I just bought a used Nikon D5300, 17k shutter count, sans lens, and it's primarily going to be used to take attractive photos of long guns I'm going to list on GunBroker.

I am starting with zero photography experience, and I'm wondering what criteria should determine my lens choice, and whether a "general purpose" lens exists that will work for still shots of guns. I know next to nothing about what kind of focal length and aperture range I should be looking for. I don't know whether "macro" capable lenses are a niche item, or a "macro" shot is something you can manually set up on any given lens.

I'll be shooting off of a tripod, indoors, against a solid, uniform background (probably red) and some of my shots will have to include the entire long arm from both side profiles, and from the top and bottom.

I'm sure most lenses are going to be adequate for close up shots, for instance, of the entire checkered forearm of a SxS shotgun. But I don't want to make a rookie mistake and get a lens that's unable to take an attractive, flattering picture with the entire gun in the frame.

Would a "general purpose" lens be adequate for what I want to do? Can someone recommend one in particular? I know the D5300 uses a Nikon F-mount lens.

I've used Nikon gear for years doing internet/eCommerce product photography.

Regardless of the different bodies I've evolved my way through, two lenses get 95% of my use.

Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8

You could save a lot of money by going to a fixed focal length 28mm or 35mm in place of the 24-70.  And since you're running  a DX format body, you could save some additional money by going the 60mm Macro route.

Your camera is capable of a 6000 x 4000 pixel resolution, so you will have A LOT of cropping room to get down to a 1024 pixel to publishable finished photo.

[EDIT]  Try and avoid using a red background.  It overwhelms your primary product colors and does not render well on all monitors.

With a DX body I would think about the 40mm macro (or what Nikon calls a "micro") lens.

Something like the 105 macro would be nice if you're taking photos of small parts, but you're going to have to get way back to take pics of whole long guns.

The 60mm macro might be good, but it's twice the price of the 40mm.

Two things that macro lenses do for you - first, they let you focus really close up. But also, they generally have flat field focus - focus away from the center is further away than focus in the center, so something flat is all in-focus instead of the edges being out of focus. This can be helpful depending on how you have stuff arranged.

Creating a decent light box or lighting arrangement will be very helpful.

If you don't have any lenses to try, I'd consider just getting a cheap used zoom, a 24-70 or 18-50 range just to see what kind of room you have to work with vs focal length range in your space, before you spend too much on more expensive lenses.  The AF-P 18-55 is a pretty cheap little lens, used it's under $75. I don't think I've ever tried it to see what the minimum focus distance is, might have to try it later. The AF-P lenses go for pretty cheap because only the newer Nikon bodies are compatible with it.

Keep in mind if you're looking at lenses that not all Nikon lenses are compatible with the D5300 - it won't autofocus with lenses that use the mechanical focus drive. Most of the listings for the 60mm macro were the mechanical drive (AF-D) version for example. You need AF-S (or AF-P), or Sigma HSM or others that use focus motors in the lens.

Thanks for the heads up about the red background.

Regarding the 60mm Macro route, did you mean I could go that way in lieu of a fixed focal length 28mm or 35mm, or in addition to a fixed focal length 28mm or 35mm?

Thoughts on the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 as a do-all? It's looking tasty at under $200 with very good reviews at B&H.

Will be taking this into account when I have a bit more mental energy tomorrow. Trying to digest a new technical area of knowledge is pretty taxing! But I'll get there.

ETA:
Minimum focus distance on the AF-S 35 1.8 is close enough to almost fill the frame with a 2.5" laptop hard drive (2.75 by 4 inches).

The AF-P 18-55 at 55mm can focus with about half of that size in focus. This particular lens is a little odd to use as it doesn't make an sound or movement when focusing, and it focuses so fast it's hard to see.

For purposes of comparision, on a D500 (DX), have to be about 6 1/2 feet back to get a 20" AR in the frame with a 35mm lens.

Good information.

Honestly (and I'm going to catch a lot of heat for this), the kit 18-55 lens will serve your purposes, and will run you about $80 used from places like KEH.

Yeah, it's a cheap build., and yeah, it's discontinued, but it's got a useful zoom range and is surprisingly good for what it is.

The 5300 body doesn't know a thing about the P series lenses.  Go with the old tried and true 18-55 I mentioned.

Or the 18-105.

18-105 link

18-55 link

I'll take your word for it, I was just going by some promo info on the AF-P lenses that said they were compatible with D5300. Nikon's compatibility page doesn't say it is compatible so might be best to skip the AF-P then.

I have a Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM, it close focuses on the 2.5 drive to fill about 75% of the frame.

Glad to hear all the information, keep it coming! Any comments are welcome - something obvious to you might not be obvious to me.

I didn't know "e-commerce photography" was it's own field until yesterday evening.

I'll study everything above when I have time later today, I'm grateful to get this much information.

Do a little reading on the subject of lighting for still life photography while your at it.

This.  Good lighting can make a huge difference.

And you don't have to spend a ton on some fancy lightbox either.

Here's one I threw together from a portable flourescent light table, some banker box tops, and an intake valve on a Cessna 172.

ETA, this shot was made with a Nikon D50 and the kit 18-55 lens.

DSCN1927 by FredMan, on Flickr

DSC_1073 by FredMan, on Flickr

Good advice, that 18-55 is pretty amazing for a cheap lens. It's not very durable but if you destroy it you're only out a few bucks. That is exactly where I'd start, especially given what you're using it for.

