Doll pics with a macro lens

I use a 100mm 2.8 L Macro lens from Canon for the majority of my pictures and especially commission photos.
Here's an example for such a commission picture:



The doll has a very small face (comparison), to give you a feeling.
However, you can get closer with the lens.

That's a pair of Leeke Goral horns I airbrushed:


And a face-up close-up:


Regular face-up:


Two normal pictures:




The lens is not only suitable for close-ups but also for regular doll photos (as long as I don't want something with a wide-angle look).
Due to the high focal length you can imagine that I need to get some space between me and the doll if I want to take a picture like the last one.
For the regular face-up picture I usually am an arm length away of the head.

Are you looking for something specific?
Just let me know and I see if I have an example or if I can take a picture for you

 

A macro lens will be capable of better optical performance
simply because it is a prime lens. Unless you plan to take
ultra close up detail images such as eyes or fingers a macro
is probably overkill for dolls. I get marvelous portraits of
my kids with my "everything" lens; a Nikon 28-300 zoom
which is sort of a middling quality lens. If you really need
to take close up portraits of insects or flower parts then
great, go for a macro. If you take photos of dolls and you
want the better optical quality of a prime lens then buy a
nice prime lens. You can get a faster lens (Smaller f stop)
for the same price as a macro and it will be more versatile.

Here is a fairly tight portrait of my JID Isar taken with my
D700 and 28-300mm zoom lens (my standard kit)

Glittering eyes by Tom Beach, on Flickr

 

Love the photos! OMG

 

I am using a 100mm 2.8 Macro lens from Sony for almost all my pictures (Ara converted me after I got to try out hers XD) Only downside is that if you want the full doll, you need to be very very far away... and I am most of the time too lazy to switch to my 35mm lens so uh, be careful where you step backwars xD

Some of my pictures:











I don't usually take super duper close-ups (since I don't do commissions) unless I have stuff for sale and want to get the cracks or scratches showing up but I love it for the quality of the pictures it takes. Sure you might get that with another higher quality prime len too but I wanted the Macro and therefor got it (though even my Sony one was rather pricy so be prepared to pay)

 

I use a macro lens (the Canon 100mm f2.0) tho my shots don't exactly fall under the "macro" category. I'm still in love with the lens tho. With the lower f-stops, you have access to more buttery bokkeh and backgrounds.


More of my shots over at my Instagram page (John Joel Gavino (@syntaxerawr) • Instagram photos and videos)!!

 

In case you need any more ramblings, these are my thoughts.

My acid test for buying a new lens is, do I have a substantial need that my current lenses don't meet? So, examining that with macro lenses in mind.

Macro lenses are designed to take photographs of very small things, of perhaps four-five centimetres or less in size. A macro lens does this by having a very short minimum focusing distance, meaning you can get really close to your subject and the lens will still be able to focus. So, the first question is, how often do you see yourself photographing things that small? I am assuming often, or you wouldn't be looking at macro lenses. So, next part of the acid test.

The second question is, could you already do that with the lenses you have? Another way to photograph small things is with a telephoto lens. This is a lens with a long focal length (100mm and upwards). This effectively enlarges the image, like a magnifying glass. You can therefore stand further away and still get a small object to fill the viewfinder. If you already have that, perhaps with your kit lens, you might already have it covered.

Now, there are advantages and disadvantages to both these options. The advantage of macro lenses is that they tend to have higher quality glass. So, you get sharper pictures. The disadvantage of that is that the price is correspondingly higher. They can be horribly expensive. Another major disadvantage of a macro lens is that depth of field (so, the amount of space in front of and behind your object that is still in good focus) decreases the closer you get the lens to the object. So, if you use a macro lens and get right up close to the object you are photographing, only a thin slice of it will be sharp. The rest with be blurry. When you are getting within five or 6cm from an object, the amount that is in focus might be only a few millimetres deep. With the long focal length lens, you are standing further back and getting the same amount of object in your viewfinder. However, by standing further back, you are giving yourself a whole lot more depth of field. This is a good thing. The disadvantage if you are using a telephoto zoom lens, particularly a kit one, is that the quality is probably not that good. With all the mechanics in them, they also block light from hitting the camera sensor, so are not that good in low light conditions.

So, given the acid test and the pros and cons, do you need a macro lens?

