# Recommended lens for food shots?



## jwbryson1 (Mar 25, 2012)

A friend is looking for an inexpensive lens to take images of food with her Canon Rebel.  These will be posted to an online food blog.Suggestions please?Thanks!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 25, 2012)

Thanks for all the fine responses.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 25, 2012)

I don't know Canon lenses.. so I can't really suggest a LENS. Any lens that will cover the subject should do nicely... say a 50mm 1.8 or whatever.... depends on the angle she shoots at, the amount of ambient light (if she isn't using flash), what kind of DOF she wants.. and many other factors... 

Lighting is going to be more important than the lens...  I prefer flash, with large modifiers...


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 25, 2012)

So you didn't get a response in 4 hours, so instead of bumping the thread, you post a snide remark? Real smooth, bro. FYI, some members don't get responses for 12+ hours. IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. 

I'd suggest a 100mm f/2.8L Macro for Food Photography. You can get some wide shots (provided there is enough space), as well as some up close and personal detail shots. The other lens I'd look at is an 85mm f/1.8 (or Siggy 85mm f/1.4). Although, Charlie's on the right track when referencing a lot of lights and fat modifiers. That's what your friend really would need. And the knowledge to use them of course (which costs a lot more than the lights themselves)

A 50mm f/1.8 would be absolutely useless IMHO, especially the Canon variant. I'd use a 50mm f/1.4 if I had to, which wouldn't be a BAD lens, but wouldn't be ideal.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 25, 2012)

50mm compact macro


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 25, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> 50mm compact macro



I'd mimic your suggestion, aside from the fact that I've used the lens and absolutely hate it. :lmao:


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 25, 2012)

I have a food blog, and I find myself going to my 50mm macro most often.  I don't know about the Canon that was mentioned, I use a Zeiss makro-planar, but I'd say as long as the MFD is where you need it, 50mm is a nice focal length on crop for food.  Sometimes I'll shoot at 35 if I want a wider look.  I tend to avoid going longer than 50 though, which is totally a subjective personal preference kinda thing.  Longer shots are too clean feeling to me when you're trying to make food exciting, the wider perspective is more dramatic.

But yeah, as others have mentioned, decent lights and giant modifiers will be more important than the lens.  I'd rather shoot with a kit lens and two lights with big diffusers than my Zeiss and sub-par lighting.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 25, 2012)

Kit lens


----------



## boofoo502 (Mar 25, 2012)

I think a light box would be a good choice to play with and real cheap to do a DIY to play with.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 25, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> So you didn't get a response in 4 hours, so instead of bumping the thread, you post a snide remark? Real smooth, bro. FYI, some members don't get responses for 12+ hours. IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
> 
> I'd suggest a 100mm f/2.8L Macro for Food Photography. You can get some wide shots (provided there is enough space), as well as some up close and personal detail shots. The other lens I'd look at is an 85mm f/1.8 (or Siggy 85mm f/1.4). Although, Charlie's on the right track when referencing a lot of lights and fat modifiers. That's what your friend really would need. And the knowledge to use them of course (which costs a lot more than the lights themselves)
> 
> A 50mm f/1.8 would be absolutely useless IMHO, especially the Canon variant. I'd use a 50mm f/1.4 if I had to, which wouldn't be a BAD lens, but wouldn't be ideal.



I did say I don't know Canon lenses! I have heard that particular lens is built very cheap.. but I was trying to keep the cost cheap for Bryson's friend. After all, she is shooting a Rebel. I use my Sigma 50mm 1.4 quite a bit when shooting food.. does well!


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > 50mm compact macro
> ...


LOL Than how about the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar?


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 26, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



Probably better... Slightly. I feel that Zeiss lenses are absolutely perfect for getting overhead shots of your toilet with money being flushed down it. That's where Zeiss glass REALLY shines.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 26, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Kit lens



That's what I told her.  Get the T3i and the 18-55mm kit lens and be done with it.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> So you didn't get a response in 4 hours, so instead of bumping the thread, you post a snide remark? Real smooth, bro. FYI, some members don't get responses for 12+ hours. IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.



I was being fascetious.  Chill bro.


----------



## Jeff92 (Mar 26, 2012)

Lolz c001 570ry br00


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



What about Zeiss makes it a waste of money exactly?  Which Zeiss lenses have you shot with that you didn't like?  You're quite often anti-Zeiss in your posts, which is not a common perspective, so I'm curious why...


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 26, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



Cost/Benefit ratio. 

Why buy a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 for $725 when the Canon 50mm f/1.4 out resolves it, has USM autofocus, and is half the price? Unless you're shooting video, in which case I heard that Zeiss lenses are nice for that because of their focus mechanics. Are they practical for every day still shooting? Not in my book. Especially considering how much they cost.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2012)

You might just want to take a lot at some cold, hard numbers as to how good Zeiss lenses can be...
average-by-lens-41.jpg

from this March 24,2012 article from the folks at lensrentals.com     LensRentals.com - &#8220;D&#8221; resolution tests

This article compares resolution capabilities of the Nikon D800 with the Canon 5D-II and 5D-III, as well as the Nikon D700 (in one graph).