Just curious - for your homemade light box, what wattage fluorescent lamp(s) are you using, and what ISO (typically) for those photos?

I got a couple of cheap light boxes/stands from amazon - they each came with a 'curly' 100 watt fluorescent tube, with a silvered reflector surface plus a light diffuser screen, and I was totally underwhelmed by the light that they produced. I wanted to stop the aperture down to at least f/8 or f/11 to get reasonable depth of field (using Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro-nikkor lens), and somehow expected that ISO 200-ish might do the trick, but I was way off - even though I was using a tripod I would prefer not to shoot with the slow-ish shutter speeds that resulted from those settings - but maybe my expectations were incorrect as to what would be a reasonable ISO to use or how much light to expect from those lamps and lightbox reflectors.

I don't take pictures of guns, so I can't help much. But I have taken a few pictures, and I know the Nikon system a little.

You have a "DX" or a ASP-C crop frame sensor. It's like taking a "FX" Full Frame camera, and cropping the sensor size to be smaller.
You can buy and use DX lens or FX lens. DX lens are normally cheaper, and don't work very well on a full frame FX nikon body.
My favorite lens is the 24-70 2.8. It's a very good lens, and it's perfect for a lot of shooting I've done. The 24-70 was my favorite on my D80, D90, D7000, and D500, and now that I've upgraded to a D850 it has a different field of view, but it's still my favorite.  

A micro as Nikon calls it(everyone else calls it a macro) is supposed to be sharper and focus much closer than a normal lens.
You don't need 1.4 or 1.8 lens unless you get a good deal, or want the effect of blurry backgrounds. At 1.4 the background will be blurred and it calls attention to the subject in focus. Blurry backgrounds are called bokeh.

The 35 1.8 DX is a very good lens for the money and I find it to have better clarity and contrast than the kit lenses.  It also is a 1.8, which will be far more useful in low light situations or for better backgrounds.

If you need to get closer, get a set of extension tubes, they are not all that expensive.

If you're using a tripod for still subjects then set your ISO to 100, your aperture to what you want, and use whatever shutter your camera tells you to.  Shoot remote mirror-up and don't worry about long exposures.  Try it once, you'll be surprised.

For that one I don't know what the ISO was (EXIF data has disappeared) but it was f/14 and 0.4 seconds.

I do use a remote to prevent accidentally jostling the camera body - locking the mirror as an extra precaution sounds like a good plan...

I won't give you heat. It is a good lens for its price point and what OP wants to do with it.

+1 for the $100 or less you can get the lens for, it's a great bang for your buck on a DX body.  Hell, I even managed to get some of my first aurora photos with that lens even though it was far from ideal.

As for lighting, white foamcore or posterboard, printer paper, and some good bright lights are the bare minimum but you can get some great photos with it assuming you control the light properly.  Hell, my first whitebox was foamcore with a sheet of white posterboard as a curved background, with pixie lights that had printer paper taped over them.

DDecent lighting will make a big difference too.

Yup.  You can set up a flash set for pretty cheap, or if you want continuous lighting GVM and Godox make some awesome stuff on a budget.  Realistically, some high CRI led bulbs in those cheap aluminum shop lights with some paper or diffusion fabric over them would easily work in a pinch.

Silver will give more contrasting light, but if you were to hit the inside with some matte white spraypaint you should get some pretty soft light for ~$10-12 per.  (I feel this is obvious, but remove the bulb and socket before painting, and never use this with higher temperature lights as the paint could be a fire hazard) Hell, get a cheap semi transparent white shower cap and use that as a diffuser.  It won't be perfect, BUT it'll give you some pretty decent light on a ramen budget.  Add in $10 worth of foamcore and you're set to do solid work for under $50.  (3x light setups + 3 pack of foamcore should be around there)

Macro just means the image is 1:1 in size from reality to sensor/film. Typically these are used to take very detailed pictures of small objects. I think for guns, unless you're an engraver, there really isn't much point.

That said, I had a few Nikkor 80mm prime macros that were amazing. They worked ok for other shots too, focusing was just a little slower and more difficult.

fwiw.

This is true, to a point.
Macro lenses offer non-distortion close focusing which helps even if you don't have to get 1 to 1.
Wide angle lenses often do close focusing, but tend to distort the object.
My 24-70 lens will not focus closer than a couple of feet without switching to macro mode.

Macros make phenomenal portrait lenses.  They're great for all kinds of non-mall stuff because they're usually ultra sharp and distortion free.

My 105mm is a boss of a lens.

Typical macro subject:

Lily Pistil by FredMan, on Flickr

Atypical macro subject:

Shadow Leap by FredMan, on Flickr

For years my "go to" lens was my Nikon 24-120mm. It did just about anything & everything I needed it to. It was sharp, versatile & flexible. What more could one ask for in a lens?

I have since added a 28-300mm for those times I might a little more reach. It too is a very versatile lens.

I have taken many gun shots with both lenses, so they will indeed work well there.

Before you buy something, check out B&H's used section. You can save a goodly amount of money in there. Sometimes enough to buy a box of 9mm...........  

My .o2

That 24-120 is my walking-around lens.  Monster of a workhorse.

+1

I was gifted one several years back and was really surprised at how good of a lens it is.  Sure, it's not going to be as wide as my 14-24mm f/2.8 or perform like an 85mm f/1.8, but it's a damn good walkaround lens.  It's replaced pretty much everything but the 14-24mm for travel unless I need something longer.