Lens for food photography

Unless you plan on getting really close I don't see how a macro lens would be much use.

TBH I think your kit lens will do fine, but you may want to invest in a good quality flash or lighting setup. From what I have read and a couple of attempts good food photgraphy is all about good lighting and food presentation.
 
A Macro lens would be fine. They are very sharp prime lenses and great for portraits too. The large apetures they have will give you good DOF effects as well.
 
it's over the top
unless you're taking pictures of berries and not plates of food
I would think a nice sharp 50mm prime would do the trick
it's about portrait lengths on a cropped sensor
tack sharp and lots of scope for DOF
most importantly I would look at lighting
 
Lighting is more important here I think, after messing around this morning splashing coffee all over the place, lighting was the thing I struggled with most. DOF is also very sweet if you want your pictures to look extra special I think.
 
light needs to be pretty even
no shadows and few shiny highlights

search for food photography. someone posted some cracking food shots recently
some kind soul will probs link you if you're patient
 
I agree with the above. Glitch is the man you need to speak to about food photography. He's pretty damn good at this stuff and uses a fair bit of natural light if I'm not mistaken.

Controlled lighting is great for consistency but I still don't think anything beats natural lighting for food though - with a few reflectors to eliminate shadows.
 
Blimey, I didn't think anyone took much notice of my ramblings about food photography. I've got a lot to live up to after that rather nice introduction by fabs and Tim!

Looking through your blog, KG, it seems like you are taking this whole thing quite seriously so I'm going to assume that you want to take the photography equally as seriously. And for that you're going to need to make a hefty investment - but luckily more in time than money, although you could spend as freely as you wanted to.

The first thing you're going to want to do is look at lighting and the good news there is that the best lighting for good food photography is free! As Tim has already mentioned, natural light really is the best and we're rapidly approaching that time of year where you've got plenty of it to work with. All you really need is a suitable room (or selection of rooms), something to diffuse the light, a load of reflectors and about five pairs of hands to hold them all. Or you can just get creative with lighting stands, blu-tack, etc. But the look that works best for me relies on a single large light source (the windows) and light being bounced back into the subject from every angle.

If at all possible I like to shoot in my lounge and at this time of year that gives me a working window of between 10am and roughly 4pm. I'm fortunate enough that it's south-facing and has a massive set of French windows at the end which allows loads of light to spill in and bounce around the room so it's really practical all-year-round Unfortunately the walls aren't quite the right colour, being a light-ish yellow, but I've got creative with white foam-core in the vital areas rather than redecorating. I also employ a large (2m²) diffuser to cover the window and soften the light and sometimes double-up when it's a really bright day or use a single thinner diffuser when it's slightly overcast but still too bright.

General rule of thumb for me is if you can put a shiny white plate in the sunlight and you're getting harsh reflections and dark shadows then it's time to get the diffuser(s) out. I've got a couple of really shiny dinner plates that don't see much use for my work but serve well as test subjects - try and track down at least one on your travels as it's a great help. Want to know what the best thing is? The cheapest and nastiest glazes are generally the best for testing so there's no need to spend a fortune on expensive china.

In terms of bouncing light around, I'll use whatever I can get my hands on, but I tend to favour white foam-core card. You can pick it up from your local craft supply store at a reasonable price, but it does get 'better' the more you pay. I tend to work with sizes from A3 up to A0 and try to buy the best stuff I can find as I've noticed the thinner 'cheap' stuff tends to start yellowing a lot quicker - and you don't want to be bouncing yellow-ish light around! Either way, store your card somewhere dark and try to keep it as spotless as possible.

If you really can't shoot during the optimum conditions or your 'studio' doesn't allow for decent light, you'll need to fake it. I find the most effective approach to be of trying to recreate the large single light source using artificial light so for that you'll need one (or more) large light sources. For me that means lights with big softboxes (I use Speedlites with Lastolite's 60cm Ezybox Hotshoe) and the same selection of reflectors and diffusers to recreate that 'flood' of light you get from the optimum natural lighting conditions. It all sounds simple and to be fair it's quite a simple theory but the method takes a lot of experimenting with to get right.

