Opinions on test photos, please: New (used) macro lense (Sigma EX 150mm F2.8 APO MACRO DG)

mercurydimeguy

The background:

After playing around with my new Canon SL1 I got for Christmas and a Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens, I realized that 60mm (even if it is 92mm practical on that camera body) just doesn't leave me enough room for lighting as the camera must be close to the coin. I've been on eBay and Craig's List and every used photo website nearly daily looking for a nice used longer macro lens and struck gold this week! A real nice guy had it listed on Craig's list. He transitioned from Canon and was selling off his stuff. This lens was the only thing left and he was asking $325 for it. I thought it was too good to be true, but we met up at Starbucks today and the lens exceeded my expectations. It was like new, well cared for. The man showed up with his service dog, and we talked a little about photography and canines




Now on to the coins:

Here are some test shots of various coins (colors and sizes). I finally can do "set it and forget it". Each shot was with the camera mounted in the same positioned, lights not moved. In fact I took about 30 coin photos today and never once moved neither the camera nor the lights.

Ideally I would like to attain as close as possible a set it and forget it camera setup and I was wondering if you can give me some feedback on the following photos. These are all in slabs, just FYI, so there might be some smudges I couldn't wipe down.

Thanks in advance!

blu62vette

Amazing price for the lens....

sparky64

Awesome pics. Look professional to me.

Congratulations on the new lens.

Davideo

Nice lens and nice photos. Sigma makes some quality glass, especially for the price.

lostincoins

very nice could you tell us your lighting and camera settings?

Flatwoods

Those are pretty darn good!

keyman64

Good lens, great price. Congrats!

lkeigwin

"Set-it-and-forget-it" will not get you the best results for a wide variety of coins, conditions and mint finishes. You probably know that. But it can do very nicely, as you've demonstrated, for many purposes. I do this for back-up slab shots (about 2-3 seconds between photos) and when I'm shooting a lot of generic coins for sale.

I have a few different lighting positions I like and can set up fairly quickly. But when shooting through plastic you really have to adjust focus with each coin. Each side of each coin, for that matter.

You got a great price on a nice lens! Have fun with it.
Lance.

morgansforever

Great results, nice sharp images, love dem CC gold pieces

mercurydimeguy

I will post a pic (later tonight) of my humble setup.

Lance, you are right...I was typing shorthand I manually focus every shot, and yeh...I would like to have base set of lighting for generic shooting (this set could possibly be it), but this lighting setup for the below coins won't work for color and it won't work for proofs.

I have sunk about 150 hours of learning into it (it has become a hobby to me).

I might writeup a newbie summary of my learnings, for what it's worth. I feel like a neophyte because coin photography is a humbling thing, but I enjoy it and am a sponge for learning. Thanks for the feedback ...

Check back later, I'll post my setup picture and camera settings.

/mdg.

derryb

is that a staple mark 12 o'clock obv. on the 91? just kidding. VERY GOOD pics.

morbidsteve

Yes. Very good photos. Care to share a picture of your setup?

Steve

rmpsrpms

Sorry but I'm not so impressed...the reverse on that Cent looks pretty blurry to me ;-) Nice pics...Ray

mercurydimeguy

OK. Two pics here. One of is my modest setup. Simple... Camera and 3 of those LED lights from IKEA, which I wrapped in Bounty paper towels held by rubber bands (to diffuse the light).





I arrange them in a triangle, and the coin is facing outward (e.g. the label is closer to the wall, the coin is closer to the front of the copy stand), so two lights across the top of the coin and one light across the bottom, essentially the 3 lights make a triangle and their overlap covers the coin evenly.

I then set white balance manually each time I turn the camera on...because during the day the ambient light is different than at night when my room is dark. It only takes 30 seconds and is worth it. I just use a plain piece of printer paper, set the white balance, and off I go. I learned this is the easiest thing to help get a color that matches the real look of the coin (never perfect, but close).

