I'd really say you need a longer lens if you want greater depth of field & avoid focus-stacking.
You also don't need a 2.8 - you can use a much slower lens, as you can throw as much light into the scene as you need. Your models won't get bored or blinded.
To do that you also need plenty of room. If you want your product crisp but your background to completely blur out, then you're looking at maybe 5ft to subject + 10 ft to background. More if you can get it.
That means you need two sets of light sources, one for the subject & another for the background, so you can vary the light balance between easily.
The advantage here of a long lens is the background can be relatively small. Shoot the same thing on a 40mm & you'd need a 10ft square backdrop & it would still be too noticeable unless it was a very flatly-lit surface, or you always blow-out to white.
To overcome any slow lens issues, I went with 2 continuous lights for my subject & 2 speedlights for the background, all with large diffusers/softboxes. That way there's more than enough light for the lens to be quick to focus.
My D5500 can't do 'modelling lights' at half-press using a speedlight setup, hence the continuous lighting. I assume the 5300 would be the same.
Alternatively, you're in for a short lens, a lightbox & a lot of post pro doing the focus stacking, then washing out the background.
I actually spread my budget between lens & lighting & went for the Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO 1:2 Though it's not the sharpest lens in the world it does display low chromatic aberration, even compared to one of my more expensive Nikkors. It's flexible & if you need to get even closer, then fully-electronic extension tubes are very cheap.
I don't know whether I'm being contentious here - as everybody seems to go for the small lightbox setup rather than this, but it works for me.