The benefit of using a system like the Speedlite/Ezybox Hotshoe combo is that it's incredibly portable and easy to set up on location or in conditions where you wouldn't necessarily get a set of studio lights in or even to. The downside is that it's an expensive way of doing things as you'll probably have to throw in some form of remote triggering (not sure what the equivalent of the ST-E2 is for Nikon users) or run the risk of cabling it all together.

Once you've got the lighting sorted and you're confident you can recreate your 'look' in various locations you can then start to worry about the equipment you're shooting with. The first bit of kit I'd recommend would be a sturdy tripod that's easy to position and a suitable head (I like geared three-way heads for fine adjustments) for the sort of work you'll be doing. If you'll be doing a lot of work in a studio then you might consider a camera stand, but that would be far too heavy to transport around so a decent tripod and head would probably make for a good long-term investment.

With regards to the body you are shooting with, I have to admit to having zero knowledge of Nikon cameras although from looking at the specifications it seems fine to me, especially if your output is mostly web-based at present. In reality it will be the glass on the front as much as the subject matter in front of you that will determine just how good your shots are but when you upgrade I'd highly recommend a camera with Live View functionality.

Now, to the glass. And here's where the problems start. I shoot with a 5D and Canon's TS-E 90mm f/2.8 tilt/shift lens. For me it's the perfect combination and I'd recommend any food photographer do the same. You get an amazingly sharp lens, excellent background blur, great contrast, an extremely usable focal length and minimum focus distance and the amazing creative control that a tilt/shift lens gives you.

Unfortunately you are a Nikon user and while I'd like to recommend their 85mm f/2.8 PC-E I've found their 24mm PC-E a tricky lens to get on with and from what I've read the 85mm will be more of the same. It just doesn't seem to function in the same way as the Canon and I find that incredibly frustrating. It doesn't even fit properly on some bodies! And let's face it - if you've bought a D60 you're hardly likely to be spending somewhere in the region of £1,300 on a lens alone.

So If I was going to buy a brand-new lens for food photography, I'd be spending my pennies on Canon's 50mm f/1.2L or even the 50mm f/1.4. Both would make for an extremely usable lens on either a full-frame or a crop-sensor body and would give you the results you'd be looking for. Unfortunately I don't really know Nikon's range that well so I'd guess that you'd be wanting one of their 50mm line-up although I couldn't tell you which one was the best. Perhaps even Sigma's Nikon-fit 50mm might work.
 
glitch said:
Blimey, I didn't think anyone took much notice of my ramblings about food photography. I've got a lot to live up to after that rather nice introduction by fabs and Tim!

Looking through your blog, KG, it seems like you are taking this whole thing quite seriously so I'm going to assume that you want to take the photography equally as seriously. And for that you're going to need to make a hefty investment - but luckily more in time than money, although you could spend as freely as you wanted to.

The first thing you're going to want to do is look at lighting and the good news there is that the best lighting for good food photography is free! As Tim has already mentioned, natural light really is the best and we're rapidly approaching that time of year where you've got plenty of it to work with. All you really need is a suitable room (or selection of rooms), something to diffuse the light, a load of reflectors and about five pairs of hands to hold them all. Or you can just get creative with lighting stands, blu-tack, etc. But the look that works best for me relies on a single large light source (the windows) and light being bounced back into the subject from every angle.

If at all possible I like to shoot in my lounge and at this time of year that gives me a working window of between 10am and roughly 4pm. I'm fortunate enough that it's south-facing and has a massive set of French windows at the end which allows loads of light to spill in and bounce around the room so it's really practical all-year-round Unfortunately the walls aren't quite the right colour, being a light-ish yellow, but I've got creative with white foam-core in the vital areas rather than redecorating. I also employ a large (2m²) diffuser to cover the window and soften the light and sometimes double-up when it's a really bright day or use a single thinner diffuser when it's slightly overcast but still too bright.

