Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Astronomical Photography Forum
I'm Baaa-aaaack!
Mar 19, 2016 09:45:18   #
Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
 
I have been a bit quiet on here since my last abortive trip up the mountain to discover that my 10-18mm lens has no infinity stop, and no way to tell if it is focused or not...

I have upgraded my gear quite a bit, due to a one-off financial windfall, and yesterday was my first try-out with the new stuff. I am using a 5DII, to check out the FF side of things, and the manual Rokinon 14mm lens.

These were all taken in the church parking lot, about 50 yards from where I currently sit, and I was really just checking to see if I could get focus. I didn't spend much time on them, and just basic PP in LR. I did have to crop some of them, since I was standing between the camera and a streetlight, trying to keep the light from the bulbous front element of this lens, and I actually ended up in the picture! Nobody needs to see that...

Now, the oft-quoted 500 rule says that I should have 35 seconds at 14mm before they start to streak, so I just set it to 30 seconds and shot away. Started at some high ISO value, and got basically daylight, so I dialed it back to, I think 800. Unfortunately, when you zoom in, you can see that the stars are definitely starting to streak, but as far as I can tell, they *are* in focus. I shot mainly right at the infinity stop, but a couple were taken backed off "a smidge" - old technical term! I cannot tell the difference, to be honest. It was getting cold - we are expecting *snow* today! - so I didn't spend too much time. I suspect with 20 seconds rather than 30, I would have some real nice results to show. Even as they are, until you zoom in, they look pretty decent.

So, it looks like this lens should be a success for my ongoing endeavours. Now I just need Summer!

Tilting such a wide lens upwards does strange things to the foreground, but that wasn't an interest.

Given that this was really a proof-of-concept for the focus issue, and not really an artistic attempt, I would be grateful for any observations. Do you think that the focus is ok, as much as we can tell with the starts starting to smear?

Orion - spot the teensy-weensy nebula!
Orion - spot the teensy-weensy nebula!...
(Download)

slightly less-cropped, also shows Hyades and Pleiades quite well
slightly less-cropped, also shows Hyades and Pleia...
(Download)

Cassiopaea (sp?) just right of centre, means that M31 is there just left of centre. With a 14mm, though, good luck seeing it!
Cassiopaea  (sp?) just right of centre, means that...
(Download)

Reply
Mar 19, 2016 10:36:05   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Bloke wrote:
I have been a bit quiet on here since my last abortive trip up the mountain to discover that my 10-18mm lens has no infinity stop, and no way to tell if it is focused or not...

I have upgraded my gear quite a bit, due to a one-off financial windfall, and yesterday was my first try-out with the new stuff. I am using a 5DII, to check out the FF side of things, and the manual Rokinon 14mm lens.

These were all taken in the church parking lot, about 50 yards from where I currently sit, and I was really just checking to see if I could get focus. I didn't spend much time on them, and just basic PP in LR. I did have to crop some of them, since I was standing between the camera and a streetlight, trying to keep the light from the bulbous front element of this lens, and I actually ended up in the picture! Nobody needs to see that...

Now, the oft-quoted 500 rule says that I should have 35 seconds at 14mm before they start to streak, so I just set it to 30 seconds and shot away. Started at some high ISO value, and got basically daylight, so I dialed it back to, I think 800. Unfortunately, when you zoom in, you can see that the stars are definitely starting to streak, but as far as I can tell, they *are* in focus. I shot mainly right at the infinity stop, but a couple were taken backed off "a smidge" - old technical term! I cannot tell the difference, to be honest. It was getting cold - we are expecting *snow* today! - so I didn't spend too much time. I suspect with 20 seconds rather than 30, I would have some real nice results to show. Even as they are, until you zoom in, they look pretty decent.

So, it looks like this lens should be a success for my ongoing endeavours. Now I just need Summer!

Tilting such a wide lens upwards does strange things to the foreground, but that wasn't an interest.

