Which lens for close up's (Nikon D50)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Geoff Coope, Nov 23, 2006.

  1. Geoff Coope

    Geoff Coope Guest

    Hi all

    I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday camera
    (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).

    I see there are 3 kit options most common

    18-55mm
    18-70mm
    55-200mm

    From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.

    So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?

    Correct me if i'm wrong.

    Thanks
    Anim
    Geoff Coope, Nov 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Geoff Coope

    Guest

    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?


    Hi Geoff/Anim, where did you read that the 18-70 is poor for closeups?
    It focuses at 15", which is "close enough" for a lot of shots ... not
    really macro range, but it's pretty good. Here's an example I shot
    last week:
    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=293777682&size=o

    I'm really not familiar with the 18-55, but I've read the same reviews
    that you have that claim the 18-70 is a better lens. I quite like it,
    and I've seen quite a few used ones up for sale at good prices now that
    the 18-200 and 18-135s are available.

    Drew
    , Nov 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Geoff Coope

    Robert Haar Guest

    On 2006/11/23 10:37 AM, "Geoff Coope" <> wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday camera
    > (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).


    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm


    Either the 18-55 or the 18-70 will be reasonable starting points, but the
    18-70 lens is better overall. I have the 18-70 and get fairly sharp images
    at distances starting at about 2 feet.

    For real close up pictures of flowers and small scale nature scenes, I
    bought a Nikon Macro lens - the 60 mm AF Micro Nikkor. If you at all serious
    about close ups, I would recommend either that lens or its 100mm cousin.
    Robert Haar, Nov 23, 2006
    #3
  4. Geoff Coope

    Geoff Coope Guest

    Hi guys,

    Nice image. I think I will try and get the 18-70 kit as my starting point
    and see how I get on.

    II read in Google groups somewhere that the 18-70 wasn't ideal for close-ups
    (scibbled note in front of me as proof :D ) which kinda rang an alarm bell
    but I guess each lens has its best purpose, I was trying to get a lens that
    covers all my purposes generally then if im not happy start to get specific
    lens for differnent shots.

    The 18-70 gets a best overall rating I see although there are also many
    happy users of the stock 18-55 lens too.

    I guess it comes to money too. It will be an extra £100 for me to get the
    18-70 in a bundle and about £160 if I try get it separately.

    I've found the D50 + 18-70mm kit for £488 Inc vat so far.

    Cheers
    Anim




    "Geoff Coope" <> wrote in message
    news:5fj9h.51777$...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday
    > camera (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).
    >
    > I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm
    >
    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >
    > Correct me if i'm wrong.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anim
    >
    Geoff Coope, Nov 23, 2006
    #4
  5. Geoff Coope

    Charlie Choc Guest

    On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:00:34 -0500, Robert Haar <> wrote:

    >For real close up pictures of flowers and small scale nature scenes, I
    >bought a Nikon Macro lens - the 60 mm AF Micro Nikkor. If you at all serious
    >about close ups, I would recommend either that lens or its 100mm cousin.


    I'll second that. An amazingly sharp macro lens; it's good for portraits and
    general use as well.
    --
    Charlie...
    http://www.chocphoto.com
    Charlie Choc, Nov 23, 2006
    #5
  6. "Geoff Coope" <> wrote:
    >Hi guys,
    >
    >Nice image. I think I will try and get the 18-70 kit as my starting point
    >and see how I get on.
    >
    >II read in Google groups somewhere that the 18-70 wasn't ideal for close-ups
    >(scibbled note in front of me as proof :D ) which kinda rang an alarm bell


    There is no such thing as a zoom that is preferred for closeups!

    ;-)

    >but I guess each lens has its best purpose, I was trying to get a lens that
    >covers all my purposes generally then if im not happy start to get specific
    >lens for differnent shots.


    I'd go with the 18-70mm.

    Then, to get closer, think in terms of first a diopter lense or
    perhaps a set of auto extension tubes (maybe $125).