General rule of thumb for me is if you can put a shiny white plate in the sunlight and you're getting harsh reflections and dark shadows then it's time to get the diffuser(s) out. I've got a couple of really shiny dinner plates that don't see much use for my work but serve well as test subjects - try and track down at least one on your travels as it's a great help. Want to know what the best thing is? The cheapest and nastiest glazes are generally the best for testing so there's no need to spend a fortune on expensive china.

In terms of bouncing light around, I'll use whatever I can get my hands on, but I tend to favour white foam-core card. You can pick it up from your local craft supply store at a reasonable price, but it does get 'better' the more you pay. I tend to work with sizes from A3 up to A0 and try to buy the best stuff I can find as I've noticed the thinner 'cheap' stuff tends to start yellowing a lot quicker - and you don't want to be bouncing yellow-ish light around! Either way, store your card somewhere dark and try to keep it as spotless as possible.

If you really can't shoot during the optimum conditions or your 'studio' doesn't allow for decent light, you'll need to fake it. I find the most effective approach to be of trying to recreate the large single light source using artificial light so for that you'll need one (or more) large light sources. For me that means lights with big softboxes (I use Speedlites with Lastolite's 60cm Ezybox Hotshoe) and the same selection of reflectors and diffusers to recreate that 'flood' of light you get from the optimum natural lighting conditions. It all sounds simple and to be fair it's quite a simple theory but the method takes a lot of experimenting with to get right.

The benefit of using a system like the Speedlite/Ezybox Hotshoe combo is that it's incredibly portable and easy to set up on location or in conditions where you wouldn't necessarily get a set of studio lights in or even to. The downside is that it's an expensive way of doing things as you'll probably have to throw in some form of remote triggering (not sure what the equivalent of the ST-E2 is for Nikon users) or run the risk of cabling it all together.

Once you've got the lighting sorted and you're confident you can recreate your 'look' in various locations you can then start to worry about the equipment you're shooting with. The first bit of kit I'd recommend would be a sturdy tripod that's easy to position and a suitable head (I like geared three-way heads for fine adjustments) for the sort of work you'll be doing. If you'll be doing a lot of work in a studio then you might consider a camera stand, but that would be far too heavy to transport around so a decent tripod and head would probably make for a good long-term investment.

With regards to the body you are shooting with, I have to admit to having zero knowledge of Nikon cameras although from looking at the specifications it seems fine to me, especially if your output is mostly web-based at present. In reality it will be the glass on the front as much as the subject matter in front of you that will determine just how good your shots are but when you upgrade I'd highly recommend a camera with Live View functionality.

Now, to the glass. And here's where the problems start. I shoot with a 5D and Canon's TS-E 90mm f/2.8 tilt/shift lens. For me it's the perfect combination and I'd recommend any food photographer do the same. You get an amazingly sharp lens, excellent background blur, great contrast, an extremely usable focal length and minimum focus distance and the amazing creative control that a tilt/shift lens gives you.

Unfortunately you are a Nikon user and while I'd like to recommend their 85mm f/2.8 PC-E I've found their 24mm PC-E a tricky lens to get on with and from what I've read the 85mm will be more of the same. It just doesn't seem to function in the same way as the Canon and I find that incredibly frustrating. It doesn't even fit properly on some bodies! And let's face it - if you've bought a D60 you're hardly likely to be spending somewhere in the region of £1,300 on a lens alone.

