Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:14 AM
Adelastro1's Avatar
Adelastro1 (Wayne England)
Hard to soar like eagles.

Adelastro1 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 401
Hi Baz,

I can't comment on Canons as I own a Nikon D3s, but it is exceptional at higher ISO. That is the main reason I bought it. Basically I reckon ISO 64000 is roughly the same as old grainy 1600 ASA film! It goes up to 102,000 bit there's way too much noise.
From my understanding from what I've read the 5DMKII is almost as good ISO wise as the D3s, so using 12800 ISO (stated as its standard and then can be pushed higher) you would still get quality images. I recently used ISO 8000 on some wide field shots and couldn't believe the Milky Way detail and fine grain. You could easily use ISO 3200+ to get what you want I'm sure...

Below is a shot of two 30 sec exposures at ISO 8000 stitched together to make a panorama. I was amazed at how well they stitched too! So depending what you want to do, if it's shots like this you're after you could make 2 or 3 quick shots in a row and stitch them, making sure the stars haven't moved too much by the end of the exposures, thus being able to use a longer focal length lens...

Wayne
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Panorama2 small.jpg)
166.4 KB53 views
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:19 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
For 3 times the price, and a camera which is a year newer, you would want to hope that the D3s has a better high ISO rating than the 5D Mark II.

H
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 18-06-2010, 10:01 AM
Adelastro1's Avatar
Adelastro1 (Wayne England)
Hard to soar like eagles.

Adelastro1 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
For 3 times the price, and a camera which is a year newer, you would want to hope that the D3s has a better high ISO rating than the 5D Mark II.

H
I'm sure there are a few other things better on it too! Besides, it's a Nikon so it must be better... haha

My point was that the newer high end models of any DSLR range have great high ISO grain nowdays, so you can stop down a lens a little to use it at it's optimum aperture without increasing exposure time compared with older models. Baz will notice a big difference going from the older 400D to the 5DMkII, ISO wise, which could affect his choice of lens.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 18-06-2010, 10:13 AM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
only took nikon the good part of a decade to catch up
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 18-06-2010, 10:13 AM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
This is all good info guys and a great range of experience i hear talking.

It all factors in the decision-making process.

Thanks heaps.

I am thinking of the versatility of the 16-35, but basically testing the waters to weigh up the reasoning behind my decision to see if I have made the right one.

I think I will get a lot out of this lens, but it will by no-means be the last one I buy.

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:18 PM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
16-35 is a decent lens, just don't expect it to be that crash hot optically at wide apertures.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:36 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejanus View Post
16-35 is a decent lens, just don't expect it to be that crash hot optically at wide apertures.
Would "Crash hot" be really noticeable at 16mm on the Milky Way? Is that a pixel peeper thing or is it that bad any numpty would notice it?

In fact, Has anyone got a photograph of the Milky Way at 16mm with this lens?

That would tell us all a LOT!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:48 PM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
I don't have a milky way sample but just generally speaking both my 16-35's (mk1 & mk2) are pretty soft and lack colour and vignette a bit when shot wide.

The sharpness thing is probably pixel peeping yeah - especially at web sizes. When you downsize the image to email/web/flickr sort of sizing it'll be ok, especially after a light unsharp mask.

It probably distorts quite a bit at 16mm as well. I'll have a mount here mid next week so I can try then and send you a full rez file if you aren't in a huge hurry.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:57 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejanus View Post
I don't have a milky way sample but just generally speaking both my 16-35's (mk1 & mk2) are pretty soft and lack colour and vignette a bit when shot wide.

The sharpness thing is probably pixel peeping yeah - especially at web sizes. When you downsize the image to email/web/flickr sort of sizing it'll be ok, especially after a light unsharp mask.

It probably distorts quite a bit at 16mm as well. I'll have a mount here mid next week so I can try then and send you a full rez file if you aren't in a huge hurry.
That would be great mate! My upcoming purchase is still 6 weeks away.