I would say that, for the vast majority of people, a macro lens doesn't pass the test and its advantages aren't enough to justify it. Unless you want regular close ups of your Yo's nails, I can't see the point. Macro lenses are for photographing tiny things, like insects. To me, it would be overkill for most people to buy one for toy photography. So, unless you have an unusual need to photograph tiny bits of dolls I would say, no, you don't really need a macro lens. Save your money for another doll.

 

If you look at some popular telephoto lenses in the top camera brands, you'll find that longer tele lenses often have a lower maximum magnification than standard or wide-angle lenses, owing to very long minimum focus distances. They are optimized for distant subjects. You have to look at the specs on a lens-by-lens basis, as there are notable exceptions and no rule of thumb. You may have a 200mm lens, but it might only be capable of 0.15x magnification, whereas your standard zoom might be able to do 0.35x.

There are two relatively inexpensive ways to get your feet wet in close-up photography before committing to a dedicated macro lens: Extension tubes and close-up "filters". The former is a spacer with no glass elements that goes between the camera body and lens, increasing maximum magnification at the expense of light-gathering and ability to focus on distant things. The latter is literally a magnifying glass (convex lens) that screws onto the front of an existing lens using the filter threads, with the main trade-off being heavy distortion at the edge of the images.

Even if you don't necessarily need a dedicated macro, it's worth knowing the maximum magnification of other lenses that you're considering buying, if you're going to use them for doll photos. It may be a deciding factor between 2 options. When I bought my standard 24-70mm zoom lens, I opted for Canon's f/4 model instead of the optically-superior f/2.8 version, partly because it has a macro mode that goes to 0.7x magnification (vs 0.21x for the f/2.8), a huge benefit to me for both close portraits and doll photography.

 

I use a macro lens for all my doll photography AND portraiture of humans It's produces a much sharper image.

 

I only use macro for shooting my dolls. I find I get the best results that way. The image is nice and crisp and the doll feels more in scale.

 

I use my macro for about 90% of my doll shots. Personally I like how the macro shots look compared to the regular kit lens. The backgrounds are nicely blurred so the focus is more on my doll (unless I want to put it on a longer exposure and stand to get more in focus), plus my dolls range from tinies to small msds so the macro is much better for the size.
Tiny pukipuki:

Chicline (small msd)

 

Unless you are also going to be using a macro lens for taking super up close shots of insects and such, I'd probably buy a prime lens (like a 50mm) first. A decent 50mm prime can open up pretty wide for great bokeh/soft backgrounds, and is way cheaper than a decent macro lens.

I took these with a Canon 50mm f/1.4. Also, I'm a lazy butt, so they're both indoor/nighttime/handheld shots too. A fat aperture gets you a lot of light even in poor conditions.





This is a link cause it's not a doll, but it shows off some bokeh with the same lens: Untitled

 

How much do you have to spend, and what else would you be using the camera for, and what setup do you have currently?

I can only speak for Canon stuff, but for a general purpose lens I'd suggest the 24-105 f/4L. Not super expensive, decent zoom range, image stabilization, and not too big or heavy. Downside is only f/4, which means you can't blur the background as much.

If you're not used to prime lenses it might be a bit of an adjustment as you can't zoom the lens, you have to move either yourself or the subject.

For Canon -- perhaps you could pick up the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 to experiment with? The f/1.8 is a very cheap lens, may be good to experiment with without having too much invested in it.

The 100mm f/2.8 L and non-L macro lenses are both fantastic lenses, but really depends on your budget and what you want to do. Images from 50mm and 100mm focal lengths will look different, the 100mm will "compress" the background, and you will also have to stand further back. Also, the macro part of it means you can take close up shots of quite small details easily.

If you only want to experiment with macro on the cheap you can get extension tubes or a macro lens which sits in front of your existing lens. You can get good results from both, depends on how much you want to spend really.

 

Please help.
As I'm making commission repaints and besides plenty of dolls with really small faces I want to make nice deep photos of SD/MSD with every lash visible.
I have a Nikon 3200 with a kit zoom lens and a portrait Nikkor lens 50 mm f/1.8. I've found 3 Sigma macro lenses:
SIGMA 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro, AF 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM and 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM New.
What to choose? Non of my friends photographers work with those lenses or with the same objects, they can't help.

 

I'm sure the 50/1.8 you've got will be plenty fine.

The main thing to ensure is that you have plenty of light. Then you can use a low ISO to minimise noise, a high f stop for greater depth of field, and a reasonable shutter speed (1/50s or better) so there is no camera shake.

So use an off-body flash, or in the shade outside or by a bright window.