So If I was going to buy a brand-new lens for food photography, I'd be spending my pennies on Canon's 50mm f/1.2L or even the 50mm f/1.4. Both would make for an extremely usable lens on either a full-frame or a crop-sensor body and would give you the results you'd be looking for. Unfortunately I don't really know Nikon's range that well so I'd guess that you'd be wanting one of their 50mm line-up although I couldn't tell you which one was the best. Perhaps even Sigma's Nikon-fit 50mm might work.
Click to expand...

superb advice there (y)
 
glitch said:
Blimey, I didn't think anyone took much notice of my ramblings about food photography. I've got a lot to live up to after that rather nice introduction by fabs and Tim!

Looking through your blog, KG, it seems like you are taking this whole thing quite seriously so I'm going to assume that you want to take the photography equally as seriously. And for that you're going to need to make a hefty investment - but luckily more in time than money, although you could spend as freely as you wanted to.

The first thing you're going to want to do is look at lighting and the good news there is that the best lighting for good food photography is free! As Tim has already mentioned, natural light really is the best and we're rapidly approaching that time of year where you've got plenty of it to work with. All you really need is a suitable room (or selection of rooms), something to diffuse the light, a load of reflectors and about five pairs of hands to hold them all. Or you can just get creative with lighting stands, blu-tack, etc. But the look that works best for me relies on a single large light source (the windows) and light being bounced back into the subject from every angle.

If at all possible I like to shoot in my lounge and at this time of year that gives me a working window of between 10am and roughly 4pm. I'm fortunate enough that it's south-facing and has a massive set of French windows at the end which allows loads of light to spill in and bounce around the room so it's really practical all-year-round Unfortunately the walls aren't quite the right colour, being a light-ish yellow, but I've got creative with white foam-core in the vital areas rather than redecorating. I also employ a large (2m²) diffuser to cover the window and soften the light and sometimes double-up when it's a really bright day or use a single thinner diffuser when it's slightly overcast but still too bright.

General rule of thumb for me is if you can put a shiny white plate in the sunlight and you're getting harsh reflections and dark shadows then it's time to get the diffuser(s) out. I've got a couple of really shiny dinner plates that don't see much use for my work but serve well as test subjects - try and track down at least one on your travels as it's a great help. Want to know what the best thing is? The cheapest and nastiest glazes are generally the best for testing so there's no need to spend a fortune on expensive china.

In terms of bouncing light around, I'll use whatever I can get my hands on, but I tend to favour white foam-core card. You can pick it up from your local craft supply store at a reasonable price, but it does get 'better' the more you pay. I tend to work with sizes from A3 up to A0 and try to buy the best stuff I can find as I've noticed the thinner 'cheap' stuff tends to start yellowing a lot quicker - and you don't want to be bouncing yellow-ish light around! Either way, store your card somewhere dark and try to keep it as spotless as possible.

If you really can't shoot during the optimum conditions or your 'studio' doesn't allow for decent light, you'll need to fake it. I find the most effective approach to be of trying to recreate the large single light source using artificial light so for that you'll need one (or more) large light sources. For me that means lights with big softboxes (I use Speedlites with Lastolite's 60cm Ezybox Hotshoe) and the same selection of reflectors and diffusers to recreate that 'flood' of light you get from the optimum natural lighting conditions. It all sounds simple and to be fair it's quite a simple theory but the method takes a lot of experimenting with to get right.

The benefit of using a system like the Speedlite/Ezybox Hotshoe combo is that it's incredibly portable and easy to set up on location or in conditions where you wouldn't necessarily get a set of studio lights in or even to. The downside is that it's an expensive way of doing things as you'll probably have to throw in some form of remote triggering (not sure what the equivalent of the ST-E2 is for Nikon users) or run the risk of cabling it all together.

Once you've got the lighting sorted and you're confident you can recreate your 'look' in various locations you can then start to worry about the equipment you're shooting with. The first bit of kit I'd recommend would be a sturdy tripod that's easy to position and a suitable head (I like geared three-way heads for fine adjustments) for the sort of work you'll be doing. If you'll be doing a lot of work in a studio then you might consider a camera stand, but that would be far too heavy to transport around so a decent tripod and head would probably make for a good long-term investment.