Given that this was really a proof-of-concept for the focus issue, and not really an artistic attempt, I would be grateful for any observations. Do you think that the focus is ok, as much as we can tell with the starts starting to smear?
I have been a bit quiet on here since my last abor... (show quote)


Definitely seeing that your stars are in focus, and I do not see any distortion on the stars. You have arrived! On the 2nd image, looks like there is some glare in one spot. You'll need to take along your BB gun and remove offending lights. Just kidding!!!

Reply
Mar 19, 2016 11:12:29   #
Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
 
JimH123 wrote:
Definitely seeing that your stars are in focus, and I do not see any distortion on the stars. You have arrived! On the 2nd image, looks like there is some glare in one spot. You'll need to take along your BB gun and remove offending lights. Just kidding!!!


Yeah, the moon was just out of shot here, and with the front element on this lens, it is going to be very prone to flare...

This is tilted just a smidgin further up, so you can see how close the moon was to my frame. Of course, at 30 seconds it is vastly overexposed, and also very, very small...
This is tilted just a smidgin further up, so you c...
(Download)

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2016 11:19:45   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Bloke wrote:
Yeah, the moon was just out of shot here, and with the front element on this lens, it is going to be very prone to flare...


I recall the lens you are using does not have a convenient way to attach a deeper lens hood. Perhaps you can make something. I have bought some black rubbery sheets at Hobby Lobby that I intend to make some wrap around lens hoods and hold it in place with rubber bands. Of course with the wide angle, it would need to be wrapped to look like a funnel.

Reply
Mar 19, 2016 11:44:06   #
SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA
 
Looks great, Phil!
The stars, as Jim said, appear to be sharp and draws you in to look deeper.
I don't find the lights distracting at all, I think they add to the composition.

You did kind of freaked me out... the second image (top) has a smudge on it around 10 O'clock.
I thought it was on my display... :-o (Wouldn't be the first time)
Is the moon, for lack of a more intelligent description, figure 8'ed because of the exposure time?
Or is that from something else?

Otherwise, I find myself looking deeper and deeper into the stars in your photographs. There are some really infinite stars there.
And our old friend the hunter crossing... Makes me lean in looking for the nebula I know are there.
Looks great from here Phil!

For shading the streetlight... might you have an umbrella you could try?

Reply
Mar 19, 2016 12:47:31   #
Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
 
JimH123 wrote:
I recall the lens you are using does not have a convenient way to attach a deeper lens hood. Perhaps you can make something. I have bought some black rubbery sheets at Hobby Lobby that I intend to make some wrap around lens hoods and hold it in place with rubber bands. Of course with the wide angle, it would need to be wrapped to look like a funnel.


Yeah, this thing is *wide*. The fixed hood is not a lot of use, especially since the front glass projects out almost as far as the hood does! The lights won't be so much of a problem when I go to my 'proper' site, amongst the trees. This was just a quick test. It literally is just a few feet away, but it has several street lights, and whichever way I am pointing, there is one shining on the camera. Standing so my shadow covers the camera worked before, but I was never using one this wide before!

Reply
Mar 19, 2016 13:02:25   #
Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
 
SonnyE wrote:
Looks great, Phil!
The stars, as Jim said, appear to be sharp and draws you in to look deeper.
I don't find the lights distracting at all, I think they add to the composition.

You did kind of freaked me out... the second image (top) has a smudge on it around 10 O'clock.
I thought it was on my display... :-o (Wouldn't be the first time)
Is the moon, for lack of a more intelligent description, figure 8'ed because of the exposure time?
Or is that from something else?

Otherwise, I find myself looking deeper and deeper into the stars in your photographs. There are some really infinite stars there.
And our old friend the hunter crossing... Makes me lean in looking for the nebula I know are there.
Looks great from here Phil!

