Damn the mount sunk on one leg and my perfect polar went off so I had to take off the scope and re level it cause it was too heavy even without to move the thing back to correct level.
Trashed over thirty minutes cause I did not check now I have to align it again...and the battery went flat in the canon...still a loverly night and looking forward to some disco moves when I recover.
Alex
Well i was intrigued by this so i thought i'd go out and have a bash.
I have a 18-135mm IS and 70-200 non-is L series which i mount to the trusty 7d.
I don't like the noise performance on this camera so i keep it below 800 at all times except in emergencies or taking movies.
F8 is bang in the middle of the f-range for these lenses and is the sweet spot for the sharpest focus.
the only variables were speed, and moving the ISO to suit a decent exposure.
I didn't need to go faster than 1/200th on either lens
but gave it a go anyway. can't see the difference meself
Autofocus was on. all photos hand held standing up.
Took a few IS and non-IS with the little lens to try and see the difference.
apart from cropping no editing was done
The image specs are in the filenames
the photos are attached for comment, but here is what i reckon.
(feel free to disagree)
The moon is sooo bright you can go way low in the ISO and still get a steady shot with low noise if the time is at least the inverse of the focal length. (so a 200mm lens at 1/200th of a second still gives a good result)
at these speeds, Image stabilisation does not seem to play a part.
The mighty 7d with a big lens on it starts to weigh close to 1.5kg.
i doubt you could notice any impact from the shutter just due to the massive inertia
ps. apologies for the crappy crops but its late and i need beddy bye
All good guys, as it so happens i cant really join in, I literally don't have a Lens other than a nifty 50 at the moment.
As you guys are probably aware i broke my Canon 70-200mm F2.8L and really cant afford a new one just yet.
The repair bill from Canon in Sydney was $1691.23, and that was for a lens some 6 years old.
A new one will cost about $2600.00
But things may change in the near future.
All good guys, as it so happens i cant really join in, I literally don't have a Lens other than a nifty 50 at the moment.
As you guys are probably aware i broke my Canon 70-200mm F2.8L and really cant afford a new one just yet.
The repair bill from Canon in Sydney was $1691.23, and that was for a lens some 6 years old.
A new one will cost about $2600.00
But things may change in the near future.
Leon
I do remember your post re the lens...I think it was re the lens..well I remember something going wrong for you camera wise.
And I doubt if I could talk you into a $200 lens 70 /300 along the lines I have.
I have a cheapee for the nikon and it is not too bad and it cost around $200...but certainly it does not like much outside the middle of its range.Still it is miles ahead og the old canon which is now over a decade.
Things will change Leon I just know something will come along and you will get your lens and I hope for your sake it happens real soon.
All good guys, as it so happens i cant really join in, I literally don't have a Lens other than a nifty 50 at the moment.
As you guys are probably aware i broke my Canon 70-200mm F2.8L and really cant afford a new one just yet.
The repair bill from Canon in Sydney was $1691.23, and that was for a lens some 6 years old.
A new one will cost about $2600.00
But things may change in the near future.
Leon
Hi Leon,
If you don't mind looking about on ebay or perhaps even gumtree the Canon 70-200 2.8 L (Non IS version -"MkI") can be had for $700-1000 and the MkII version for ~$1200+ from what I've noticed.
...at the risk of providing unsolicited advice....
If budget is a concern, and you don't absolutely need f2.8....
a 70-200 F4 L series can be had for less than $500
(as i write this, there's an IS version on flea bay for $250)
Ok so you lose 1.2 "Fs" and for low light birding this might
be a deal breaker.
The upsides:
- the f4 is renowned for being sharper than the F2.8
- the F4 is HALF the weight.
As i do a fair bit of sports photography, and wildlife off boats as well as on trek, these two elements alone won me over - the lower cost was just an added bonus.
As a bottom feeder in the vast ocean of digital AP [as opposed to film AP], I am posting a hand held image of the moon that befits my position in the mud.
1/60th sec @f/3.5 ISO400 18-55 set to 18 + a .45 reducer =8.1mm.
Sorry about the roof; I forgot to disable the flash.
raymo
P.S. pic is huge, need to set screen to minimum magnification to view it.
Last edited by raymo; 04-03-2018 at 05:26 PM.
Reason: more text
as it so happens i cant really join in, I literally don't have a Lens other than a nifty 50 at the moment.
