Shoot the moon .. help please
Jan 7, 2012 20:53:50 #
photogrl57 wrote:
What size lens do you have currently ?
adlerburg wrote:
This is one of the best forums. Thank you guys for being so helpful, considerate, non judgmental... I experienced some pretty rude forums.. and am thankful I happened upon UHH. Does anyone have a suggestion for a long reach lens for my Sony Alpha that isn't stunningly expensive?
What size lens do you have currently ?
For my walk around I use a Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 and for my longer reach, bird shooting etc I use the Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G lens.
Jan 7, 2012 22:07:09 #
adlerburg wrote:
This is one of the best forums. Thank you guys for being so helpful, considerate, non judgmental... I experienced some pretty rude forums.. and am thankful I happened upon UHH. Does anyone have a suggestion for a long reach lens for my Sony Alpha that isn't stunningly expensive?
The lens I shot with retails for about $250. Mine came in a package deal. It is a fully manual lens. I know there is an adapter to fit it onto both Nikon and Canon. Hard to say if there is a Sony adapter though. When I researched to see what it was, I found a lot of people panning it as merely being good for photographing tungsten elements in the light bulbs across the street.
At 2 feet long it is a bit cumbersome. There is no F-Stop adjustment other than lengthening the lens. At 650mm it is F8, at 1300 it is F16. For a cheap lens, it is OK. With a little patience decent results can be had. I will be playing with it more when the weather is warmer.
Jan 7, 2012 22:18:49 #
RocketScientist wrote:
quote=adlerburg This is one of the best forums. T... (show quote)
What do you think of the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters? Then I can get 800 out of my 70-400mm.
Jan 7, 2012 23:04:18 #
I have a Kenko 2x. I carry it with me, but rarely use it. It would work for the moon shot you're going for. It does cost a couple F-Stops, More magnification = less light through. The 1.4x will let a little more light through at the expense of 0.6X.
Before you buy a teleconverter, make sure that it will work with your lens, both physically and electronically. I say this because the Canon brand 1.4 and 2X's have a protrusion that only allows them to work with Canon L series glass. It would work electrically, but if my Sigma 70-300mm lens I have is collapsed, the rear element of the lens would hit the front element of the Canon 2x.
Before you buy a teleconverter, make sure that it will work with your lens, both physically and electronically. I say this because the Canon brand 1.4 and 2X's have a protrusion that only allows them to work with Canon L series glass. It would work electrically, but if my Sigma 70-300mm lens I have is collapsed, the rear element of the lens would hit the front element of the Canon 2x.
Jan 8, 2012 05:49:47 #
Camera on Manual focus manual lens set to infinity
All the times and f-stops are for 200 ISO, so youll have to adapt for other ISOs
Full moon, or moon more than half visible: 1/60 sec. at f/16
Half to one-quarter of the moon visible: 1/30 sec. at f/16
Less than one-quarter of the moon visible: 1/15 sec. at f/16
Just the edge of the moon lit: 1 sec. at f/16
Fully eclipsed at beginning and end of totality: 4 sec. at f/5.6
Fully eclipsed, deepest totality: 8 sec. at f/5.6
this works great, hope it helps
All the times and f-stops are for 200 ISO, so youll have to adapt for other ISOs
Full moon, or moon more than half visible: 1/60 sec. at f/16
Half to one-quarter of the moon visible: 1/30 sec. at f/16
Less than one-quarter of the moon visible: 1/15 sec. at f/16
Just the edge of the moon lit: 1 sec. at f/16
Fully eclipsed at beginning and end of totality: 4 sec. at f/5.6
Fully eclipsed, deepest totality: 8 sec. at f/5.6
this works great, hope it helps
Jan 8, 2012 07:49:34 #
I had the EXACT same experience last night. Blown out moon every time. There was a red ring around the moon last night and I got some interesting effects but the moon was just a bright spot. I will use some of the suggestions here and try again tonight.
Jan 8, 2012 09:00:20 #
Another thing to try, start to shoot as it's getting dark and continue shooting every 10 minutes and compare the shots. Don't forget to take notes as to the darkness and times. It just costs you time.
I'm sure everyone would like to see your results with the notes.
I'm sure everyone would like to see your results with the notes.
Jan 8, 2012 09:03:50 #
RocketScientist wrote:
I have a Kenko 2x. I carry it with me, but rarely... (show quote)
Thanks... I'll do some research to assure it'll work. I would think so, as both my lenses are Sony, and so is the teleconverter.... so it should work (famous last words!), but I'll confirm.
Also, with all the advice on losing a couple stops with the teleconverter... Assuming like apertures, wouldn't a 400mm lens with a 2x teleconverter have the same light throughput as a standalone 800mm lens?
You know.. I'm sure the lens makers have thought of this, but wouldn't it be so much better to have a converter designed for the business end of a lens.. screw on like a filter? I've become a dust-o-chondriac and hate having to take a lens off my bodies... obsessive behaviour I know!
Thanks guys
Jan 8, 2012 09:09:48 #
I believe, in a previous "moon" thread, the use of an ND filter was suggested. That should cut down a bit on the blown out effect.
I know, with my telescope, I have filters which screw onto the other end of the eyepiece to cut down the glare from the moon. Watching a full moon through an unfiltered eyepiece on a telescope can be irritating.
I know, with my telescope, I have filters which screw onto the other end of the eyepiece to cut down the glare from the moon. Watching a full moon through an unfiltered eyepiece on a telescope can be irritating.
Jan 8, 2012 09:54:09 #
adlerburg wrote:
br Thanks... I'll do some research to assure it'l... (show quote)
Yes the 2x will convert a 400mm to a 800mm. The light throughput would likely be about what an affordable 800mm lens would give. An expensive one would give more throughput, that's what you pay for with L glass (well out of my budget).
I don't like screwing more than a filter on front of a lens. I do have a 2x/.5x (reversible) converter that screws on front, it came with an old VHS video camera. I think the extra weight could be a strain on the AF motor or mechanics in general. Putting the converter between the camera and the lens seems better to me because you can use it with lenses that have different filter diameters and the camera knows it is there.
Jan 8, 2012 11:01:26 #
I had a similar problem shooting the moon with a D80 - clear through the viewfinder, but fuzzy on the image. What I think happened is that the CCD fogged over, but not the optics, during a lens change. The problem resolved in a few hours.
Jan 8, 2012 11:01:41 #
A complete, non technical, analysis. Especially # 2 shot, looks like camera movement. The tree is blurred. Are you releasing the shutter by hand or remote? That would be my guess. May be way off base here, but hey, a thought.
Jan 8, 2012 11:11:10 #
adlerburg wrote:
Thanks everyone. My lens.. 70-400 obviously doesn't have the reach of you guys.. but I do feel vindicated! Thank you for the help! I was in Shutter priority, speed at 1/8000 WB=Daylight ISO 640.. and I at least got a shot!
Fantastic! ;-)
Jan 8, 2012 11:42:27 #
Jan 8, 2012 11:55:04 #
twirlgirl wrote:
I use a 70/300 lense f-stop 22 iso 200 and use the flash
What's the purpose of the flash at that distance?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.