best lens for taking photos of paintings

[Hillel]

I'm thinking/hoping to purchase a Canon 60D body and hopefully one lens - a small telephoto that can take very sharp photos of my partner's paintings (for printing/publication) and also for family photos and video. Don't need super sharp images for these. Or, depending on the advice I get, getting an inexpensive telephoto plus a good prime lens for the painting photos. Is there a short zoom that can take excellent photos of paintings. I looked at the reviews of the 17-40 f4, but not sure that there is a point at which it would be as sharp as say the prime lens EF 50 f1.8 or 1.2 ... any advice?

[KeithB]

I would stay away from zoom lenses, they will never be as sharp as a prime - though they may be good enough.  I would suggest the EF-S 60mm macro, or - if budget permits -the new 100 mm macro.  They are designed for relatively close work and open pretty wide so they should be very sharp and flat in the middle working apertures.  (You did not say how *large* the artwork is.)

BTW, the 17-40 is more of a wide-angle than telephoto lens.  for a FF lens, telephoto is somewhere north of 50, while for APS-C it is somewhere north of 30mm.

A tripod or copystand with good lighting is probably more important than the lens.  If color is critical, and I imagine it is, than a Whibal or something like the colorchecker passport:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

will be your best friend.

[klindup]

One thing you need to consider is the size of the painting.  I have a similar requirement for paintings up to just under A3 size.  I use a copy stand that ensures that illumination is even and that the camera is square to the painting.  I have used the 17-85mm lens that came with my 40D and also the Sigma 30mm f1.4 with good results.  using liveview and connecting the camera to my computer helped to ensure that focus was accurate.

Ken Lindup

[scotch196]

From a little experience of photographing artwork, I found a zoom useful when photographing different size works as I didn't have to move the camera and tripod closer or further each time a new artwork was hung. It's also a mission squaring up the camera each time and the less you have to move, the better.

I used studio lights placed at 45 degrees and preferred being some distance from the paintings rather than too close to ensure I didn't get in the way of the lights. This was in the days of film, so no crop factor, and I used a Canon 80-200mm F/2.8 lens ("magic drainpipe") which was plenty sharp enough for publication purposes.

Not sure if you'll be photographing oils, but reflections can be a problem, in which case a polarizing filter plus polarizers over the lights eliminates any reflection off the oil paint. Reflections are also a problem with anything behind glass and to overcome this, I put the camera and tripod behind a large piece of board covered in black non-reflective fabric with an opening for the lens. I'm sure there are probably more modern ways of doing it now.

For a 60D, maybe something like the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM which Bob favorably reviewed recently would cover all bases. The 70-200 f/4 is renowned for its image quality, but probably too long on a 60D for your needs. Other options are the 17-40 you mention, or the much more expensive 24-70 f.2.8.

Scotch

[Hillel]

thanks for all your comments. The paintings vary in size from the largest - 4ftx5ft (126x152cm) to about 1ftx1ft. That's why I was thinking about the 17-40 lense as I need to get some distance. I was also thinking in terms of a 50 mm lens with the old 35mm cameras and read that "prime" lens was really about 30mm in DSLR terms. So I thought the 17-40 would cover me well. But I'm concerned mainly about getting a good sharp flat photo. I'm worried that an 80mm or 100mm prime lens won't give me enough room to shoot a large piece in our studio or even on our porch when the lighting is good.
I'll read and digest comments more and then respond again. Thanks again for your advice.   cheers, Hillel

[bmpress]

Most paintings are not extremely sharp, so an expensive lens is not required. I have found that two things are critical. First, use a pod and frame it properly. Second, you need to take out barrel distortion, and let me add a third...be sure to color balance.
Good luck

[Hillel]

thanks for the tips. Can you tell me a little more about "taking out barrel distortion". How does one do that? (I will google that, but if you have any special tips to offer, I would appreciate it.)

Also, what advice do you have for a beginner about getting good colour balance. I imagine there are things I can do both in taking the photo and after in the computer. I use a Mac and have some experience with both Photoshop and Illustrator, but it's limited to what I have used it for; so far, very little colour balance...  Of course, now that I know this is important, I can do some reading about it.

Also if you or anyone else has advice about the best range of lens for me to shoot a range of sizes of paintings in a space about 12 ft by 15ft. I'm still thinking a 18-50 gives me a lot of options. And can be good for just shooting my new baby in a lot of situations.

Finally you said that an expensive lens isn't necessary. I've been looking at the Sigma 18-50, the Tokina 16-50, the Tamron 17-50, all 2.8 lenses. DO you or any other readers have any opinion of these for my needs or in comparison to each other?

[KeithB]

Programs like Adobe Photoshop and Elements and Canon's DPP will adjust the image to compensate for any distortion.  DPP sets the amount automatically for certain camera/lens combos.

My 17-85 has a lot of distortion at 17mm.  A "brick wall" shot has noticable "bulge".  These programs can straighten things out so that square grids are square.  Ken Rockwell calculates the amount of correction in his lens reviews if your software can't automagically correct things for a given lens.