Can the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII be used for Food Photography?
- Thread starter stevenc
- Start date
Thanks for all your replies, i will most likely look at the 100L macro.
I think its more affordable.
Actually I will like to take the food photos like those of iron lady chef.
From his blog he uses d700 with a 60mm macro lens and a 50f1.4.
I was wondering whether the 100L macro is too close. i see people use it most of the time just to take insects!
Any one owns this lens and used it successfully for food photography.
Also one question with the 70-200 MFD which is 1.2m from the subject and if I stand at 1.2m and zoom to 200mm, will it still be able to focus at 1.2m or I will need to stand even further back? Is it able to take a photo at 1:1 that the 100L macro is able to do?
Sorry, i havent played with the 70-200 L or 100L macro so I have no experience
I think its more affordable.
Actually I will like to take the food photos like those of iron lady chef.
From his blog he uses d700 with a 60mm macro lens and a 50f1.4.
I was wondering whether the 100L macro is too close. i see people use it most of the time just to take insects!
Any one owns this lens and used it successfully for food photography.
Also one question with the 70-200 MFD which is 1.2m from the subject and if I stand at 1.2m and zoom to 200mm, will it still be able to focus at 1.2m or I will need to stand even further back? Is it able to take a photo at 1:1 that the 100L macro is able to do?
Sorry, i havent played with the 70-200 L or 100L macro so I have no experience
If you already have a 85mm, and wish to go "budget", the cheapest and fastest way to do food shots might be just to buy a +2 or +4 dioper close-up filter like the Canon 500D.
Canon 72mm 500D Close-up Lens 2823A001 B&H Photo Video
Canon 72mm 500D Close-up Lens 2823A001 B&H Photo Video
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
tonyep said:
Good stuff.
Thanks, i read that this is not good for image quality as compared to macro lens.
Anyway, can I ask you guys, is it that only macro lens offer the 1:1 magnification? So the 70-200 will not be able to do that even if I stand at 1.2m away and max the zoom..
do you understand what is 1:1 magnification? the subject is at the same life size on the sensor. so a piece of postage stamp could fill the whole frame of the full frame DSLR.
and yes, only macro lenses able to do 1:1 magnification.
there is no way a 70-200 can do 1:1 magnification without the use of extension tube or close up lens, and why you need 1:1 magnification for food photography?
i am rather new to macro photography but i have gathered lots of information so far from you guys.
Please correct me if I maybe wrong: for the 100L macro with MFD of 30cm and mounted on a FF, if i take a photo of a ruler length of 35mm at 30cm away (or with the front lens 15cm away from the subject) it will occupy the entire horizontal length on the photograph?
That's an interesting perspective ... unless you're taking photos of individual rice grains, seriously, a good close-up filter isn't going affect the overall quality of your food picts .... And unless you're indeed taking picts of individual rice grains, you don't need 1:1 magnification either.
Hi stevenc,
if I may share with you my foodblog, I don't find it necessary to use a macro lens for food photography. In fact, i never did once use any macro lens to take pictures of food although I do own a 100mm 1:1 F2.8.
Personally, my rule of thumb while doing food photography should be along the line of presenting to my viewers what they would see when seated in front of the dish and that is usually from an arm's length away (there or about). Hence, macro might be too close for comfort.
Here are some sample shots using my 7D with Tamron 17-50mm which I would like to share and of course, C&Cs are definitely welcomed.
NewbieInCS
Senior Member
I could be wrong, but from what I see, good food photography in controlled environment is not really so much about the food, but rather, about the packaging. That is, the scene, plate, utensils around it, table cloth...etc...and sometimes, coatings around the food to make it look more delicious.
You don't need any macro or close-up. At close up, 1 muffin will take 90% of the frame. At 1:1, 1 fishball will take up 90% of the frame, unless you are shooting extremely large format. What you need for food photography at home is any half decent lens(which includes kit lens), a decent tripod and possibly, a good placement of light+some time to do post.
You don't need any macro or close-up. At close up, 1 muffin will take 90% of the frame. At 1:1, 1 fishball will take up 90% of the frame, unless you are shooting extremely large format. What you need for food photography at home is any half decent lens(which includes kit lens), a decent tripod and possibly, a good placement of light+some time to do post.