To me the key, and why I got a new body (my old body was a Rebel XTi), is because the new body works with USB and Software. The camera comes with software and USB cable, and all I do is plug it into my Mac laptop and I can have 100% remote control of the camera including preview window, and most importantly 1:1 zoom so I can manually set the focus. I found the autofocus is OK for far away or small size pictures, but if you intend to resize something you need it to be as razor sharp as possible, so while it is a pain in the a$$, I take 5-8 second to manually focus each shot. I think I actually save time because I don't need to take 6,7,8 shots to see which one came out best, I only take 1 shot.

I then use Photoshop CC to crop and resize the coin, and set it on a background. I never edit the coin, only manipulate the dimensions, because if I have to edit the coin (e.g. contrast, saturation, etc.) I didn't take a good phote. The camera and the lens and the light should reproduce the coin's look, not post production in Photoshop. So, this ideal has made me get better at taking pictures so the coin pictures I have are only manipulated for size and background, but never edited for look.

Anyhow, I hope this helps...

And if you are interested in costs:

- the SL1 body could be had probably for ~ $500 (give/take $50)
- a macro lens (I cannot stress enough to buy the most you can afford) used 100mm+ is about ~$400
- copy stand (shop around, they can be had reasonably)..I think I paid like $150 for mine (it was 10 years ago, I don't remember)
- lights are like ~$45

Total cost, probably around $1,100, which is a lot (I know), but this has become my side hobby in addition to collecting coins so I view this as an investment that will last me for (hopefully) a decade or more to come.

Anyhow, thank you to everyone for your feedback...I'll keep experimenting and I come across something interesting in terms of technique, I will share with the community.

/mdg.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
the balance of enough diffusion to evenly light up the coin surfaces while not so diffused as to mute too much of the luster. a good balance.

you may try a thinner diffusion, just to see if it would allow more luster and 3 lights properly placed should yield great results, even better than you have here but i know you're just getting started with the new variables.

evenly cropped, well displayed. you showed the simple and effective setup.

rating A+

i have the 105mm version of your sigma and wonder now if a 150 would be a nice one to have as well. not necessary but may make a few things easier. paid a little under $500 for mine a couple years ago. i shoulda shopped around and saved myself 100-150. o retrospect, thou are art a heartless #*(#*#*.
.

lostincoins

The T3i is essentially the same as the SL1. The main difference is the Sl1 is more compact, does not have a flip out screen (which is handy), otherwise operates the same. The SL1 was made for those with smaller hands. Edit to add The SL1 cost 50-75 more.

mercurydimeguy

A question about lighting...

I'm still tinkering around with different lighting setups and came to the conclusion that Morgan dollars that are white with luster are real hard to photograph without "hot spots".

What do you think about this lighting? ... the picture is 100% un retouched.. . this 83-CC looks 98% like this in hand albeit a a hair whiter (I think I forgot to set the manual white balance before I snapped off a few pictures).

Thanks in advance.

bsshog40

Very nice pics. I was thinking of going with a 100mm for my Canon. So you used a 60mm and now a 150mm. So the 100mm would fall in the middle. Would it still give a decent amount of distance ya think?

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>Very nice pics. I was thinking of going with a 100mm for my Canon. So you used a 60mm and now a 150mm. So the 100mm would fall in the middle. Would it still give a decent amount of distance ya think? >>



i have a 105mm 1:2.8 DG macro Sigma EX and i used it to take these images with --minimal-- effort. no kidding. once i learned the proper settings for coins that is.

no diffusion. just 2 lights, ge reveal bulbs, nikon d90, sigma 105mm and semi-mid-grade copy stand and remote shutter release. one setting for all images.

disclosure. i have had less than optimal images from tinkering with settings and whatnot, but when i leave them where they are supposed to be, i can't imagine wanting a "better" camera or lens. i would just spend that money on learning my camera and lens better. in fact it is probably far more than is needed truth be told. although it is easy to use my microscopic objective so it is nice for that purpose.

hope you enjoy:

- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26

*** disclosure, results will vary depending on type of lights, distances, angles, camera settings, type of lens(es), vibrations, shutter release vs not, copy stand type and how well it is situation (balanced), angles of camera/lens,coin/stand, ambient light, how close/far camera/lights are from other objects what these objects are with various surfaces, etc etc
.

lcoopie

I am impressed

Burks

Sweeeeeeet pics!