    Diopter lenses come in different strengths (where a +1 gives
    less magnification than a +3) and also in models with either a
    single lense or double lenses (which are "achromatic" and suffer
    far less from chromatic aberations). The achromatic variety are
    harder to find and cost significantly more ($50-100). A set of
    cheap ones will, however, definitely let you know if that gives
    sufficient magification, and at $25 for a set they won't break
    the bank either.

    But to get *good* macro images, think about either a 90mm, 100mm
    or 105mm macro lenses. Virtually every brand is good compared
    to lenses not designed for macro work. Hence if you find, for
    example, a used 90mm macro lense made by Brand X that costs
    peanuts, it is almost certain to be sharper than anything you
    will ever get with any zoom lense!

    Note that the focal length of a macro lense basically determines
    the lense to subject distance. With a 50 or 60mm macro lense you
    can get 1:1 magnification, but only with the lense so close to the
    subject that it gets in the way of trying to illuminate the object.
    Ring lights are nice for that. But at anything close to 1:1 you'll
    find something closer to 100mm a lot easier to work with. (There
    are 180mm and longer macro lenses too, which are much preferred for
    objects like rattle snakes... :)

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 23, 2006
    #6
  7. Geoff Coope

    Roy G Guest

    "Geoff Coope" <> wrote in message
    news:5fj9h.51777$...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday
    > camera (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).
    >
    > I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm
    >
    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >
    > Correct me if i'm wrong.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anim

    There is no question.

    The 18 -70 is vastly superior to the 18 - 55 in every respect. Build
    quality, handling, and optically.

    The 18-55 and its bigger cousin the 55 - 200 must be about the worst ever
    lenses with a Nikon badge.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Nov 23, 2006
    #7
  8. Geoff Coope

    Guest

    > I'd go with the 18-70mm.
    >
    > Then, to get closer, think in terms of first a diopter lense or
    > perhaps a set of auto extension tubes (maybe $125).


    Hi Floyd, I've actually been looking for diopters for my 18-70. The
    issue is that it takes a less common filter size - 67mm - so the Nikon
    diopters (4T, 5T) don't fit! I think Canon makes a diopter that might
    fit, but it's a lot more expensive. Extension tubes might be a better
    bet with this lense, plus they'd be usable with other lenses down the
    road.

    Drew
    , Nov 23, 2006
    #8
  9. wrote:
    >> I'd go with the 18-70mm.
    >>
    >> Then, to get closer, think in terms of first a diopter lense or
    >> perhaps a set of auto extension tubes (maybe $125).

    >
    >Hi Floyd, I've actually been looking for diopters for my 18-70. The
    >issue is that it takes a less common filter size - 67mm - so the Nikon
    >diopters (4T, 5T) don't fit! I think Canon makes a diopter that might
    >fit, but it's a lot more expensive. Extension tubes might be a better
    >bet with this lense, plus they'd be usable with other lenses down the
    >road.


    The Nikon 4T (+2.9) is 52mm and the 5T (+1.5) is 62mm. The 6T
    (+2.9) is 62mm also, but has been discontinued, though it can be
    found used.

    I would expect that a 62mm to 67mm step-up ring would work for
    everything except perhaps vignetting when used wide open.

    The Canon achromatic +2.0 diopters are available in 72mm and
    77mm sizes. They are also more than twice the price.

    Olympus also has various achromatic diopters. The MCON-35
    (+2.9) has a 62mm lense thread and a 72mm filter thread, and
    like the Nikon units would require a step-up ring and might
    vignette when shooting wide open.

    It happens that I have an MCON-35, and I'm pretty sure I have a
    62-67mm step-up ring, so it would actually be possible for me to
    try it out on the 18-70mm lense and see what happens. I suppose
    I could also shoot a coin or something like that (or if the OP
    can describe what a "texture" is) using both that combination
    and a very sharp 105mm Kiron macro lense to demonstrate what one
    might expect.

    Would that be of any value to you?

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Geoff Coope

    Jim Guest

    "Geoff Coope" <> wrote in message
    news:5fj9h.51777$...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday
    > camera (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).