With regards to the body you are shooting with, I have to admit to having zero knowledge of Nikon cameras although from looking at the specifications it seems fine to me, especially if your output is mostly web-based at present. In reality it will be the glass on the front as much as the subject matter in front of you that will determine just how good your shots are but when you upgrade I'd highly recommend a camera with Live View functionality.

Now, to the glass. And here's where the problems start. I shoot with a 5D and Canon's TS-E 90mm f/2.8 tilt/shift lens. For me it's the perfect combination and I'd recommend any food photographer do the same. You get an amazingly sharp lens, excellent background blur, great contrast, an extremely usable focal length and minimum focus distance and the amazing creative control that a tilt/shift lens gives you.

Unfortunately you are a Nikon user and while I'd like to recommend their 85mm f/2.8 PC-E I've found their 24mm PC-E a tricky lens to get on with and from what I've read the 85mm will be more of the same. It just doesn't seem to function in the same way as the Canon and I find that incredibly frustrating. It doesn't even fit properly on some bodies! And let's face it - if you've bought a D60 you're hardly likely to be spending somewhere in the region of £1,300 on a lens alone.

So If I was going to buy a brand-new lens for food photography, I'd be spending my pennies on Canon's 50mm f/1.2L or even the 50mm f/1.4. Both would make for an extremely usable lens on either a full-frame or a crop-sensor body and would give you the results you'd be looking for. Unfortunately I don't really know Nikon's range that well so I'd guess that you'd be wanting one of their 50mm line-up although I couldn't tell you which one was the best. Perhaps even Sigma's Nikon-fit 50mm might work.
Click to expand...

Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to give such an informative, helpful reply (and for the lovely comment about my blog too). I'm going to print off this info and make a list of the key points to focus on. (y)
 
I'd go for 50L or 50mm f/1.4 -- very shallow DoF. I'm not sure you'd want 'macro' when doing food in all honest. You'd get some superb shots with some lighting, a white backdrop and a 50mm of some sort IMO.
 
buckas said:
superb advice there (y)
Click to expand...
Merci!

KitchenGoddess said:
Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to give such an informative, helpful reply (and for the lovely comment about my blog too). I'm going to print off this info and make a list of the key points to focus on. (y)
Click to expand...
If there's one type of photography I'm happy to talk about it's food photography. It's all I think about, all I want to do.

Feel free to fire as many questions at me as you want and I'll do my best to answer them. And if I can't I'll be happy to research the answer as much as possible as it will benefit both of us!

fabs said:
I knew he wouldn't let us down! :D

Great post Glitch, I'll print that one off myself! (y)
Click to expand...
You're welcome, sir! Glad I could be of some use.

Kryptix said:
I'd go for 50L or 50mm f/1.4 -- very shallow DoF. I'm not sure you'd want 'macro' when doing food in all honest. You'd get some superb shots with some lighting, a white backdrop and a 50mm of some sort IMO.
Click to expand...
Well, you might, but alas our KitchenGoddess is a Nikon user so doesn't have quite the same choice as you do.

But your comment does raise an interesting point.

As much as I don't like to even broach the subject for fear of invoking the wrath of the fanboys, I had toyed with the thought of suggesting that our KitchenGoddess might well think about spending her money on switching to Canon to take advantage of the lenses I've mentioned in my post above. I appreciate that's a bit 'can open, worms everywhere' but it would make a lot of sense.
 
glitch said:
Blimey, I didn't think anyone took much notice of my ramblings about food photography. I've got a lot to live up to after that rather nice introduction by fabs and Tim!
Click to expand...

You managed it - a great post (y)
 
glitch said:
Merci!

If there's one type of photography I'm happy to talk about it's food photography. It's all I think about, all I want to do.

