A good lens for food photography in restaurants?

Hi

I have the 800d canon with only one lens - canon 50mm.

I really like this lens and it indeed provides some professional looking photos even though I'm a complete amateur. But lately I started to get bored with the results that I'm getting with this lens when trying to take photos of foods in restaurants.

This lens provides a very small focus point and blurs all the surroundings. Sometimes I do want to have in focus more than a tiny bit of my food, like you can see in the example below. Only the red line of the steak is in focus, while I wanted to catch also some things that are behind.

So my question for you is what should I do in order to have a more wide frame in focus? Do I have to buy another lens? If yes, which one? (I'm on a budget).

Thanks!

newforfoodphoto said:

Hi

I have the 800d canon with only one lens - canon 50mm.

I really like this lens and it indeed provides some professional looking photos even though I'm a complete amateur. But lately I started to get bored with the results that I'm getting with this lens when trying to take photos of foods in restaurants.

This lens provides a very small focus point and blurs all the surroundings. Sometimes I do want to have in focus more than a tiny bit of my food, like you can see in the example below. Only the red line of the steak is in focus, while I wanted to catch also some things that are behind.

So my question for you is what should I do in order to have a more wide frame in focus? Do I have to buy another lens? If yes, which one? (I'm on a budget).

Thanks!

Click to expand...

If you want to have more depth of field then you shoukd use a narrower aperture.

if your lens is the canon Ef 50 f/1.8 then ake sure your camera sets the aperture value to something like 5.6.

in this case you’re subject will have a larger surface in focus as opposed to using a wider aperture like 1.8

--
----------------------------------
I cook with wine, sometimes I even add it to the food.

Get yourself a table-top tripod, so that you can use a much longer exposure. That will allow you to stop the lens down to f/11 or f/13, and also to use a lower ISO setting which may give better colour.

A cable release is also good, if your camera will accept one.

As others mentioned, you need to stop the lens down—use a larger f/stop value—in order to get a greater depth of field.

This article explains most everything, but unfortunately, it gets very technical very quickly:


A tighter aperture will mean that you have to slow the shutter speed to compensate, but then you'll need a tripod or other camera support. Or perhaps you can boost ISO, but this probably won't help make the images look better.

Unfortunately, this photograph is not appetizing, and I would consider it a poor example of food photography. Photography is an abstract medium, and many of the things which might make food enjoyable, such as tastes and smells, cheerful conversation, pleasant surroundings and companions, etc., are completely absent in a photograph. The food, presentation, and the image quality have to be nearly perfect for the food to look appetizing. We see the same thing in fashion modeling and in Hollywood, where attractive people look ordinary in the final product, and ordinary people look ugly: please understand that the camera is typically considered harmful for someone's attractiveness, and that making someone look good in a photograph is not a simple art, and likewise with food photography.

The plate needs to be perfectly clean, the meat cut cleanly, the items in the scene arranged artfully for this to be good. While this may be disappointing for you, consider how much of a learning opportunity this can be for you!

whats your opinion about this shot i took yesterday?

Here is a pretty good photograph of a hamburger, in my opinion:


Can you see a few things that makes this photo different from yours?

That is a high-end photograph, and of course it takes time, effort, and expense to do something like that. But certainly there are things that can be learned from it in order to do something nearly as nice.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

To be perfectly honest with you, his photo is of course with much higher quality and lighting but it looks like a pic which was taken in a studio..I took my pic in a very low light condition in a restaurant so it can't be the same

newforfoodphoto said:

To be perfectly honest with you, his photo is of course with much higher quality and lighting but it looks like a pic which was taken in a studio..I took my pic in a very low light condition in a restaurant so it can't be the same

Click to expand...

But you HIT it right there ...

LIGHTING is the most important component of any photograph. You can't expect to get a good photo w/ bad lighting. (and "good" means not only enough of it, but also the right quality, and from the correct directions)

You can stop down, but then you need to either up your ISO or slow your shutter speed. If you go that route I'd also suggest the tabletop tripod. Leave the ISO lower, take a longer exposure.


If you just prefer a different fov and look, then something wider will by default give you more dof. I'd try something like 28 or 35mm. For example, the 28mm f1.8 would allow you to focus as close as 9.8" (you don't have to, but you could) compared to the 50mm at 14". At the same time, it'd still give you roughly 2x the depth of field compared to the 50mm.

newforfoodphoto said:

To be perfectly honest with you, his photo is of course with much higher quality and lighting but it looks like a pic which was taken in a studio..I took my pic in a very low light condition in a restaurant so it can't be the same

Click to expand...

Your photos tend to show how well it is prepared rather than how it looks when served which is what is typically shown on restaurant menus. That's OK, but I think your food photos can be improved with better composition and staging, like more emphasis on the food and how the dish is presented and less on the hands and fork.

TDL2024 said:

You can stop down, but then you need to either up your ISO or slow your shutter speed. If you go that route I'd also suggest the tabletop tripod. Leave the ISO lower, take a longer exposure.

If you just prefer a different fov and look, then something wider will by default give you more dof. I'd try something like 28 or 35mm. For example, the 28mm f1.8 would allow you to focus as close as 9.8" (you don't have to, but you could) compared to the 50mm at 14". At the same time, it'd still give you roughly 2x the depth of field compared to the 50mm.

Click to expand...

I used to shoot food-ads w/ 14mm(FF). It allowed me to get (very) close (6") and "low" to the main course to accent its (size), but then still showed the other (potatoes/beans/etc.) in the background. I used (bright) flash and thus f/16 because I did want all the DOF I could get, cause I still often had wine/candles/etc. on the table.

newforfoodphoto said:

To be perfectly honest with you, his photo is of course with much higher quality and lighting but it looks like a pic which was taken in a studio..I took my pic in a very low light condition in a restaurant so it can't be the same

Click to expand...

Despite so, you can arrange the angle if shooting, the exposure condition, as well as composition and setting to make one more interesting.

Your sample is not bad, a shot to reveal the food as it is.

As said, you have try various angle, like place it on a plate, put knife and folk on the side, add some different color like napkin, plate, cup of juice/milkshake etc, closer shooting range or backup little for a wider view, over exposed slightly for more fresh feeling, increase saturation to make it more juicy feeling, use ambient lighting for various result... A lot we can make use and do.

The problem with a table tripod with the 50mm lens is that the food will be too close to my camera. When I took these shots of the hamburger and the steak I took like 2 steps back from the table to be able to make a decent shot.

newforfoodphoto said:

The problem with a table tripod with the 50mm lens is that the food will be too close to my camera. When I took these shots of the hamburger and the steak I took like 2 steps back from the table to be able to make a decent shot.

Click to expand...

Frequently, long lenses are used in food photography, where the camera is five or six feet from the table. This has two advantages: a flatter perspective and plenty of room for "food styling" (or making the food look good) with less risk of bumping the camera.

newforfoodphoto said:

To be perfectly honest with you, his photo is of course with much higher quality and lighting but it looks like a pic which was taken in a studio..I took my pic in a very low light condition in a restaurant so it can't be the same

Click to expand...

With low light, perhaps you'll have lots of "high ISO" noise and insufficient depth of field, and maybe some camera shake. But low light will have no effect on food styling and only partially hurt aesthetic appeal. But by all means, aim for more light!

--