SLR camera lenses

[johnny37]

what does 18-55mm and 70-300mm mean? I know it is the focal length but what does it actually mean? Lens supplied with camera is normally 18-55mm. Would this be OK for close-ups, eg for taking close-ups of jewellery?

[jno]

these are really a measure of how wide the angle is, and therefore how much you get into your photo. 35mm is approximately the area you can see from left to right without turning your head. 18mm is a very wide angle - you'd have to turn your head quite a bit. 300 is a long zoom lens giving you a narrow field of view.

(I'm assuming you're talking about a film camera here - if it's a digital SLR, or DSLR, then roughly double the figures: 18mm is normal range of vision, 300 is a very long zoom.)

This doesn't have much to do with close-ups. You could place the jewellery at the other end of the room and zoom in, or you could have the camera right next to it, for which it would be best to have a camera with a macro function..

[saxy_jag]

It refers to the distance of the lens from the film or sensor. Longer focal lengths are preferred for 'small' close-ups and portraits, as they will decrease depth of field and concentrate the focus on the object rather than its background. So if you can afford that 70-300mm, then it would be preferable. Otherwise, use the longest setting on the 18-55mm.

Many cameras have a macro setting that will help you achieve decent quality close-ups, depending on the camera make and model. For true macro (and I confess I don't really know how that's defined), then you'd need to invest in a macro lens - and we're talking some serious dosh there.

[jomifl]

For close ups of 3 dimensional things like jewellry a macro lense is good. A wide angle lens 28-35mm on a film slr is very useful as it has a large depth of field so that you can get it all in focus. You will though need very close focussing (down to an inch or so ) The zeiss flektogon is very good and is available with mounts to suit most cameras. You can use a standard lens with extension tubes, but depth of field may become a problem. What kind of slr do you have?

[johnny37]

Thanks for the replies. My wife runs a jewellery business and the results on her website with a compact camera are less than satisfactory. I assume an SLR would be better but I dont want to spend big bucks. Jessops are selling an entry level Nikon D3000 with 18-55mm lens for £335. As an add-on they are offering a Tamron 70-300mm lens for £119. As all these lens figures mean little to me (at the moment) I dont know whether I would need the extra lens.

[saxy_jag]

Johnny, I have the exact same setup. I bought the D3000 a year ago when it first came out, and I had the lens for my birthday. My only complaint is that, now I'm progressing a little, I need a little more from it sometimes than it can offer me - focussing speed, for instance. Other than that I can't fault it at all. It's still consistently coming top as an entry level DSLR in comparative reviews, so well worth a look. If you can afford the lens as well, I'd say go for it. Otherwise you probably find yourself wishing you had done. Some of my (very amateur) photos from it are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellymack/ - anything since last August was on the D3000.

Jessops went through a bit of a bad patch, service-wise, but they seem to have picked up over the past couple of years and are a decent company to deal with - just try not to go on a Saturday!

[Fitzer]

Johnny37, as per the other replies, if you're looking for a camera to take good close up pictures then an SLR is not necessary, the standard lens that comes with most SLRs will not focus closely enough to do the job. Check to see if your current compact has a macro mode, this normally works extremely well for such shots. You can get macro lenses for SLRs but using them is quite tricky as they have a very narrow depth of field so some parts of the item of jewellery are in focus and others aren't. The macro mode on compact cameras don't have this effect so much because of the physical aspect of a small sensor and short focal length. Neither of the lenses you have quoted will take macro photographs although they are very good starter lenses.
I've just taken this http://i442.photobuck...9/F1tzer/IMG_0196.jpg with no preparation at all with my Canon SX200is compact, the other pictures in that album were taken with my Canon 30D with 60mm macro lens, not a vast degree of difference except in cost. Actually that's not strictly true but by the time something has been reduced to go on the web the differences are much reduced. Sorry it's a bit rambling but unless you're interested in the more 'artistic' side of photography an SLR is a bit over the top, just my opinion mind you.