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 18-06-2010, 01:58 PM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
consider it done
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 18-06-2010, 02:55 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
If it's only really going to be used for web purposes, you may as well save yourself 50% and go with the 17-40mm f/4L USM. It's a sacrifice of a stop, and 1mm on the wide end, but, you gain 5mm on the long end. Consider, also, that good quality (read: expensive) filters typically come in 77mm. The 16-35mm is an esoteric 72mm lens (along with the 200mm f/2.8L II). That is, high quality filters might be a bit more expensive.

I think my landscape images will show you how the 17-40mm performs. Both would be pretty nasty on stars at the edges.

Bottom line: If I had cash, I'd get the 16-35mm.

H
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 18-06-2010, 03:58 PM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,538
hmm

I'm watching this keenly I don't have money for a new lens now but would like it...

I've found my 17-40 F4/L is good but not great:
- not fast enough for meteor shower photos at 800ISO
- not wide enough for a lot of astro stuff I want to do (used to be ok with full frame sensor)
- has distortion on the edges
- is super critical on sharp focus when doing astro stuff - very slightly off and distortions are horrible

Sure you can put the ISO up but that doesn't work well on warm nights (unless you have a 5DmkII apparently ).

I think it was the Orionids shower that I saw lots of meteors but captured few. Someone else with a F/2.8 was catching many more.

Another option is high ISO and Noise Ninja. I didn't have Noise Ninja for the Orionids but now do and it's a life saver, brilliant piece of software that enables at least another stop in ISO. Run it and you more often than not you find yourself saying "wow! amazing! it's .. .just .. perfect! and I didn't even do any tweaking!".

Wish I'd bought a 5DmkII - 7D is too noisy for my liking. .... but Noise Ninja saves me until my budget permits otherwise (ie, several years )

Edit: oh btw, the lens I keep my eye on is the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L ... looks very nice on paper (haven't used one). But then I do wonder.... for astro work how do you keep dew off such a wide lens? becomes largely unusable on dewy nights. Wrapping a dew strap around it would get tricky at best.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 18-06-2010, 04:12 PM
Garyh's Avatar
Garyh
Amongst the stars

Garyh is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glen Innes, N.S.W.
Posts: 2,839
I would agree with H here as well....
The 16-35 L has great reviews and would be as sharp as most of the primes, maybe more barrel distortion but than primes....vignetting and sharpness there`s not much difference here...
I`ll second the 17-40 L as a second choice....more barrel distortion and a little slower but a better price...
Both have great results stopped down a few stops......
The 24-70 suffers in resolution ex in the corners....
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 18-06-2010, 07:16 PM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
The 16-35 is as sharp as the primes assuming it's stopped down to at least 5.6 if not 8. My Zeiss 21mm is sharper at 2.8 than my 16-35 is at 5.6. There is also pretty much zero vignetting at 2.8 on the zeiss on full frame.

The 24-70 is a pile of crap. I've had 3 (long story) and they are all rubbish. I keep meaning to ebay my current one as I never use it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 18-06-2010, 08:22 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejanus View Post
...
The 24-70 is a pile of crap. I've had 3 (long story) and they are all rubbish. I keep meaning to ebay my current one as I never use it.
So how do you know it's a pile of crap if you haven't used it?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 18-06-2010, 09:04 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,408
Use
Used

He's used it, he just doesn't use it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 18-06-2010, 09:28 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,824
Gotchya
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 19-06-2010, 09:35 AM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
This is worth checking out, lots of star tests for various lenses including the Zeiss Distagon 21mmF2.8:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiroc/s...7603106113462/

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 19-06-2010, 11:18 AM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,982
Baz I don't think you will achive your stated goal, IMO the 5DII simply isn't sensitive enough to produce short exposures of the night sky without a significant tradeoff between noise and trailing.

As Humayan points out, long tracked exposures will produce the results you're after, rather than spend cubic dollars on wide and fast you may be better off investing in some lightweight and portable tracking equipment.

That said if you still want fast and wide, as Gavin suggests, dig deep and go for the Canon EF14mm F2.8L, just don't let the minister for household affairs know how much it cost.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 19-06-2010, 11:35 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Version II of the 14mm f/2.8L.

The original is rubbish my most accounts. I've never used one, though. Just going by what's on review sites.

H
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement