aperture. This lens is also fairly expensive, priced like an L-series lens at around $1200. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is another very high quality, fast lens that only costs about $1300, and is a professional grade lens. It is better suited to full-frame cameras, and does not have IS, so the 17-55 is probably still a better bet.

share|improve this answer

I'm afraid your requirements make it quite difficult to recommend you the perfect lens. The 18-55mm has just about the largest maxmimum magnification of non macro lenses on this canon list: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf The list is slightly outdated now but I'm not aware of any lenses which change this. You could buy a macro lens but as they're fixed focal length you'd have to move your equipment if it's not setup just right(fixed focal length lenses also have less barrel distortion).

I'm left to suggest you consider the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM as it has a similar maximum magnification to your current lens (very slightly higher) but is built rather sturdier. Also the front element doesn't rotate while focusing (making some polarising filters a lot less trouble): . Hope that helps

share|improve this answer

If you are looking for a higher quality lens that will provide a much sharper image and better color reproduction than the 18-55, then a very good option is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. It's not an L series, so it doesn't have the build quality, but it is on par optically with an L series.

Besides the optical differences, the 17-55 also has a non-rotating front element, so you won't have to worry about a shifting polarizer.

There is a very good review at The Digital Picture that shows the difference between the 17-55 and 18-55.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.