anyone used the sony DT 30/2.8 Macro SAM lens?

[stevecim]

I need a macro lens , for jewellery product shots, is the 30/2.8 MAcro SAM (has a good price $213) lens any good? is 30mm to short?
other options I'm looking at are

Sony 50/2.8 macro $517
Sony 100mm/2.8 macro $713
Tamron 90/2.8 SP macro $365

cheers, stephen

[Greg Beetham]

I think you would have to get very close to get the magnification with a 30 macro, I’d get something like the 90 or 100 macro, both of those should do the job, if some items are very tiny you could get a set of tubes as well. I don’t know how small your subjects are exactly, it’s hard to imagine you would need to make something as small as a fly cover 2/3rds of the viewfinder for example but then I guess cut stones in some applications can be pretty small. (Sigma makes a 105 as well I think, or used too)
Greg

[Dr. Harout]

I have the 30/2.8 and it is a gem (as DK would put it).
I still use it and will always use it as long as I use an APS-C camera.
Quality wise it is superb, but as Greg has already pointed the issues you have to define exactly what kind or size of jewellery you are willing to shoot.

[stevecim]

mainly beaded bracelets, rings, pendants, earrings....
have a look at www.angelinequinn.com

and you will see I'm really having trouble with the photos

Cheers, Stephen

[Dr. Harout]

Hmm, I have never done such but my guess is to go to 50mm and up.

[Greg Beetham]

Those small product shots don't look too bad and I'm not sure a macro lens would improve them all that much on the larger items where it’s the dof that’s the important thing, careful selection of f-stop, distance and magnification is the only control you have really, apart from lighting and maybe stacking, but stacking ideally needs to be done on a rack so you don't alter the focus on the lens (that can alter the magnification). At a guess the small items could benefit from a macro lens for sure, but with those large items with lots of depth I would doubt that a macro would accomplish much more than say a good standard zoom that can focus reasonable close, maybe the Sigma 70-300 APO would be a good choice, you would have to ask someone that has one to try it on a few similar shots of smallish items that have depth, David has one or had one but I don’t think he is around at the moment.
Greg

[stevecim]

thanks all, I had a play with a 50mm marco lens in a store, when I get home tonight , I'll set my sigma to 50mm and see what I get,
At present, at 200mm and 60cm focus distance, I only get DOF of around 0.31cm and at 100mm the DoF only grows to 1.42cm at f16. I still have to make quite a large crop. That's why I was hoping a macro lens could help (all the online info I've read on jewellery photo. say you need a macro ? ) I have never owned a real macro lens so dont know what can be achieved with them

[Greg Beetham]

Thing is the normal method of using a macro lens is quite different to using a standard lens, (I doubt a standard 50mm lens will be of any use in judging what a 50 macro can do) with a macro lens you set AF off (it’s a nuisance) and rack out the barrel to a magnification of your choice and then move yourself and camera back and forth to get focus, preferably on a focus rack mounted on a tripod for utmost steadiness. If after checking the result in the VF you need more or less magnification just rack the barrel in or out and try again (only takes a moment), if you change magnification you will have to move the camera forward or back. The main handicap as always is that the closer you get the shallower the dof is so you would have to find a point where there is the least trade off in magnification vs. dof.
That should take care of the small items with very good IQ provided you can arrange good lighting at the same time, (a ring flash would be good if Sony had one) the large items might even be ok with a 100 macro I’m not sure, testing required, I think with a 50 you would still have to get too close to get the magnification and then dof would suffer (on all subjects).
Actually the 24-105 doesn’t do a bad job, I did a quick and dirty couple of shots just to see if the quality was reasonable (with camera in one hand and flash in the other) but with proper support and better lighting arrangements I think it could do the job on the larger items.
Greg
First one was with a 12mm Kenko tube behind the lens but at only f11, the second was with no tube at f16. (both just camera jpegs)

DSC04176.jpg (183.18 KiB) Viewed 5347 times

DSC04178.jpg (221.8 KiB) Viewed 5347 times

[bfitzgerald]

Only advice I have is first decide what focal length lens you are looking for. Whilst primarily a macro lens is used for just that..erm macro, it can also double up for something else depending on what you have in mind.
Personally whilst the 30mm Sony looks decent optics wise and is cheap, I'd rather have a longer focal length (if you have a 35mm f1.8 or 50mm it might make a difference) so I'm all up for the 90mm Tamron, which on APS-C gives you 135mm odd, which is just about ideal for candid shooting.

The 100mm macro Sony/Minolta is a super lens, but optically it's so close to the Tamron 90mm (I'd call it a tie possibly even a slight advantage to the 90mm) that I have to say IMO the Tamron is a stand out bargain and it's not worth the extra outlay for the 100mm. Both have a focus limiter which helps with AF speeds for non super close up shots.

The 50mm wouldn't interest me as much because I have a 50mm prime anyway, trying a different focal length can be useful at times.

[David Kilpatrick]

The 30mm macro is an excellent lens, I have used one for some time. It required a very close position for macro work and can get in the way of lighting, and provides a rather steep perspective (at 1:1, if you check my website report, it is actually close to being a 24mm lens).

David

[pakodominguez]

mainly beaded bracelets, rings, pendants, earrings....
have a look at http://www.angelinequinn.com

and you will see I'm really having trouble with the photos

Cheers, Stephen

On an APS camera, I think the 50mm will work better for jewelry than the 30mm. For the rest you are underexposing a little bit, you'll need to improve lighting and a zest of composition...



Regards