    How close? Almost any lens can take close up shots if something like 1/8
    full size.
    But, if you need full size (image is the same size as the subject) then by
    far the best choice is a macro lens.
    Nikon's 60mm f2.8 would fit this description, and you most definitely can
    use such a lens for general purpose photography.
    Jim
    >
    > I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm
    >
    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >
    > Correct me if i'm wrong.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anim
    >
    Jim, Nov 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > But to get *good* macro images, think about either a 90mm, 100mm
    > or 105mm macro lenses. Virtually every brand is good compared
    > to lenses not designed for macro work. Hence if you find, for
    > example, a used 90mm macro lense made by Brand X that costs
    > peanuts, it is almost certain to be sharper than anything you
    > will ever get with any zoom lense!
    >

    And Tamrons 90mm Macro gets good reviews, and is not terribly expensive
    (£300 or so I think)
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_90_28_nikon/index.htm

    > Note that the focal length of a macro lense basically determines
    > the lense to subject distance. With a 50 or 60mm macro lense you
    > can get 1:1 magnification, but only with the lense so close to the
    > subject that it gets in the way of trying to illuminate the object.
    > Ring lights are nice for that. But at anything close to 1:1 you'll
    > find something closer to 100mm a lot easier to work with. (There
    > are 180mm and longer macro lenses too, which are much preferred for
    > objects like rattle snakes... :)
    >

    Have you taken into account the crop factor converting the 60mm to a
    90mm in old money?

    Not a macro expert, just asking.

    /Martin
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Nov 24, 2006
    #11
  12. Geoff Coope

    Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > It happens that I have an MCON-35, and I'm pretty sure I have a
    > 62-67mm step-up ring, so it would actually be possible for me to
    > try it out on the 18-70mm lense and see what happens. I suppose
    > I could also shoot a coin or something like that (or if the OP
    > can describe what a "texture" is) using both that combination
    > and a very sharp 105mm Kiron macro lense to demonstrate what one
    > might expect.
    >
    > Would that be of any value to you?


    Hi Floyd, I would certainly be interested in this experiment,
    especially @ 70 mm (which is where I almost always do close ups), and
    wide open vs stopped down a bit. I just assumed that I needed a 67mm
    diopter, I didn't think that I could use a 62mm without a lot of
    vignetting. But if it works, that would be a nice, inexpensive way to
    get a little more macro out of this lense. The comparison to a nice
    real macro would be nice too... though it's not in budget for me right
    now. Cheers!

    Drew
    , Nov 24, 2006
    #12
  13. Geoff Coope wrote:
    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday camera
    > (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).
    >
    > I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm
    >
    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >
    > Correct me if i'm wrong.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anim


    Here is one angle. For good closeup work you will probably be wanting
    a supplemental (plus) set, i.e, close-up lens set. The expense of
    these sets depends a bit on diameter of the lens you are putting them
    on. Look at the filter aperture size of the lenses you mention, and
    see which lens has the cheapest closeup lens. Speed of the lens is not
    a big deal for closeups, as you are generally shooting large f/# (small
    aperture), and on a tripod to ease focusing and depth of field.

    I would agree that the long range one you mention doesn't sound the
    best for perspective reasons, though if you are photographing only 2D
    objects (cloth textures and such) the perspective may not be a factor.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Nov 24, 2006
    #13
  14. wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> It happens that I have an MCON-35, and I'm pretty sure I have a
    >> 62-67mm step-up ring, so it would actually be possible for me to
    >> try it out on the 18-70mm lense and see what happens. I suppose
    >> I could also shoot a coin or something like that (or if the OP
    >> can describe what a "texture" is) using both that combination
    >> and a very sharp 105mm Kiron macro lense to demonstrate what one
    >> might expect.
    >>
    >> Would that be of any value to you?