Nice food blog!! I fully agree with you that the food cannot be too close. Most food blogs present their food as a whole, which includes the setting, table, plates, utensils and props with the main subject. Seldom I see them focusing on a fishball occupying the whole frame. That was why I stated earlier that I am not photographing insects. :bsmilie:
I think 85mm on a FF camera maybe sufficient for now and later on a 24-70.
That was why I was asking if a 70-200 maybe good to narrow down on the perspective, but it seems the working distance needs to be substantial and hardly anyone uses the 70-200 for food photography, so I may just be dropping out the idea of getting it altogether.
I may still test out the 100macro if possible and see how good it is for food photography
thanks stevenc.
just to share further - based on my limited experience in food photography I find that its always better to have a lens that has some "flexible" (i.e a zoom lens) because there will definitely be situations whereby I won't have complete control if the food would land within the preferred "range" on my table. foods come in all shapes and sizes so a prime lens, though usable and often produced a much sharper picture with great bokeh, may not be able to frame the picture as I want it to be.
imho, the 70-200mm may still be a "workable" lens for food photography given the right circumstances but I wouldn't say the same for the macro option.
another point to mention would be to have a lense with a F2.8 aperture. not a must, but definitely comes in very handy when it comes to low-lighting conditions. that said, although i usually wouldn't open that wide of an aperture as the focus might be too soft.
for your reference, Leslie Tay from ieatishootipost uses the 24-70mm F2.8L mounted to his 5D Mark II FF camera
just to share further - based on my limited experience in food photography I find that its always better to have a lens that has some "flexible" (i.e a zoom lens) because there will definitely be situations whereby I won't have complete control if the food would land within the preferred "range" on my table. foods come in all shapes and sizes so a prime lens, though usable and often produced a much sharper picture with great bokeh, may not be able to frame the picture as I want it to be.
imho, the 70-200mm may still be a "workable" lens for food photography given the right circumstances but I wouldn't say the same for the macro option.
another point to mention would be to have a lense with a F2.8 aperture. not a must, but definitely comes in very handy when it comes to low-lighting conditions. that said, although i usually wouldn't open that wide of an aperture as the focus might be too soft.
for your reference, Leslie Tay from ieatishootipost uses the 24-70mm F2.8L mounted to his 5D Mark II FF camera
i think the 24-70L would be good enough.
If primes then maybe a 35L, 50L or macro lens.
TS please take note of the mfd on the 85L and 70-200L. I seriously doubt they are suitable ....
I see no reason why you would want such a thin DOF if you are shooting food.
85L and 70-200L are loved by most when shooting portraits.
If primes then maybe a 35L, 50L or macro lens.
TS please take note of the mfd on the 85L and 70-200L. I seriously doubt they are suitable ....
I see no reason why you would want such a thin DOF if you are shooting food.
85L and 70-200L are loved by most when shooting portraits.
Last edited:
avsquare
Senior Member
and on paper, it has "macro" capabilities due to it's higher-than-average magnification ;p
Thanks for all your kind replies.
Indeed the 24-70L is what I am hoping to get.
I was previously using a 60D with 17-55 and I love the 17-55.
All this while I was just using the 17-55 to shoot travel photography, so I know nothing about macro lenses. Pardon me for all those stupid questions.
:embrass:
Now moving to FF, I think the equivalent is the 24-70L.
I will consider getting the new version when released.
Indeed the 24-70L is what I am hoping to get.
I was previously using a 60D with 17-55 and I love the 17-55.
All this while I was just using the 17-55 to shoot travel photography, so I know nothing about macro lenses. Pardon me for all those stupid questions.
:embrass:
Now moving to FF, I think the equivalent is the 24-70L.
I will consider getting the new version when released.
lennyl
New Member
Yes, you are correct. Place a ruler 12 inches from the focal plane (indicated by the circle with line through it on the pentaprism bulge), focus as close as the camera will go manually, and you will see 35mm of marking through the viewfinder. I'd post a picture, but it's not exactly inspiring photography
As for what lens you should use, is it possible to rent or borrow them and try it out yourself? It is not easy giving advice when we have no idea of your setup or your desired result.
Similar threads