For shading the streetlight... might you have an umbrella you could try?
Looks great, Phil! br The stars, as Jim said, appe... (show quote)


The smudge you see is a flare from the moon. It was a lot worse on one of my other shots. I wouldn't normally have been out shooting stars when the moon is up that much, but this was the first relatively mild night without total cloud cover.

Several of these shots have a bright red star in them - I had all kinds of aircraft flying over during the session! They must have been going slowly enough to not streak during the exposures.

I am not sure why the moon looks like a figure 8... I can understand it moving during the exposure, but it *should* look like a broad line. I noticed the way it looked, but as to why...

I do have umbrellas around the place, but it's normally just easier to stand between the light and the lens. The fact that it captured a blurred image of *me* there, though, means that it would probably pick up the umbrella too. As I say, it will not be an issue when I go out to take some serious photos.

I am thinking seriously about one of those star-trackers, to allow me some longer exposures and longer lenses (if they will focus to infinity!). Depends on how much the finances suffer during my trip back to the UK in May... If not this year, then maybe next year. I do have the camranger setup working, so I can sit in the car, rather than standing out in the cold, so maybe next winter won't be such a photo-free zone! Talking about longer lenses, Rokinon also make a very highly-rated 85mm f1.4, so that may be something else on my wishlist...

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2016 17:20:28   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Bloke wrote:
The smudge you see is a flare from the moon. It was a lot worse on one of my other shots. I wouldn't normally have been out shooting stars when the moon is up that much, but this was the first relatively mild night without total cloud cover.

Several of these shots have a bright red star in them - I had all kinds of aircraft flying over during the session! They must have been going slowly enough to not streak during the exposures.

I am not sure why the moon looks like a figure 8... I can understand it moving during the exposure, but it *should* look like a broad line. I noticed the way it looked, but as to why...

I do have umbrellas around the place, but it's normally just easier to stand between the light and the lens. The fact that it captured a blurred image of *me* there, though, means that it would probably pick up the umbrella too. As I say, it will not be an issue when I go out to take some serious photos.

I am thinking seriously about one of those star-trackers, to allow me some longer exposures and longer lenses (if they will focus to infinity!). Depends on how much the finances suffer during my trip back to the UK in May... If not this year, then maybe next year. I do have the camranger setup working, so I can sit in the car, rather than standing out in the cold, so maybe next winter won't be such a photo-free zone! Talking about longer lenses, Rokinon also make a very highly-rated 85mm f1.4, so that may be something else on my wishlist...
The smudge you see is a flare from the moon. It w... (show quote)


The moon problem is likely due to some internal reflection with the bright moon hitting things from near an edge. Only cure for that is to make sure the moon never is in a position to cause the problem.

Reply
Mar 19, 2016 18:35:14   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Bloke wrote:
The smudge you see is a flare from the moon. It was a lot worse on one of my other shots. I wouldn't normally have been out shooting stars when the moon is up that much, but this was the first relatively mild night without total cloud cover.

Several of these shots have a bright red star in them - I had all kinds of aircraft flying over during the session! They must have been going slowly enough to not streak during the exposures.

I am not sure why the moon looks like a figure 8... I can understand it moving during the exposure, but it *should* look like a broad line. I noticed the way it looked, but as to why...

I do have umbrellas around the place, but it's normally just easier to stand between the light and the lens. The fact that it captured a blurred image of *me* there, though, means that it would probably pick up the umbrella too. As I say, it will not be an issue when I go out to take some serious photos.

I am thinking seriously about one of those star-trackers, to allow me some longer exposures and longer lenses (if they will focus to infinity!). Depends on how much the finances suffer during my trip back to the UK in May... If not this year, then maybe next year. I do have the camranger setup working, so I can sit in the car, rather than standing out in the cold, so maybe next winter won't be such a photo-free zone! Talking about longer lenses, Rokinon also make a very highly-rated 85mm f1.4, so that may be something else on my wishlist...
The smudge you see is a flare from the moon. It w... (show quote)


Oops, double send.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Astronomical Photography Forum
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.