    >
    >Hi Floyd, I would certainly be interested in this experiment,
    >especially @ 70 mm (which is where I almost always do close ups), and
    >wide open vs stopped down a bit. I just assumed that I needed a 67mm
    >diopter, I didn't think that I could use a 62mm without a lot of
    >vignetting. But if it works, that would be a nice, inexpensive way to
    >get a little more macro out of this lense. The comparison to a nice
    >real macro would be nice too... though it's not in budget for me right
    >now. Cheers!
    >
    >Drew


    It won't happen over night, but I'll get back to you on this!

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Geoff Coope

    Bill Guest

    "Geoff Coope" <> wrote in message
    news:YKj9h.22906$...
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > Nice image. I think I will try and get the 18-70 kit as my starting
    > point and see how I get on.


    For most uses, like a walk around lense, the 18-70 will do much
    better. It's sharper, has better contrast, longer zoom range,
    full-time manual focus override, and internal focus which means the
    front element does not rotate nor change lense length during focusing.
    A better lense in almost every way, it costs a bit more, but it's a
    bargain for the optical quality.

    > II read in Google groups somewhere that the 18-70 wasn't ideal for
    > close-ups (scibbled note in front of me as proof :D ) which kinda
    > rang an alarm bell


    The maximum reproduction ratio for the 18-70 is 1:6.2 according to
    Nikon. That means the effective size of macro objects will appear
    about half the size of objects with the 18-55 at 1:3.2. That's
    probably what was meant when you read it wasn't good for macro.

    The new 18-135 has a ratio of 1:4.2, which is almost as good as the
    18-55, so that may be an option too. It has pretty good optics too,
    not quite up to the 18-70, but close, and the price will be about the
    same as the 18-70 or perhaps a bit less.

    > but I guess each lens has its best purpose, I was trying to get a
    > lens that covers all my purposes generally then if im not happy
    > start to get specific lens for differnent shots.


    The 18-70 could be good enough and it depends on what you want to do
    in macro. If you want to just take some basic close-up shots to
    manipulate later, it'll be fine.

    But if you want very detailed, sharp, and large reproduction ratios
    (1:1), then you need a proper macro lense for that kind of work:

    http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2160

    http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987

    Or similar lenses from a third-party company like Tamron, Sigma, or
    Tokina.
    Bill, Nov 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Geoff Coope

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:37:37 +0000, Geoff Coope wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday camera
    > (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).
    >
    > I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm
    >
    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >
    > Correct me if i'm wrong.


    When you say "fabric textures" do you mean the color pattern or the
    details of the weave? If the overall color pattern is what matters then
    either the 18-70 or the 18-55 should be OK, if you need the details of
    the weave then you really need either a good macro lens and extension
    tubes or a point-and-shoot with good macro capability.

    If macro work is paying-the-bills-important to you I'd go with a Canon
    rather than a Nikon--while individually Nikon's lenses are very good
    macro photography beyond 1:1 requires a system with extension tubes, flash,
    and possibly a bellows and for those pieces Canon gives you a lot more
    options.

    People have mentioned diopter lenses--these work but unless you have an
    achromatic set (which will cost about the same as a decent macro lens)
    they'll introduce chromatic aberration on top of what the lens already
    has--this may or may not be an issue for you depending on exactly what
    you're shooting. For not much more than a crappy set of diopters you can
    find a Coolpix 990 or 995 on ebay--they're only 3 megapixels and they
    aren't all that great for a lot of purposes but for macro they're quite
    remarkably good.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Nov 24, 2006
    #16
  17. "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >
    >If macro work is paying-the-bills-important to you I'd go with a Canon
    >rather than a Nikon--while individually Nikon's lenses are very good
    >macro photography beyond 1:1 requires a system with extension tubes, flash,
    >and possibly a bellows and for those pieces Canon gives you a lot more
    >options.


    You've got that kind of backwards?

    >People have mentioned diopter lenses--these work but unless you have an
    >achromatic set (which will cost about the same as a decent macro lens)


    The highest prices achromatic diopter that I've yet seen was
    less than the lowest priced macro lens.

    Typically achromatic diopters are less than $100 and macro
    lenses are more than three times that.

