Advice on camera lens

[Carrie]

I have one of the very popular Canon EOS 350d cameras with the lens that came with it (18-55mm). An excellent camera but I have a specific requirement of it occasionally that it's not so great at. I need to photograph paintings, large and small, and the result is often a softer image on the detail than I want. I need a sharper image. Would a different lens be better for this job and if so what lens should I be looking at? Can anybody give advise on this?(Carrie's husband Paul).

[dulwichmum]

PM Mockney - King of all camera know how (worship, worship, worship)

[tommy]

Paul - how much do you want to spend ? Really good glass can cost shedloads

If you want a sharp image, and a fixed length then on a small budget you can't go wrong with the Canon 50mm f1.8 mark II (if you can get hold of a mark I, the build quality is better though)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50mm-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X

[lozzyloz]

You'll need to use a lens with a longer focal length than 55mm. The shorter the focal length the more distortion of perspective. You can do some quick transformation work to rectify this in Photoshop but presumably you want to keep it simple. I'm assuming that you're shooting indoors (home / gallery?) so it'll depend on how far back from the painting you can stand. You'll also need to use a tripod and light the painting without using flash. I don't know Canon lenses (I'm a Nikon user) but I'd look for something inexpensive like the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III Lens. It's around ?200 (very slow lens) and should give you enough flexibility. Good luck and feel free to PM me.

[mockney piers]

I think upgrading from the kit lens is a great move for starters, and Tommy's recommendation is a fine lens and a bargain to boot, but agree with lozzyloz that for your purposes you need zoom flexibility coupled with a tripod which will save you a fortune by allowing you to buy a slower lens.

Something like the 70-300 at a mere ?132 is another absolute bargain.

and thanks DM, very sweet :)

[PeckhamRose]

If none of the above helps, please PM. MrRose is a pro photographer. His first suggestion is not to rush out and buy lenses until we know what the problem is. Post an image so we can understand what the problem might be. It's a perfectly good lens that you have. Anyway, seems you have a lot of advice to sift through!

[Carrie]

That's all great advice. Many thanks to you all. Some of the paintings are as big as 8/9feet and I have about 25 feet to get back from the painting. Would a 70mm lens get all that in the frame? And a 'slow' lens. Does this mean a lens with a larger aperture giving the option of slower shutter speed? Sorry for such basic ignorance!

[PeckhamRose]

Is this professional commission?

You a professional photographer?

PM for advice though I am sure the other pro photographers will know about it, on here.

[HAL9000]

It seems unlikely that the problem is the lens. It could be a question of digital resolution, image compression artefacts, non-optimal RAW/JPG image processing, camera shake, focusing inaccuracy or inadequate lighting, amongst many other possibilities.

There are too many variables to allow definitive diagnosis given the scant information you have supplied.

[woofmarkthedog]

Try a fish eye lens.....

Wow man , now even the crap ones look "great"

[mockney piers]

350D is a decent enough camera to rule out your first few issues Hal, though agreed inadequate lighting and/or camera shake could very well be an issue.

I don't think the kit lens is a particularly sharp lens either, and if anyone takes their photography seriously enough to take it up a level, then better glass really is the first step.

Carrie, a fast or slow lens mainly refers to the largest aperture or F-stop of a lens. The idea being obviously the larger the whole the more light you let in more quickly. Your kit lens has a max aperture of f3.5, which isn't bad but isn't particularly good either.

But to get quality images at that end of the scale the glass needs to be much better quality and hence faster lenses shoot up in cost. My 24-700 f2.8 is a lovely lens and pretty fast but rrp is over a grand, though you can usually find it for about ?800 these days.

Prime (fixed focal length) lenses are one way of getting better quality at cheaper prices, but obviously they are less flexible. The 50mm lenses are very fast, f1.8 for about ?80, f1.4 for a little over ?200.

As you're photographing art the lens doesn't need to be fast as it isn't going to be moving, so you can take longer exposures, but you absolutely *must* have a tripod, which I'd recommend anyway for ensuring a sharper picture. Also the wider the hole the narrower the depth of field so focussing issues become more important. A half decent tripod will cost in the order of ?100, a lot cheaper than most glass.

Difficult to say if 70mm will be wide enough as I don't know how big the paintings and the rooms are, but bear in mind that the 350D sensor is not a full frame (like the 5D and the 1D) so has a crop factor of about 1.6 making a 70mm really a 100mm (ish)

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 350D is a decent enough camera to rule out your

> first few issues Hal,

We don't know whether the OP is shooting at low resolution and applying a high JPG compression ratio to the image.

The only way to rule out that possibility is to ask the OP, surely?

The problem could be as mundane as reflected glare from the built in flash unit, a problem that would occur regardless of what digital or film camera model and lens combination was being used - one should eliminate such factors before recommending huge expenditures on new kit, I would have thought.