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Fair enough.

Conveniently, the 50mm 1.4 happens to be their worst performing current production lens, and I'd never want one...  

I can see how manual focus can be a deciding factor for certain styles of shooting, but for my purposes, it's not been a hindrance for me.  For the subjects I shoot most often (which don't move around most of the  time), I prefer the ergonomics of well damped manual focus to top end  autofocus.  I compared the Canon 35 1.4 to the Zeiss 35 1.4 for months before I finally decided on the Zeiss.  In this case the Zeiss was the higher resolution choice, and also had a subjectively more pleasing rendering to me.

If you need autofocus for what you do, Zeiss is obviously not for you, but to me that doesn't mean they're overpriced or a waste, they just have a different target audience.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 26, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Kit lens
> ...




Seriously.. put it on a tripod, stop it down like 3 stops from maximum aperture, make sure the food has a pretty even lighting and no mixed lighting, set ISO to 100, use whatever shutter speed needed.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


I agree with 99% of situations, but if you're buying gear because you enjoy the mechanics, than the zeiss lenses are pretty much there. 

But for the people that cream their pants about "Zeiss rendering" and all that, yeah it's total horsesh*t. It's like "leica glow"..not "unacceptable amounts of spherical abberation"


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 26, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> But for the people that cream their pants about "Zeiss rendering" and all that, yeah it's total horsesh*t. It's like "leica glow"..not "unacceptable amounts of spherical abberation"



What people call bokeh is a real thing, it's not just made up.  Different lenses produce different bokeh, and some people like the bokeh that comes from Zeiss lenses.  Maybe you don't care about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 26, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > But for the people that cream their pants about "Zeiss rendering" and all that, yeah it's total horsesh*t. It's like "leica glow"..not "unacceptable amounts of spherical abberation"
> ...



You're entirely correct. And I don't think SwitchFX was discounting that Zeiss Bokeh does exist. What he's getting at is that it's not cost beneficial as I was stating in an earlier post. Much like buying Leica glass.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



Yes, I agree.  Paying a premium specifically for something like bokeh isn't the most practical approach..  the cost benefit ratio always gets worse as stuff gets more specific.  It was the phrase "total horsesh*t" that struck me.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 26, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > analog.universe said:
> ...



YO BRO I SEE WHAT U SAYIN' DAWG.


----------



## idratherplaytennis (Apr 19, 2012)

Damn. I replied the wrong quote. Here is the correct one:


o hey tyler said:


> So you didn't get a response in 4 hours, so instead of bumping the thread, you post a snide remark? Real smooth, bro. FYI, some members don't get responses for 12+ hours. IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
> 
> I'd suggest a 100mm f/2.8L Macro for Food Photography. You can get some wide shots (provided there is enough space), as well as some up close and personal detail shots. The other lens I'd look at is an 85mm f/1.8 (or Siggy 85mm f/1.4). Although, Charlie's on the right track when referencing a lot of lights and fat modifiers. That's what your friend really would need. And the knowledge to use them of course (which costs a lot more than the lights themselves)
> 
> A 50mm f/1.8 would be absolutely useless IMHO, especially the Canon variant. I'd use a 50mm f/1.4 if I had to, which wouldn't be a BAD lens, but wouldn't be ideal.




Sooooo, the Zeiss debate was fun to read the slight sidetrack from the OP, but I  just wanted to go back to the original topic real fast (before you can  segue into something else) and say I agree with this post (the one from o  hey tyler), with one exception. If she's a newbie or just want's  something cheap, easy and gets the job done for an online food blog, and  using a cropped camera- the 50 1.8 is the best bang for the buck  anywhere. Sure the bokeh isn't at 1.4 quality, but then, the 1.4 isn't  at 1.2. All of that can be fixed with a quick blur of some free photo  manipulation software, or the illustrious PS/LR. I say, if it's just for  this, and cheap? 1.8, all the way. If it goes into something bigger-  print, or super large online photos? Like, gigantic photos online (which  for a blog, I doubt...), then maybe something higher. Then again- it  all depends on what the emphasis is on. Is it really _really_ on the food picture? Or the writing... or... so many "if's" .  Of course if it's a professional job she get's paid for (I originally  wrote this all, mistakenly thinking it might be for fun and not for  profit), then yes, by all means- I say go the route of paying the extra  500 for the macro.

Sorry to interject on the debate of the Zeiss lenses and if I upset anyone, it fully wasn't my intent


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 19, 2012)

I still think that the best advice was lighting.

If you're a newb and don't want to buy "all the things", decent lights (doesn't take much) will make the most difference in your food photography.  If you can't buy lights AND a lens, then the kit lens will do way better with lights than some fancy 50 without lights.   I think that's the moral of this thread honestly.


----------