    >they'll introduce chromatic aberration on top of what the lens already
    >has--this may or may not be an issue for you depending on exactly what
    >you're shooting. For not much more than a crappy set of diopters you can
    >find a Coolpix 990 or 995 on ebay--they're only 3 megapixels and they
    >aren't all that great for a lot of purposes but for macro they're quite
    >remarkably good.


    A "crappy set of diopters" is probably $25 plus postage.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Geoff Coope

    Geoff Coope Guest

    Hi all

    I've been looking at some photo's of what the 18-70 lens can do and it seems
    (excuse my French) bloody amazing. There was a picture of a duck taken with
    a D70 using a 18-70mm and in my opinion, was superb.

    I did talk about macro lenses and wanted to capture detailed shots for
    texture. Here's why as I wasn't too clear.

    I'm a 3D Artist so as an example I've been asked to construct, in 3D, the
    stones from Stonehenge. I would need to capture the moss, erosion, stone
    texture, graffiti by Christopher Wren and any other number of textures on
    the stones. I'm assuming I can walk right upto the stones too. Using these
    photo's I "map" them onto a 3D version of the stones. These textures need
    to be high res for close up camera work (in 3D) and show the detail.
    Lighting and shadows needs to be removed from the mapped texture or
    minimized when taking the shot as this needs to be handled by the CG
    lighting system. 3D applications can fake bump, specular, light etc so I
    will need to experiment with what I capture with the camera and what I fudge
    in 3D to get the most flexible high quality texture. An even lighting
    across the photo would help for example.

    Another example would be to model a wasp in 3D. I find a dead wasp and take
    shots of it from top, front and side and use these as reference in my 3D
    application again. The better the detail in the photo the more accurate my
    3D model will be (photo used as reference only).

    Anyway. I've ordered the D50 and got it for £488 inc vat and delivery so
    that's a good deal compared to others found. My feeling at the moment is
    that the Stonehenge textures will be fine with what I've ordered but the
    wasp will require more specialized lens?

    Cheers
    Anim



    "Geoff Coope" <> wrote in message
    news:5fj9h.51777$...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens Kit
    > options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for use as
    > materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an everyday
    > camera (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).
    >
    > I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >
    > 18-55mm
    > 18-70mm
    > 55-200mm
    >
    > From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the 18-70
    > for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at close
    > range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >
    > So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >
    > Correct me if i'm wrong.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anim
    >
    Geoff Coope, Nov 25, 2006
    #18
  19. Geoff Coope

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:31:34 +0000, Geoff Coope wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > I've been looking at some photo's of what the 18-70 lens can do and it
    > seems (excuse my French) bloody amazing. There was a picture of a duck
    > taken with a D70 using a 18-70mm and in my opinion, was superb.
    >
    > I did talk about macro lenses and wanted to capture detailed shots for
    > texture. Here's why as I wasn't too clear.
    >
    > I'm a 3D Artist so as an example I've been asked to construct, in 3D,
    > the stones from Stonehenge. I would need to capture the moss, erosion,
    > stone texture, graffiti by Christopher Wren and any other number of
    > textures on the stones. I'm assuming I can walk right upto the stones
    > too. Using these photo's I "map" them onto a 3D version of the stones.
    > These textures need to be high res for close up camera work (in 3D) and
    > show the detail. Lighting and shadows needs to be removed from the
    > mapped texture or minimized when taking the shot as this needs to be
    > handled by the CG lighting system. 3D applications can fake bump,
    > specular, light etc so I will need to experiment with what I capture
    > with the camera and what I fudge in 3D to get the most flexible high
    > quality texture. An even lighting across the photo would help for
    > example.


    I mean you no offense by this, but given the questions you've asked so
    far, I don't think you're near ready for something of this magnitude.