I'm looking into buying my own camera soon but my budget is limited ($150 or so due to wedding). Been shopping, can't find what I like. Guess I'll keep using dad's 10 year old Sony DSLR. It works ok, but to get a nice photo it leaves the edges a tad blurry.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>I am impressed >>



+1

the 83-cc is nice. viewing those at 1500x1500 would be REAL nice lol
.

mercurydimeguy

<< <i>the 83-cc is nice. viewing those at 1500x1500 would be REAL nice lol >>



Here's 1200x1200 so as not to kill everyone's bandwidth/screen size...

I agree with you on lighting...at some point (like today I killed nearly 2 hrs tinkering) it's just not much gain ... you get infinitely close to reproducing the coin but 95% is close enough without spending hours upon hours. I have a standard go-to lighting setup that I use...then days like today I simply get lost in looking for perfection...and then realize hours only gain me indistinguishable improvement.

I think I'm done tinkering around...should spend that time taking on something more productive...

PS. At this magnification, who needs a loupe

lkeigwin

<< <i>A question about lighting...

I'm still tinkering around with different lighting setups and came to the conclusion that Morgan dollars that are white with luster are real hard to photograph without "hot spots".

What do you think about this lighting? ... the picture is 100% un retouched.. . this 83-CC looks 98% like this in hand albeit a a hair whiter (I think I forgot to set the manual white balance before I snapped off a few pictures). >>

"100% un-retouched" means, to me, the job hasn't been completed properly. Take no pride in accepting what the camera gives you. Its programmed adjustments are rarely correct.

I'm not crazy about the lighting. Try something completely different. White, lustrous Morgans are not difficult. They shouldn't be flat and grey.
Lance.

ormandh

I have some experience with the Sigma 150mm, but for the Nikon. The only negative I have for the length of the Sigma 150mm lens is that it just did not allow enough light for any given coin I was trying to photograph. I think that a 100-105mm lens is the optimal length to capture the light and allow one to capture the true in hand look of the coin. I often found that when I photographed certain coins that I was not able to get enough light without post process. I currently use the Nikor 105mm Micro, but am in the process of changing my Camera to the Canon 5D Mark III and to the 100mm Macro lens. The only thing I never tried with that lens is axial lighting, which could actually would compare to the shorter lenses.

mercurydimeguy

<< <i>I'm not crazy about the lighting. Try something completely different. White, lustrous Morgans are not difficult. They shouldn't be flat and grey.
Lance. >>



Me neither... But I simply cannot take pictures of Morgan dollars. I either have them come out looking like museum pieces or proof or the Morgan will have dark spots from the lighting. I've tried 1 light, 2 lights, 3 lights, open light source, diffused, reflected...myriad of combinations.

I've resolved to 100% manual settings because (otherwise) when the light reflects off the coin it forces the camera to make it darker...

I guess I'll need to go back to tinkering...strange in that Morgan dollars and proof coins are my Achilles heel, can't crack the code.

rmpsrpms

I don't see what's wrong with the lighting at all. If this is what the coin looks like, then what's the problem? The image itself is pretty flat, but is good "raw material" to work with since you didn't over-expose and you're not pushing the dynamic range at all. It's not super sharp, but is at least in reasonable focus. It simply looks to me like you failed to complete the photographic process and the image need a bit of levels adjustment. All images need that final touch to bring them into publishable form. If you're leery about doing adjustments, you better get over it! Your camera does a lot of them, and they aren't usually what you want. What you're looking for from the camera is good raw material that can be adjusted to look like the best representation of the coin possible. Here's your image with just a bit of adjustment...