[Fitzer]

Just realised the link doesn't give you access to the other pictures here's one <a href="http://s442.photobucket.com/albums/qq14
9/F1tzer/?action=view&current=post-47-1230640
484.jpg"
target="_blank"><img src="http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq149
/F1tzer/post-47-1230640484.jpg"
border="0" alt="Artelier Chronograph"></a>

[Fitzer]

Oops, try http://i442.photobuck...ost-47-1230640484.jpg

[saxy_jag]

I will agree with you Fitzer, that a good quality compact will usually take photos of a high enough quality for the web. I don't think, either, that Johnny needs to go to the expense of a true macro lens. Were he looking for shots of insects and flowers, maybe so, but not for jewellery and certainly not at what seems to be a novice level.

Canon's range of compacts and bridge cameras is excellent (I started with a Canon compact), and I'm hearing very good things about Panasonic too. The latter use Leica lenses, which are some of the best in the world.

Johnny, for information, a bridge camera usually looks and feels similar to an SLR, but doesn't usually have interchangeable lenses. They're good if you like the feel of a bigger camera but don't want the hassle of changing lenses all the time or, as Fitzer says, you don't want to take your work into more artistic realms.

[jomifl]

I just tried my 4.2 megapixel Benq compact on macro setting and a matchbox fills the frame. This will blow up to about A4 size with acceptable definition. Quite cheap.

[johnny37]

Thanks for all the input. The picture of the watch is excellent. Saxy - are you Ellymack? Cannot see any pictures from August on the link. I have a Fuji 10mp compact with a macro function (another Jessops bargain!). My shots do not seem quite good enough. I was hoping a 'cheap' SLR might be better. From what is said above the answer is 'not neccessarily'. Perhaps it is the lighting. I use a flash. Should that be OK? Off the point but I was taking some pictures the other day outdoors in bright sunlight and could hardly see the screen. Is that a good enough reason to buy a cheap SLR? If I decide to go that route does the Nikon have a macro function that works without the need to buy a macro lens? Again off the point, does it have a delay function? We will also want to take bees, flowers, etc.

[saxy_jag]

Sorry Johnny, what I meant was that anything on the photostream that's been taken since last August has been taken on the D3000, so this should give you an idea of what it's capable of in amateur hands - and yes, Ellymack is my artistic nom-de-plume. Some of the earlier stuff, around 2008, was taken on a Canon compact.

The D3000 does have a macro function, as do most DSLRs at this end of the market (ie decent quality, beginner level camera). It's a good priced camera whether or not it's on special offer, as Nikon are some of the priciest around. I use Nikon because I've used them before and it's my personal choice. You might also want to look at the Canon and Sony ranges (Sony bought out Konica Minolta and use the Minolta lens technology, and it would have been my second choice to a Nikon). In a slightly lower price bracket, but still worth a look, are the Pentax and Olympus ranges.

I suggest you nip down to your newsagent and grab a copy of photography magazine that does reviews (Digital Camera Essentials is my favourite - they have a group test of sub £500 DSLRs this month) and pick out one or two that you think might be suitable for need and budget, then go down to your camera shop and try them. The best camera in the world is useless for you if it doesn't feel comfortable in your hands.

[johnny37]

Sorry to be a pain but I'm still a bit confused even after watching a video from Cameralab. Does a 18-55mm lens do close-ups of small objects or would I need a macro lens?

ps My local PC World is selling a Sony Alpha for £290 with lens.

[johnny37]

The Sony has 14mp. The Nikon only has 10mp. Does this matter?

[Fitzer]

You'd need to find what the minimum focus distance is for the supplied lenses, best bet would be to take something the size you need to photograph with you to the shop and try them both out. Minimum distances are give from the object to the sensor plane in the camera not the front of the lens by the way, the sensor plane is normally marked on the camera body by a circle with a horizontal line through it and will be towars the back of the body. If you are having problems using the compact because of the flash reflecting off the items just use a little desktop tripod, switch the flash off, use the self timer mode and let the camera take an exposure of a couple of seconds or so. Also, if your pictures are coming out 'grainy' it could be because the camera is choosing the ISO speed and will go for a high number to try and decrease the exposure time. If you can, set the camera to use an ISO of 100 or 200, if you use a tripod then the length of exposure won't matter much. PS. You use the self timer to prevent camera shake from you pressing the shutter.

[jno]

don't worry about megapixels (mp). The more you have the bigger you can blow up the picture but unless you actually want photos 4ft wide they're not that much use.

[johnny37]

Thanks all.