    Here's a couple of exercises--if you own a house or have a friend who owns
    one, shoot the exterior of the house in the degree of detail you want,
    without leaning a ladder against the house (if you propose to lean a
    ladder against the stones I suspect that someone at the Heritage Trust
    will pop a blood vessel). That will give you a handle on the equipment you
    need and the time required. Once you've done that, find a local landmark
    about 25 feet tall and get permission to shoot that, then shoot it. Now
    you've got a portfolio that shows that you can actually do this kind of
    work and you've got most of the specialized equipment you need and you can
    plan a schedule and costs. At this point you're ready to approach the
    Heritage Trust about gaining the required access to Stonehenge. And by
    that time you'll have put at least an order of magnitude more money into
    this than the cost of the camera.

    > Another example would be to model a wasp in 3D. I find a dead wasp and
    > take shots of it from top, front and side and use these as reference in
    > my 3D application again. The better the detail in the photo the more
    > accurate my 3D model will be (photo used as reference only).


    That's really a job for a microscope, not a macro lens. If you're going
    to do it with a macro lens the one to use for that job is the Canon 60mm.
    If you're going to try it with the D50 you'll be wanting extension tubes, a
    good macro lens, and possibly a reverse mount.

    > Anyway. I've ordered the D50 and got it for £488 inc vat and delivery
    > so that's a good deal compared to others found. My feeling at the
    > moment is that the Stonehenge textures will be fine with what I've
    > ordered but the wasp will require more specialized lens?


    >
    > Cheers
    > Anim
    >
    >
    >
    > "Geoff Coope" <> wrote in message
    > news:5fj9h.51777$...
    >> Hi all
    >>
    >> I'm about to purchase a Nikon D50 but see that there are several Lens
    >> Kit options. I mainly want to take close up pictures of textures for
    >> use as materials in my 3D work but would also like to use it as an
    >> everyday camera (portrait, buildings, landscapes, skys etc).
    >>
    >> I see there are 3 kit options most common
    >>
    >> 18-55mm
    >> 18-70mm
    >> 55-200mm
    >>
    >> From what I gather on researching the 18-55 is much better than the
    >> 18-70 for close-ups but the 18-70 is much better in general but poor at
    >> close range. the 55-200 is no good for close ups.
    >>
    >> So, for me as a complete novice the stock 18-55 would be a good start?
    >>
    >> Correct me if i'm wrong.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> Anim
    >>


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Nov 25, 2006
    #19
  20. Geoff Coope

    Geoff Coope Guest

    > I mean you no offense by this, but given the questions you've asked so
    > far, I don't think you're near ready for something of this magnitude.


    lol yeah, it might seem a big job but I'm confident that when I go I will
    get what I need for animation purposes. Not to sound arrogant or anything
    but nothing is that big when you break it down :) and im in the very early
    stages at the moment. I would not bother going if I knew my results would be
    rubbish for the purpose I need them.

    >At this point you're ready to approach the
    >Heritage Trust about gaining the required access to Stonehenge. And by
    >that time you'll have put at least an order of magnitude more money into
    >this than the cost of the camera.


    Getting access to the stones isn't a problem, I'm 99% positive I can obtain
    VIP access (not bound to the path and for free too) when I have scheduled it
    for early next year.

    > That's really a job for a microscope, not a macro lens.

    I disagree, I've seen some great insect photo's done with a D50/70 so think
    a microscope is a little overkill for my needs (but I will look into it just
    incase), take a look at these so you can see where i'm coming from.

    http://static.flickr.com/22/24248609_f4d832f351_o.jpg

    http://static.flickr.com/22/24248614_a009fc5c1b_o.jpg

    http://static.flickr.com/90/222850544_3dbc54fcac_o.jpg

    .....If these were done with something like the Canon 60mm then that's great.

    Cheers all and thanks for the advice, i'm slowly digesting everything.

    Anim
    Geoff Coope, Nov 25, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    579
    lacunae
    Aug 31, 2005
  2. Doug Smith

    which lens for D50

    Doug Smith, Jan 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    534
    Tesco News
    Jan 20, 2006
  3. WimR
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,410
    Bill Funk
    Feb 28, 2006
  4. sgtdisturbed

    Nikon D50 and Sigma 18-50 & 55-200 lens kit

    sgtdisturbed, Jan 7, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,062
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    667
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page