General question about how to use A Sigma 50mm Macro lens for jewelry photos

Hello everyone. I'm a total newbie and happen to make jewelry a little bit on the side. I got a hold of a nice Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX Macro lens for older canons. I don't have a camera but am really interested in getting one that will work with this lens and take up close photos in a lightbox of my silver and black jewelry. (Sterling Silver with black enamel normally).

If I get something like an AE-1 Program or an A1, what film and settings do you recommend I try? The lens I'm told only works in manual focus mode which is fine for macro anyways. I have never used a film camera or a dslr before but I am a fast learner and like to experiment.

Would black and white film help with the problem of highly reflective silver that is difficult to photograph?

I also have no idea where to take film and have it digitally stored when printed.


Thanks for any insight.

Rick

Rick,

I cannot help you with your lens or a camera. I know nothing about Canon products. An only thing I can mention to you is that with 50mm focal length, you will have to get awfully close to your subject - which makes lighting a bit more difficult... A bit longer (say 100mm) will make it easier.

But, if you are going to shoot highly reflective subjects and in macro, what I'd suggest is for you to use a "light box", "soft box", "light tent" or whatever it is called. (you can search on Amazon by those terms) What this is, is a box made out of acrylic or a white fabric all around and diffuse your lighting around the subject (jewelry). Any ordinary lighting method will produce a "hot spot" and also your subject will reflect and show the surrounding. This type of method avoids all that.

It shouldn't make any difference what film or even B&W. Certain type is better a capturing broard brightness range than others - but your print and your monitor an do far less of that. So your goal is to adjust the lighting to keep it well within it.

If you are going to take it to have it processed (by someone else), color will be easier. If you are going to do it yourself, of course, whatever you are capable of processing it will be the choice. (usually B&W)

As to where to get it scanned, scanning topic is prohibited on APUG except for very narrow range of discussions. Besides, I don't know the answer to that. There aren't many left who will provide processing/scanning service, anyway. Dwayne's keep showing up on this forum.

And... welcome to APUG.

Thank you for your information. And sorry I didn't know about the rule against discussing the scanning of negatives. I will remember that.
I see you are in Central Florida. I'm in Cocoa Beach area.
I do have one of those folding lightboxes already. And even with it, I still have "hot spots" on my highly polished silver when I photograph it with my point and shoot digital camera.

The reason I purchased the 50mm macro lens is because someone told me that I should actually avoid the 100mm macro lenses because those are only for trying to photograph insects from a bit further away. I thought with a focusing rail and tripod it was actually desirable to get really close to the jewelry for macro shots. The purpose is to have photographs of the jewelry to put on websites.

Thanks and I like this forum. I guess I will start reading and learning.

Hi again.

How big are your pieces? I do have a 105mm myself (NIKON). What kind of jewelry do you produce? Are they rings? Earrings? Pendants? or something much larger?

As you get closer and closer, proper lighting will be more and more difficult. There is such thing as "ring flash" that goes on your lens for very close shots, but we are talking about yet, additional equipment.

How are you lighting with light box that you have? How far away are the light source from the box? You'd want it further away than close.

For this kind of close macro shot, tripod is necessary. Closer you get, focusing will get more and more tricky. Even a little bit of movement will throw off focus. I'm not sure about rail. You can easily move the subject....

If ring flash is too expensive or hard to find - you can make your own, using LED lamps. Search on google for examples.
Also keep your lens closed on f16 or even on f22, f32 - to get less out of focus area (if that is what you want - usually it is).

And welcome to APUG !

Thanks, everyone. The subjects would be rings, pendants, and earrings. I currently have two cheap lights that came with the lightbox and that's it so far. I will look into the ring flash.

Are there any other quality 35mm film cameras that I should buy besides the A1 or AE-1 that will work with this Sigma lens? Is it true that with an adapter, the lens might work with Nikons or other cameras? I need to pick out a camera to try.