 

I use Minolta MD Macro 50 / 3.5 it's great lenses for macro.

0-5 by Nayza Kuznetsova, on Flickr

 

Thanks for an answer. But even with a lamp and ring flash it doesn't capture small faces as the tiny dolls with human proportions have. Once I've paid for a professional photographer with studio with light and there were problems with small dolls because the photographer didn't have macro. That's why I want to buy macro lens.

 

Lamps kinda suck for illumination. They tend to have terrible colour casts, and probably still aren't as bright as you may think. I don't like ring flashes either as they make shadows weird, and if you get a flash too close to plastic you get hot spots. Outside in the shade, or a bounced flash do much better for lighting.

For doll scale things a macro lens basically just lowers your minimum focus distance. My favorite lens for doll photography is a 70-200mm f/2.8. It has a MFD of 1.2m so you have to be a fair bit back. My 100mm f/2.8 macro has an MFD of 30cm, so you can be much closer.

Macro lenses also have greater magnification so you can get in much closer, but unless you want a full frame image of half an eyeball you probably don't need that ability.

I only have Canon equipment, but of the lenses you listed I'd pick the 105 f/2.8. It has a constant aperture so the easiest to work with, and being fixed focus would likely have the best picture quality. But you'll still probably be just fine with the 50mm you have.

Slightly off topic, but I'd question the ability of your "professional photographer" if they can't take a decent picture of something doll size.

 

Leiothrix , thank you very much for your opinion. It really helped.
With my lens I can take good common photos but no good detailed commission photos.
I will try to find macro with a constant aperture.

By the way, Raquel Clemente makes awsome BJD commission photos , interesting, what lens does she use.

 

People, the "rule" that a prime lens is per definition better then a zoom lens is history since the computer age. It is simply not true. A collimator hardly can see it, and so do we with the naked eye. The point is a zoom lens has more lenses, so he will be more expansive then a prime lens. I have a Leica 28-75mm Variogon from the early 80tis which still outperform a lot of primes today. All of my broadcast zoomlenses outperform even any of Canon L series lenses. But hey, are those L series lenses already expansive, with new broadcast lenses we talk Mercedes C class with all options.

But most people have a tight budget and yes, for let we say 500 dollar you can buy a better prime then a zoom which cost you double for the same performance. This mistake is what keep this obsolete story still alive.

If you are not a professional who make pictures ment to blow up to wallpaper size and need to be edited, then there are hardly bad cameras or lenses for forum and facebook use. Keep in mind you upload is compressed. Compression means a smaller file size. This can only be achieved by trowing away data. What is data in a picture? Well sharpness and color. this also make it useless to compare lens quality in this forum. On internet in general.

In most cases it is the one behind the camera, not the lens.

A fast lens 2.8, 2.0 does not mean is a good and sharp lens.

On Aliexpress you can buy good led panels for about 20 dollar each, They give a ton of light. Buy 2 or 3 of them and a kit lens will do and you a lot cheaper then a fast macro lens. For close up desktop led lights will do. (Ikea, about 18 - 22 dollar)

A book or online information about portrait, model and product photography will help a lot to make better dolly pictures.

Take also a look at Tamron and Tokina ATX series. Dot be afraid to buy a good used one and safe some money or spend it to buy one class higher. Samyang lenses (Korea) are also good and affordable, BUT i don't know how they perform on still camera's, they are actually cine lenses for full manual control, so no autofocus. I Know Samyang have also a Nikon bajonet.

If you don't mind autofocus and full manual control, i learn you the Nikon trick: all, yes ALL Nikon lenses fit on Nikon digital reflex camera's. They will not fully work, it will all come down to full manual photography like in the old days, but you might find affordable old Nikon C, S, H, A, AI and AIS lenses which are still a miracle today. Most of them are even better of what they make today.

 

Thank you for such a useful information. I'm not a pro so I want to choose the most convenient lens. First I've deceided to buy Nikon 60mm f/2.8G Micro , but it's mostly for FX cameras, rather expensive and doesn't have a stabilizer. I don't use tripod outdoors -sometimes need to lay down to take good angle.So I definitely need one.
In the end I've found great variant - used Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro VC USD in the nearest town so in a week or 2 I'll get it . Just can't wait!

 

I can rember that lens was the best that came out a macro lens test for macro lenses from 60 to 105mm

 

Yes, that's why I chose it. Very interesting, how it behaves with soft and noncontrast BJD faceups.