Feel free to fire as many questions at me as you want and I'll do my best to answer them. And if I can't I'll be happy to research the answer as much as possible as it will benefit both of us!

You're welcome, sir! Glad I could be of some use.

Well, you might, but alas our KitchenGoddess is a Nikon user so doesn't have quite the same choice as you do.

But your comment does raise an interesting point.

As much as I don't like to even broach the subject for fear of invoking the wrath of the fanboys, I had toyed with the thought of suggesting that our KitchenGoddess might well think about spending her money on switching to Canon to take advantage of the lenses I've mentioned in my post above. I appreciate that's a bit 'can open, worms everywhere' but it would make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to wish I'd bought Canon now, but, the Jessops sale person talked me out of it :thumbsdown: Serious thinking time now I reckon.
 
I guess it all depends on how serious you are about this, KitchenGoddess. From repeated reading of your blog I'd assume that the answer to that was 'very' and as such I'd really recommend a switch to Canon, assuming the funds were available. I think you'd be able to produce perfectly adequate results with your Nikon but a switch would be worth it, if only for access to the 90mm TS-E lens that I mentioned in my first post. You really wouldn't regret it.

A comparable camera to your D60 would probably be Canon's 450D which would give you the extremely desirable Live View functionality along with access to Canon's range of lenses. Or there's always the 40D which is much the same, albeit in a slightly larger body with what I consider to be better handling. Either way you should be able to pick a mint second-hand 450D up for somewhere around £350 with the 40D costing around £100 more than that. I'm not 100% sure how a tilt/shift lens would perform on a crop sensor camera (I shoot on a full-frame 5D) but I can guarantee you that it will be much more usable on a Canon than the equivalent Nikon set-up.

And let's not forget you don't necessarily need to buy a load of lenses. If you spend all your budget on a new body you could simply hire the lenses you need for the days you'll be shooting - in effect a much more cost-effective way of using some excellent glass without the financial burden of ownership.
 
I think the suggestion to the OP to change from Nikon to Canon on the basis that there are more lenses in the Canon format is ludicrous. As was stated early on in the thread the most important thing in this type of photography is the lighting.

It was agreed that natural light was the best so why? does the OP have to go to the expense of moving formats.

Surely just a good prime lens with f/2.8 or better or even a good quality short zoom at f/2.8 would suffice and some reflectors?

Come on peeps don't give advice based on biased preferences. Especially as the OP is new to the forum and is probably not aware of the Nikon/Canon "mine is better than yours" point of view.
 
Hammerhead64 said:
I think the suggestion to the OP to change from Nikon to Canon on the basis that there are more lenses in the Canon format is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
It would be ludicrous if he had done that, but he didn't. glitch suggested the switch specifically to be able to use the Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8, which he recommends as the ultimate lens for food photography.

For what it's worth, I think he's probably right about the lens. Though whether or not it's worth switching in order to be able to use it is much more debatable. I guess it depends what level of food photography you're aiming at.
 
KitchenGoddess said:
The 40D is on a great offer at amazon, I'm going to re-evaluate my avilable finances and then make the decision ... it does look very good.
Click to expand...
It really does come down to personal choice in these matters, but were I in your position I'd be strongly considering the second-hand market.

I've seen numerous decent examples going for around the £450 mark. In fact there's one for sale on these very forums, although I'm not sure if you'll be able to gain access to that thread.

KitchenGoddess said:
Looked at the 90mm TS-E lens too - the price too my breath away, nearly as much as the camera :eek:
Click to expand...
The price might take your breath away but then again so will the results. But if you do switch, save your money for the time being and hire one to see if you like what it does before making an investment.

You could even hire a 40D body for a week along with the 90mm to see what it can do for you.

Hammerhead64 said:
I think the suggestion to the OP to change from Nikon to Canon on the basis that there are more lenses in the Canon format is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
As Stewart has already pointed out, I didn't.

