Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

The MOON this morning with a 400mm lens


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 MrsP

MrsP

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 29 January 2013 - 16:20

The lens weighs a ton and so does the tripod but I was determined to get it all outside and see how it shot the moon.
Carylfull moon 400mm(almost) 1-29-13-SEMG_5925.jpg
  • yunfat likes this
see my art at: pbase.com/carylwithay

#2 vivionm

vivionm

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,821 posts
  • LocationLuxembourg
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 29 January 2013 - 16:29

Wow. I must try this.

#3 Fons Baerken

Fons Baerken

    Advanced Member

  • POTW Committee
  • 8,529 posts
  • LocationNederland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 29 January 2013 - 16:40

whats an almost 400mm Caryl?

#4 armando_m

armando_m

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationGuadalajara

Posted 29 January 2013 - 18:10

I was tempted to do the same this morning !

400mm on the 7d , that's a lot of reach !
will sharpness improve even further if you used say f4 ?

nicely done!

something odd going on the left edge, there are blurry patches

Regards,
Armando 
 


#5 MrsP

MrsP

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 29 January 2013 - 18:11

It is an almost full moon no an almost 400mm lens
Caryl
see my art at: pbase.com/carylwithay

#6 MrsP

MrsP

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 29 January 2013 - 18:13

The blurry patches are my attempt to get rid of that white halo. Guess i made a mess.
Caryl
see my art at: pbase.com/carylwithay

#7 Mike G

Mike G

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 4,878 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 29 January 2013 - 21:14

Nicely done Caryl, Not hand held then? :D

Edited by Mike G, 29 January 2013 - 21:27 .

Mike Gorman
My interview thread :- this link

#8 MrsP

MrsP

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 29 January 2013 - 21:25

The lens weighs about 15 pounds. It is a monster. I have a very heavy duty tripod for it. Needles to say, I do not carry it around much.
Caryl
see my art at: pbase.com/carylwithay

#9 PedroS

PedroS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,374 posts
  • LocationLisbon
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 29 January 2013 - 21:53

Very nice.
Can we see a picture of the gear?
Thanks
PedroS

www.pedrosfotografia.com

#10 yunfat

yunfat

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 00:15

THat's awesome.

#11 MrsP

MrsP

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 30 January 2013 - 00:41

Here it is. That is a Gitzo behind it with my Nikon 300mm on it.
CarylCanon 400 mm lens DSC_0071.jpg
see my art at: pbase.com/carylwithay

#12 PedroS

PedroS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,374 posts
  • LocationLisbon
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:06

thanks :)
Thanks
PedroS

www.pedrosfotografia.com

#13 wildoat

wildoat

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 4,856 posts
  • LocationBerkshire, UK
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:38

That looks pretty darn sharp to be, well done.

If only it would keep still :D
 

 

 

 

 

 

Moose says " if you have a very expensive lens and you have a very cheap tripod, you're nuts"  




 


#14 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,413 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:55

"my Nikon 300mm"


Nah, that is a Canon lens.
Bjørn

#15 bjornthun

bjornthun

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,659 posts
  • LocationFredrikstad, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 30 January 2013 - 16:02

"my Nikon 300mm"


Nah, that is a Canon lens.

I think the Nikon is actually hiding behind the Canon lens... :-)

Edited by bjornthun, 30 January 2013 - 16:03 .

Bjørn T

#16 MrsP

MrsP

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 30 January 2013 - 16:20

The Nikon 300 is behind the Canon. You can see the tripod if you look cardfully.
Caryl
see my art at: pbase.com/carylwithay

#17 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,413 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 30 January 2013 - 19:35

So, unless that big Canon lens was used for the actual photograph, what is the point of showing it (and hiding the Nikkor away) ?
Bjørn

#18 Millirehm

Millirehm

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,608 posts
  • LocationVienna Austria
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 30 January 2013 - 20:05

Thanks for your pic of the moon Caryl. Always planned but never realized for myself to give the moon a try with one of my long lenses.

I was irritated by the Canon lens as well but after the hint with the Gitzo tripod I got the clue that the 300 mm is required to establish in our imagination.

What I actually see is a Canon 400 mm big glass unit mounted on a manfrotto (?) crying for more solid tripod support :D , and a selection of smaller lenses on the shelf behind with too little detail for guessing what type they are and whether Canon or Nikon or something else
Wolfgang

#19 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,413 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 30 January 2013 - 20:24

Despite the massive size of than Canon lens, it will only project the moon disc as approx. 4 mm diametre onto the film plane.

For really detailled pictures of the moon you need much longer lenses. Even 1200 mm is not frame-filling on DX/APS-C formats.

Moon with 1200 mm lens (Nikon D2X)

TheMoon_1200mm_A05111214502.jpg
  • kristian skeie and armando_m like this
Bjørn

#20 PedroS

PedroS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,374 posts
  • LocationLisbon
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 30 January 2013 - 20:58

Very nice one Bjorn, but definition is not the same.
Should be related to the lens, sensor, or atmospheric reasons?
Thanks
PedroS

www.pedrosfotografia.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users