Sigma

I have a Sigma Macro 50mm f2.8 lens. I don't think the choice of any particular film Canon body model is very important as long as the lens mounts on it. I would like to mention just for your information that if you mounted the lens on an APS digital body the lens would work like a 75mm lens. Some people use a digital body as a kind of quick "Polaroid" to take test shots for the serious images they take on film. Just a suggestion.

[ I got a hold of a nice Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX Macro lens for older canons. I don't have a camera but am really interested in getting one that will work with this lens and take up close photos in a lightbox of my silver and black jewelry. (Sterling Silver with black enamel normally).

I shoot with Sigma SA for both film and DSLR and I did not know that Sigma made a 50mm Macro for any manual focus bodies, all the reference I can find are for auto focus. I have the auto focus version of the lens, I think it is quite good. If it is a FD mount then any FD camera will do, T 90 and T 70 were among the last FD bodies Canon made, the T90 was last pro level FD body, F 1 or F 1 new have interchange viewfinders so using a critical focus finder is good for macro work.

PDH said:

[ I got a hold of a nice Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX Macro lens for older canons. I don't have a camera but am really interested in getting one that will work with this lens and take up close photos in a lightbox of my silver and black jewelry. (Sterling Silver with black enamel normally).

I shoot with Sigma SA for both film and DSLR and I did not know that Sigma made a 50mm Macro for any manual focus bodies, all the reference I can find are for auto focus. I have the auto focus version of the lens, I think it is quite good. If it is a FD mount then any FD camera will do, T 90 and T 70 were among the last FD bodies Canon made, the T90 was last pro level FD body, F 1 or F 1 new have interchange viewfinders so using a critical focus finder is good for macro work.

Click to expand...

You probably correct as the lens I have has a switch for Autofocus or Manual. However, the Autofocus I was told gives an error message when used so I'm going to just use the manual focus which I was told still works perfectly. The exact lens is 50mm f/2.8 EX macro and is for Canon. I assume it's an older lens so I think that does mean FD mount?

I'm a total newbie, I was just told that the lens will work for older film cameras or on a digital camera that is 10 or 12 megapixels or less.

Rick1000 said:

You probably correct as the lens I have has a switch for Autofocus or Manual. However, the Autofocus I was told gives an error message when used so I'm going to just use the manual focus which I was told still works perfectly. The exact lens is 50mm f/2.8 EX macro and is for Canon. I assume it's an older lens so I think that does mean FD mount?

I'm a total newbie, I was just told that the lens will work for older film cameras or on a digital camera that is 10 or 12 megapixels or less.

Click to expand...

It is Canon EOS mount, prior to autofocus Canon used a mount called the FD, the A1 and AE1 are both FD, you need an EOS mount like a EOS 1 or 1n, the EOS 1s was the pro level body, lots of other choices, some very reasonable like the Elan 7. By the way there are only a few converters that allowed a FD lens on a EOS body and don't know of any converts that allow for a EOS lens to work on an FD body.

Hi Rick

Could you post a pic of your lens, please?
One with a digi-somethingy would do. Please, do one of the mount.
That would be nice and will clear for what camera would it be.

If it is Canon, then is for EOS cameras. No FD mount camera had a AF/MF switch on the lens.
Whoever sold you the lens knew a thing or 2, just not all the picture.
Some Sigmas will not work with later EOS bodies like the 3.
I know that because I had to havea Sigma EX 70-200mm re-shiped for the 3.

Early EOS bodies should work fine.
Recommend an EOS 600/630.

PDH
I'm almost sure Sigma did an early MF only macro lens. But, I might be wrong or making some confusion here.

Edit: It took me awhile to write this, since then people have chimed in that your lens is EOS not FD. That changes the body recommendation, but not much else.

I was just photographing rings last night. I used a foldio light tent, an AE-1, and a Canon FD 100mm F4.