KitchenGoddess said:
Now I'm going to be a real pain ... is the 50D worth splashing the extra cash do you reckon?
Click to expand...
Nope.

If you think that the 90mm TS-E is the lens for you a 40D would be more that adequate. Take advantage of all those with a 40D who 'need' the 50D and snap up a second-hand bargain.

For an idea of what a Tilt/Shift lens can do for your food photography, take a look at the example on this page.
 
glitch said:
<snip>

Now, to the glass. And here's where the problems start. I shoot with a 5D and Canon's TS-E 90mm f/2.8 tilt/shift lens. For me it's the perfect combination and I'd recommend any food photographer do the same. You get an amazingly sharp lens, excellent background blur, great contrast, an extremely usable focal length and minimum focus distance and the amazing creative control that a tilt/shift lens gives you.

Unfortunately you are a Nikon user and while I'd like to recommend their 85mm f/2.8 PC-E I've found their 24mm PC-E a tricky lens to get on with and from what I've read the 85mm will be more of the same. It just doesn't seem to function in the same way as the Canon and I find that incredibly frustrating. It doesn't even fit properly on some bodies! And let's face it - if you've bought a D60 you're hardly likely to be spending somewhere in the region of £1,300 on a lens alone.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Is this perhaps the reason why you didn't get along with it?

Quote from here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-pc.htm

Tip: If you're a landscape photographer like me, be sure to send your 24mm PC in to Nikon service before you shoot to have the lens recombobulated by 90 degrees so you can get rise/fall and tilt at the same time. As shipped, you get swing, not tilt, with rise/fall.

I'd imagine the 85mm would come configured the same way.
 
Without going full-frame to give the same result with the 90mm, surely the results would be different due to the crop factor. A 60mm lens on the Nikon D60 would give the same length as 90mm on the full frame Canon.

Unless the tilt/shift is essential for perspective adjustment when shooting food, as you mention the Nikon tilt/shift lenses are dificult to use, what does the Cannon switch give that a Sigma f1.4 woud not, except giving another set of focal plane adjustment variables to get to grips with allong with lighting, composition, etc. Glitch, you did after all mention "if you've bought a D60 you're hardly likely to be spending somewhere in the region of £1,300 on a lens alone".

The Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM worked very nicely on my D60, giving excellent sharpness for the focus area, whilst the large aperture blured the background... before I bought mine, I struggled to find a bad word about it, except for the price and a 77mm filter size. Theres also the Nikon offering avaliable now, which is cheaper, but I haven't tried it or looked at any reviews.
 
SLRist said:
Is this perhaps the reason why you didn't get along with it?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't that.

Up until the introduction of Canon's most recent TS-E lenses the tilt and shift functions of both the Canon and Nikon range were fixed in separate planes; you could either have one or the other, but not both. A bit of tinkering with a screwdriver and you could put both the tilt and the shift in the same plane, although I've not yet found a use for that with my 90mm TS-E.

What frustrates me about the Nikon range is that you only get the full functionality of the lens with the high-end camera bodies. With anything else the lenses abilities are somewhat restricted and in some cases almost unusable - some Nikon bodies won't allow for the full range of movement from the tilt or shift function because of their design.

The Canon TS-E lenses just work. I don't have to worry about focusing or metering before I tilt my lens and I can concentrate on what's in front of me at the time rather than having to faff about.
 
Well, that's understandable. But you can find some incredibly good deals on second-hand gear, particularly from some of the members here who generally take very good care of their equipment.

The main differences between the 40D and 50D are summarised here but some of that might go completely over your head. What you're really getting is a larger resolution sensor (15MP v 10.1MP), slightly improved image processing (DIGIC IV v DIGIC III), a higher-resolution LCD on the back and a slightly better implementation of the Live View system.

The 40D can be had from around £600 new and the 50D from around £825 new. Worth the extra? Mmmm, possibly.