[mockney piers]

Well as my only concrete recommendation was a tripod which should be a part of any enthusiast's arsenal, I don't think it was bad advice, which in this case would mean no need to use that awful built-in flash unit, win win.

Have you been setting the resolution down Carrie?

[Carrie]

Just to provide a bit more information. I am the painter wanting to explore the possibility of shooting my own photographic record of each work. I have used a professional photographer for many years who used to take very good 5X4's for me. However, since the advent of digital his work has not been as good in terms of colour/tone. There are some odd anomalies in the images he takes that cannot be rectified in photoshop. His photos have fantastic clarity though, making even the weave of the linen visible in the photos which are taken from 15 feet or so away. My own camera is much better in terms of colour/tone, simply shooting in the studio on a tripod using the daylight balanced strip lights I have in there, but there is not the same clarity in the detail. So I was wondering whether a new lens would make the difference. I am shooting at the highest possible resolution.

Thanks

Paul (Carrie's husband)

[LostThePlot]

Carrie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Some of the paintings are as big as 8/9feet and I

> have about 25 feet to get back from the painting.

> Would a 70mm lens get all that in the frame?

The simple answer is yes, assuming you have space to walk back far enough.

On the lenses front. Canon also so do lenses called "L" Series. These are the Professional lenses that have a much higher quality of glass in them with much more time taken in creating the lens. Of course, this means they cost more, but in my opinion they are worth the extra money. I'm a pro, I shoot for magazines, and use these on my Canon kit. They are typically 2-4 times the price of the "Consumer" I have a 28-70 zoom for sale i no longer use, and that is for sale if you;re interested.

HAVING SAID THAT - From your responses here I think we can gather that photography is something that you are possibly new to and still learning about (Hell, we're ALL still learning) so it may be not a lens issue, but something else. So can I suggest you post a full size sample of your work, telling us what parts you;re not happy with, and we can discuss.

Alternatively, buy me a coffee and a cake on the lane and I'm happy to have a chat with you.

Eric

[Mark]

I have a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM which you can borrow if you want to try another lens before buying one. I find it great for portraits, it's equivalent to an 35mm camera's 80mm lens on my 400D. I need it this weekend but drop me a PM if you want to try it after.

[HAL9000]

Carrie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just to provide a bit more information.

That's really useful. It eliminates many possibilities.

Your problem may lie in one or more of the following areas:

1. The Lens - (not sharp enough, out of alignment or needs cleaning)

2. Megapixels - 8 isn't enough, the other guy may be using 10, 12 or more

3. Image Format - you are using JPG, the other guy is using RAW (iirc your Canon doesn't do TIFF)

4. Sensor Type - you are using CMOS, the other guy is using something else

Do you know what digital camera/lens the other guy is using?

Minor issues:

Colour/tone is sometimes a white balance/lighting colour temperature issue. Do you know enough about this to help us out?

Fluorescent lighting does not produce a continuous spectrum and therefore occasionally fools digital cameras. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

[mockney piers]

For 5x4s 8 megapixels is absolutely fine, plus it's a good quality sensor despite the crop factor and has excellent performance at low iso levels.

See this review, which has much in common with many reviews that often cite the kit lens as the weak link. I noticed the quality of my images rise as soon as I upgraded the glass.

Mark's 50mm 1.4 is an excellent and very sharp lens and might be worth taking him up on his generous offer. (i have one too, but it got a bit squashed on my honeymoon and has never been quite right since).

Would also agree that shooting in RAW is much recommended as it will give you much finer control over the final image, though there is obviously more to your workflow. A particularly good advantage is that you can make your white balance decisions in the post-processing phase, very very handy!!

[Ant]

Just one other quick thought: if your main issue is with colour/tone could it be down to monitor calibration?

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For 5x4s 8 megapixels is absolutely fine,

Quite right. Unless the OP is referring to 5x4 cm film format rather than 5x4 inch prints?

The comment about seeing the weave of the canvas ... would that be visible on 5x4 inch prints when photographing large-ish canvases?

[mockney piers]

You're asking the wrong man Hal ;)

[Mark]

Surely it would have been 5x4 inch film format (I don't think there is a 5x4 cm film format)

[edited once]

[mockney piers]

Thing is no entry level DSLR is going to compete with medium or large format whether film or digital.

Hasselblad do a mighty fine large format digital camera back, 39 MP and a snip at about 16 thousand pounds, so back in the real world...

[HAL9000]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely it would have been 5x4 inch film format (I

> don't think there is a 5x4 cm film format)

You're right, 5x4 inch is a film format.

I was thinking of the old "medium format" on 120 roll film but obviously got my wires crossed. I've just looked them up: they are 6 x 4.5, 6 x 6 and 6 x 7 cm.

[Carrie]

Thanks everyone, you have all been terrifically helpful. I think that is as much information as I can cope with at the moment. Mark, I would love to take you up on your offer. I am away for a couple of days but will pm you when I return. Thanks Hal for the pointers.