I'm not sure who disuaded you from the 100mm, but I prefer it to the 50mm Macros (I have one of those on my Olympus 35mm kit) for small stuff. It has a smallish minimum focus distance. It is much closer than the zoom 70-210 Macro I have. The 70-200 zoom is definitely hard to use for small stuff.

On the 100mm, the ring ends up taking up the middle 1/4 or 1/3 of the image at minimum focus distance. Depending on vibration in the camera, and film used, I can probably blow that up to look OK taking up the majority of an 8x10 print. I'm not certain, I haven't tried yet.

I've got mine setup on a sturdy tripod, and I use the self-timer (the AE-1's electronic self time is fantastic btw, much better than some of the clockwork mechanical ones I've used recently - none I've delt with seemed to age well) to get vibration free shots. The AE-1 is also good because it can do 2 second exposures (most my other cameras only go up to 1 second). Definitely get an AE-1 (Progrma or not). The AT-1 has a less awesome light meter read-out (but otherwise is a fine choice - I have on sitting beside me on my desk right now), and the A-1 can't do full manual (Aperture Priority only I believe).

As for specific setting, that depends on how much light your light tent puts out. Mine, being a small little thing running off a 9v battery, does quite well at F8, 1 second, using ISO100 film. The light meter in the AE-1 is really good for this. Just put a gray card (if you don't have that, a light gray t-shirt) into your light tent where the jewelry will go. Set the film ISO on the camera to what you are using, and half press the shutter button. The light meter will read the suggest aperture value. F4 will probably have part of the ring out of focus (not sure with 50mm, definitely does with 100mm), F8 will have it all in focus. I'd aim for F5.6 or F8. Adjust your shutter speed until the light meter reads the aperture value you want. Set that aperture, pull out the t-shirt, put in your jewelry, refocus, and you're good to go.

As for what film to use, I highly suggest Delta 100. Since you have a light tent and can do long exposures, ISO 100 is a good choice, and the Delta films handle shiney metal in a very pleasing way. If you can't develop B&W film locally, just go with Ilford XP2, it's fantastic and gets developed as a colour (C41) film, so any film lab can do it. It is also very fine grained and handles highlight details (blow-outs) well.

Most film labs these days (every one in my town) offers scanning services when film is processed. If you use a mailer and send the film away to be processed, they will certainly offer scanning (check the APUG sponsors, I think there is at least one US based mail-order lab sponsoring APUG).

As tkimya said, there is a big difference in what you'll get enlarging the photo from the negative onto photopaper, vs what you'll see on the screen from a negative scan. Scans greatly increase grain, and limit the actual tonal range of the film (not to mention the limitations of your monitor). If the best image quality is your goal (say if you want to hang a photo in your studio), getting the negatives printed in a traditional dark room is defintiely the way to go (I've have a couple of negatives 'digitally enlarged' locally, and I've always been disappointed).

If your goal is just to post pictures to the web, getting a FD to micro four thrids adapter and picking up a cheap m43 digital camera (any Panasonic G, GF, or Olypmus PEN P, PM, PL) will be faster and much easier. That's outside the realm of this forum, so I won't go into it further; but it is a faster way to get your photos on the web, and has similar quality to scanned negatives.
Edit: Since it is an EOS lens, just buy an old Digital Rebel. Anything made sicne 2008 will be just fine for posting to the web.

Lastly, have fun!

Oh, I see. Glad I asked you guys then. I had no idea that Canon changed the mounts for any of their cameras even before there were digital cameras. I mistakenly assumed there was only one kind of mount until their cameras were digital.

Darn. This makes my choices a bit less than I thought. So to ask one last stupid question....... why is not possible to just find an adapter to fit a EOS mounted lens like mine to an FD camera if you only want to use manual focus? I would think that if you were to use any lens in manual focus mode, they could work with any camera, new or old.

I'm probably missing something important like the way the camera bodies operate.

Sorry guys I'm so badly a newbie.

