Beginner Do I need a macro lens for watch photography?

T

totalwise

Suspended / Banned
Messages
25
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm trying to capture watchbands for my website and sometimes I feel that resolution is lacking a bit. I'm not sure if it's the lens or the camera or both?

I did try to do a very close up photo of some detail on the watch band and I couldn't get it in. So I'm erring on geting a macro - but I don't want to buy the wrong one that doesn't suit my needs or completely nnecessary altogether.

I'm currently using +4 zoom lens from ebay and fixing them onto the front of my lens do pull it of. What do you think?
 
What camera are you using, extension tubes are a good cheap way of getting macro shots.
 
I see, so if I need a 80mm macro lens, I can use a +25mm extension tube and the 55mm range on my lens to do it?

Does it serve exactly as what a macro lens would or are there sacrfices in that?

I heard about people doing that, but I also heard you need to up the lighting so much more to get the light up the modified lens.
 
There are quite a lot of areas that you need to consider

think about lighting the subject, flash(es), diffuser(s), etc., background and maybe a lightbox.

you will have more control if you use a tripod

DOF is important and you will, (may), need to stack images to get really good images.

Manual focus will get you "better" shots and there are quite a number of MF macro lenses that can be bought at relatively inexpensive prices
 
Can we see some of the shots you are unhappy with - I would have thought that they may just be very poor quality lens of ebay. The lens you have is capable of .34 lifesize I would have thought that's sufficient to get a lot of detail in a watch strap. Have you tried without the +4 lens and focussing very close to the subject?
 
@jstog Here's one of them, This is shot before I learnt focus stacking so I'm going to re-do them. I was trying to get all the product in focus using F22

Since posting, I learnt that I shouldn't use this screw in magnifying lens and use an extension tube instead.

Also use focus stacking in photoshop with a lower F number rather than use the camera on F22.


IMG_0736.JPG
 
Last edited:
Using Depth Of Field to get acceptable sharpness from front to back of the subject can introduce Diffraction Softness so shooting a series of images with less DoF using the lens's sweet spot aperture (usually around f/8 or so) and stacking them will get a sharper image.
 
Simply putting a conventional lens on extension tube or bellows will get it to focus closer, but its optical design might not do as well as a lens (macro) which is specifically designed to perform well at very close focus distances (while retaining quality at longer distances, too!)
 
wiltw said:
Simply putting a conventional lens on extension tube or bellows will get it to focus closer, but its optical design might not do as well as a lens (macro) which is specifically designed to perform well at very close focus distances (while retaining quality at longer distances, too!)
Click to expand...
True, but that's a bit of a counsel of perfection - the lighting and the arrangement of the watch strap in the sample pic, plus the diffraction limitation caused by shooting at f/22 are causing much more serious problems.
 
The more magnification you have the shallower your depth of field is going to be. Personally I think it just needed a tweek of contrast and a bit of sharpening. Beofe buying a macro lens check out a Sigma 17-70. Better than yur 18-55 and has stupid close focus, get you a lot close without the filres and probably cheaper than a macro lens.
I took the liberty of tweeking your pic. Hope yu dont mind.
IMG_0736.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top