Whereabouts are you located? If you were local-ish I'd be happy to show you what the 90mm TS-E can do.
 
That's a bit of a 'jack of all trades, master of none' lens so if you are set on a 50D I'd only really recommend the extra spend if it was an absolute bargain to get them both.

However, I'm still a bit uncomfortable about recommending you switch from Nikon to Canon based purely on the one lens. There are one or two others that you won't find an equivalent in Nikon's line-up but they're probably out of your price range and not necessarily a reason to switch.

And unfortunately you're about 200 miles away from me so I can't easily show you what the 90mm TS-E can do. I'll try and post up some examples when I find the hard-drive they're stored on.
 
Wether you stay with Nikon, or switch to Canon, the one thing they have in common is quality lenses are worth more in image quality terms than a body upgrade (unless you take a huge leap up the ladder and reach the top rung ). Putting a lens with average image quality on a relatively good body will still give average shots, where as upgrading the glass to something with a larger aperture (smaller f number) which would be more suited to your style of shooting would improve the shots and give you more scope to be creative with the depth of field. The bonus here is the lens can be used on a future body upgrade if/when you need/want to upgrade.

If you do decide on the switch, unless you specify a lens particularly suited to your needs, you will end up in the same position as you are at the moment with a reasonable body and an average lens for your needs. Unless you have found a particular point of hatred for the D60, a lens upgrade would be of more use!!!

Whatever you decide, zooms with a large range will generaly make more sacrifices in image quality than a short zoom range. Also the maximum aperture size( smallest f number) being constant ie- 18-70mm f2.8, where theres only one f number means, that aperture is avaliable through the zoom range. Unlike your standard kit lens, which has a range of f stops 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. As the zoom increases from 18mm, the maximum avaliable aperture will increase from f3.5 up to f5.6 when you reach the 55mm end. The numbers themselves don't always tell the full tale, as theres some f2.8 lenses which allegedly have poor image quality, so have a good read up or get a recomendation before parting with your hard earned.

I am sure that most others here would agree that a quality lens with the posibility of a shallow DOF would be more use than changing bodies, unless you also get the better glass to go with it.
 
KitchenGoddess said:
Thanks Singlespeed. I'm determined to switch to canon now and the 50D seems to suit my needs best. I reckon I'd go with the 18-55mm lens supplied but add to it with a constant f2.8 lens too.
Click to expand...

I am guessing it must be the live view feature has swayed you, so you can see your picture as you compose it, then zoom in for accurate focusing on selected areas. If thats the case, and you are going to be spending around £1000 on a new camera, make sure you get the one thats most comfortable for YOU to hold and use. the Nikon D90 and D300 have live view, so theres a few bodies to try and hold before making a firm decision purely based on numbers and prices or a whim.

Whatever you decide on at the semi-pro crop sensor level, i'm sure you will be happy for a while :LOL:

Budget for a replacement memory card as well. The 50D and Nikon D300 are compact flash, not SD.

This might be usefull
50D review against 40D and D90, D300
 
StewartR said:
It would be ludicrous if he had done that, but he didn't. glitch suggested the switch specifically to be able to use the Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8, which he recommends as the ultimate lens for food photography.

For what it's worth, I think he's probably right about the lens. Though whether or not it's worth switching in order to be able to use it is much more debatable. I guess it depends what level of food photography you're aiming at.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I never said he did.

Glitch I was not directing my comment to any one post in particular it just seemed to me that at the point of my post the thread had taken a very Canon biased view.

I appologise to you ..... no offence was meant. I was in fact very impressed with the reply and help you offered.

If the OP is of the opinion that a move to a Canon body will improve any shots taken I am afraid that may be a possible error as the advice given to date is clear that this type of photography is about setup/lighting and not the kit brand you own and I think the advice that singlespeed offers is very astute.

The choice is of course up to the OP and very good luck on the journey as someone who switched from one brand to another I can say from experience if it is right for you then it is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top