Here are photos of the lens since now it sounds like it may be for a EOS mount?

I'm at work so there are photos from the web of it until I can photograph the mount under the cap.


So with these photos, do I have to get an EOS mount camera or is it possible to use any canon? Only the manual focus works on it according to the seller.

Thanks,
Rick

Perhaps afterall I should just get a digital Rebel like has been suggested.

Thanks guys, I think I have what I need now and will report my progress soon.

Rick1000 said:

Hello everyone.

(snip)

Would black and white film help with the problem of highly reflective silver that is difficult to photograph?

I also have no idea where to take film and have it digitally stored when printed.


Thanks for any insight.

Rick

Click to expand...

Rick,

For photographing highly reflective silver (and often, the jewels attached thereto) you may want to look into the greater advantages of using polarised illumination, and partially cross-polarising with a filter mounted on the front of the camera lens to allow a superior 'control' of the reflected highlights.

Ken

With such a set-up you are able to better 'adjust' the highlight reflections

Rick1000 said:

Oh, I see. Glad I asked you guys then. I had no idea that Canon changed the mounts for any of their cameras even before there were digital cameras. I mistakenly assumed there was only one kind of mount until their cameras were digital.

Darn. This makes my choices a bit less than I thought. So to ask one last stupid question....... why is not possible to just find an adapter to fit a EOS mounted lens like mine to an FD camera if you only want to use manual focus? I would think that if you were to use any lens in manual focus mode, they could work with any camera, new or old.

I'm probably missing something important like the way the camera bodies operate.

Click to expand...

The FD mount had a much closer lens to film distance than the EOS mount. Canon did make a FD to EOS adaptor for few years so that those with very expensive FD lens could use them on EOS bodies, there are few 3rd party adaptors but the resulting quality is not very good. I don't recall ever seeing a EOS to FD adaptor at all, I don't think an EOS lens can even fit into a FD mount let along focus. So you need an EOS body. To manual focus just turn off the auto focus, I don't have much experience with EOS bodies, lots of threads on various Canon gear to look at.

KenS said:

Rick,

For photographing highly reflective silver (and often, the jewels attached thereto) you may want to look into the greater advantages of using polarised illumination, and partially cross-polarising with a filter mounted on the front of the camera lens to allow a superior 'control' of the reflected highlights.

Ken

With such a set-up you are able to better 'adjust' the highlight reflections

Click to expand...

Ahhhh. This sounds pretty neat. I will definitely look into this because as I said before, even with the lightbox, I still get hot-spots when using my point and shoot camera.

Silver is the most reflective metal known to man when it's properly polished.

Thank you for the info, I had no idea what that was called before. I heard of filters but didn't know the terms of polarized-illumination.

Annnnd OK then, I've shot jewelry(silver/turquoise) with 55mm Micro Nikkor and extension tube & it was fine.

Your lens will focus more closely without an extension than mine did. The magnification ratios on the lens say it goes to 1:1
and that means that a 1" tall subject will be 1" tall on the film.
Since I don't use one of those accursed electronic sort of camera things. I have to guess(SWAG) that you may have a slightly greater working distance.
When you use your light box are you turning the room lights off?
Look at the piece through the eyepiece, if you tilt it the reflections should change either position or shape. Sometimes it only takes a fraction of an inch, couple of mm. Tilt front to back, back to front or side to side and it can be eliminated or minimized
some folks my want to see that sparkling reflection if it's just a highlight.

Once upon a time "dulling spray" was available.
Hmmmm, yep, spray it on and wipe it off. It was made to be easily removed. Just like matte clear coat except for the removing part. Haven't looked for it for years but it should be somewhere on the interweb.

*The accursed electric image maker may actually be better for YOUR use.
I CAN"T BELIEVE I WROTE THAT!!!!!!!!!
Not too easily with fine engraving, but not hard.

EOS AF lenses require electronic coupling with the body to control the aperture ... so no adapters are available.

You can get on older EOS camera pretty cheap.

To help eliminate those hot spots AKA specular highlights, you can try to diffuse the flash/lights even more than what the light box does. In a pinch, printer paper with a space in between the paper and the light box will do. If you look at the inside of a lot of soft boxes, the companies will put a second diffusion layer inside.

Few short tips: The closer the light is, the "softer" the light will be. The further away, the harder. That's why when you hold your hand out in mid-day sun, you can see every little wrinkle in stark detail. At dusk, the whole sky is lit about the same like a giant softbox so the light fills in those cracks in your hand. That's actually a good way to test the hardness/softness of ambient light.

Flash is controlled by aperture, ambient is controlled by shutter speed. If you're using hot lights (constant), then you're best off finding the sweet spot for your lens (f8-f/16 depending on depth of focus required) and just running shutter up and down (or letting the camera if it has an Av (aperture priority) mode) to control overall exposure.

50mm will be OK but not ideal. I shoot products for a day job and almost everything (people included!) just plain looks better from a bit further away. Use what you have until you know why you want to change it, so the 50mm will be fine for starting out.

You could try and find an EOS 3, they have a great viewfinder and very good metering. I have one and love the handling and viewfinder, but it is somewhat of a tank.

Using B&W film will give you lots of latitude for errors in exposure but I have found most people expect color.

Can anyone confirm for sure that this is a "full frame" lens suitable for film?

And not an "APS-C" lens?

MattKing said:

Can anyone confirm for sure that this is a "full frame" lens suitable for film?

And not an "APS-C" lens?

Click to expand...

I have the same lens in Sigma SD mount, if is full frame, all lens for a cropped sensor has D in the nomenclature.

I was an art director and later creative director for a huge US retailer and Jewelry was about 80% of my thang. After a decade of directing it I found I was pretty good at shooting it as well.

I've done jewelry 4x5 film, MF film, really grainy pushed 35mm film, and digital.

Some notes:

Very tough to shoot small products with a non-movement (like a 4x5) camera.

The "light-tent" thing can give you some pretty dull, me-too stuff. Or it can be the only way to shoot some things. Usually I'd do a large overhead softbox and specific reflectors.

I used small grid heads a LOT... for controlled sparkle, warm directional and a little harder - really nice for faceted stones. A fresnel hot light is good for that too, especially if you have a "set" with fabric or props, it gives you sort of a "sunlight falling across the scene" look. And I'd cut up little bits of galvanized flashing with scissors and bend into "V"s and lay on their sides for precise reflecting.

I never, ever, ever saw anyone (esp.not the $3k a day jewelry masters we hired often) use Dulling Spray. You want to show what the product is, not change the product. Sure, we used it on TV screens and stuff, never jewelry.

To get rings standing upright - we would stick rings to hard surfaces with tacky wax and trim it so it was just out of view. If we were shooting on fabric or paper, we would have little nails soldered onto the rings (if they were consumer CZ stuff anyway). After the shoot, the nails could be soldered off and the rings replated, not worth it for mall-type rings that retailed under $100 though.

Often - very often after Scitex and then Photoshop came out... we would have all kinds of little bits of silver or gold reflectors in the shot, to open up the sides or rings, etc... we'd do a sheet with and a sheet without and have them composited.

I know it's a baaad subject and I EXPECT TO BE FLAMED, but - unless you're doing something where a specific film or photo technique is the "star" (hey, I'd love to do multi-colored gums of small beautiful products, to set a mood along with crisp product shots)... there's about zero reason to shoot jewelry analog, unless it's just for fun or the challenge or something. Your shots will (most likely) never, ever look like a properly digitally shot and retouched version. If you want to do this for retail or marketing or promo use - the competition's stuff will always have that extra kick and perfection. Jewelry is TOUGH and shooting jewelry for marketing needs every tool in the arsenal.