Consider that Phil is shooting at f/1.4 for his 8 second exposures at ISO-3200.
I'm not sure you'd want to push the 40D to ISO-3200 without some kind of noise reduction. Even at ISO-3200, I don't think the 40D files are going to be as clean.
Also, consider, that at f/2.8, you are still two stops slower than f/1.4, so, you're still going to likely be shooting 30 second exposures, unless you're under some really dark skies.
Just a hunch, but, still worth a shot, because once you've reduced the RAWs down to video resolution, you may still be able to produce decent timelapses. I guess the other thing to remember is that you can always push the RAWs a stop in brightness in DPP. Might still be worth it.
Mike I've got the 10-22mm and love it, it's a very nice lens and will work a treat on your 40D.
To get better performance you'll need to go up in price for a faster lens.
The Sigma is also an excellent lens and you won't be disappointed with it either.
For an APC sensor these two lenses are great at that price.
A little more and the Tonika f/2.8 is a good alternative, although QC is variable I've heard on this brand.
I bought the Tonika fisheye a few years back but swapped it for the Canon fisheye instead because I wasn't happy with the QC.
Sounds pretty good, at around $900 it's within budget and f/2.8 is faster than the Canon/Sigma.
Do you have some links to some?
My only complaint with my Tokina 11-16 is it is too wide angle to shoot stars at home. I either get trees or the house in frame, illuminated by those blasted yellow street lights.
I'll find some shots from up at Willow Tree when I get home.
The distortion is minimal for a lens of this focal length, and makes it popular for shooting interiors.
Consider that Phil is shooting at f/1.4 for his 8 second exposures at ISO-3200.
I'm not sure you'd want to push the 40D to ISO-3200 without some kind of noise reduction. Even at ISO-3200, I don't think the 40D files are going to be as clean.
Also, consider, that at f/2.8, you are still two stops slower than f/1.4, so, you're still going to likely be shooting 30 second exposures, unless you're under some really dark skies.
Just a hunch, but, still worth a shot, because once you've reduced the RAWs down to video resolution, you may still be able to produce decent timelapses. I guess the other thing to remember is that you can always push the RAWs a stop in brightness in DPP. Might still be worth it.
H
All perfectly valid points.
I've done timelapses before with my 40D and Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 so if I have to do 25-30s I know I can, and yes, I usually increase the brightness in post-prod.
I tried ISO3200 once and it was way too noisy on the 40D.
Mike I've got the 10-22mm and love it, it's a very nice lens and will work a treat on your 40D.
To get better performance you'll need to go up in price for a faster lens.
The Sigma is also an excellent lens and you won't be disappointed with it either.
For an APC sensor these two lenses are great at that price.
A little more and the Tonika f/2.8 is a good alternative, although QC is variable I've heard on this brand.
I bought the Tonika fisheye a few years back but swapped it for the Canon fisheye instead because I wasn't happy with the QC.
hmm, thanks for sharing your experiences.
I know many people are happy with the Canon 10-22. I just thought f/3.5 is getting a bit slow.
My only complaint with my Tokina 11-16 is it is too wide angle to shoot stars at home. I either get trees or the house in frame, illuminated by those blasted yellow street lights.
I'll find some shots from up at Willow Tree when I get home.
The distortion is minimal for a lens of this focal length, and makes it popular for shooting interiors.
Yeh it's not something i'd likely use at home - more for when I'm on site with the intention of getting lots of foreground and lots of sky.
Yeh it's not something i'd likely use at home - more for when I'm on site with the intention of getting lots of foreground and lots of sky.
An example taken up at Willow Tree, scaled to 25%, no other processing.
Exposure Time : 30
F Number : 2.8
Exposure Program : Manual
ISO : 400
Focal Length : 11.0 mm
Focal Length In 35mm Format : 16 mm
Scale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent: 1.5
Your field is at (RA, Dec) = (226.945, -49.162) degrees
and spans 117.50 x 78.63 degrees .
Your field contains:
* The constellation Ara (Ara)
* The constellation Libra (Lib)
* The constellation Chamaeleon (Cha)
* Part of the constellation Carina (Car)
* The constellation Centaurus (Cen)
* The constellation Circinus (Cir)
* The constellation Crux (Cru)
* The constellation Norma (Nor)
* Part of the constellation Hydra (Hya)
* The constellation Lupus (Lup)
* The constellation Musca (Mus)
* Part of the constellation Octans (Oct)
* The constellation Apus (Aps)
* Part of the constellation Ophiuchus (Oph)
* Part of the constellation Pavo (Pav)
* The constellation Scorpius (Sco)
* The constellation Triangulum Australe (Tra)
* Part of the constellation Virgo (Vir)
* Part of the constellation Vela (Vel)
* NGC 3372 / eta Car nebula
* IC 4592
* The star α1Cen
* The star Agena / Hadar (βCen)
* The star Antares (αSco)
* The star Becrux / Mimosa (βCru)
* The star α1Cru
* The star α2Cen
* The star Miaplacidus (βCar)
* The star Gacrux (γCru)
* The star Shaula (λSco)
* The star α2Cru
I have the Canon 10-22mm and recommend it but I don't actually use it myself all that much these days (all my 20D gear is loaned to a friend at the moment).
A couple of people on my workshops had the Tokina lens and it looks like an attractive f2.8 option for the APS-C cameras (under $700 as far as i can see).
For timelapse you can get away with much lower image quality than for a sharp widefield still image. In fact a bit of star bloating helps make the bright stars more visible as they can otherwise get lost. My 24mm f1.4 is pretty ugly in the corners wide open (it is f1.4!) but in the videos you don't really care.
I have the Canon 10-22mm and recommend it but I don't actually use it myself all that much these days (all my 20D gear is loaned to a friend at the moment).
A couple of people on my workshops had the Tokina lens and it looks like an attractive f2.8 option for the APS-C cameras (under $700 as far as i can see).
For timelapse you can get away with much lower image quality than for a sharp widefield still image. In fact a bit of star bloating helps make the bright stars more visible as they can otherwise get lost. My 24mm f1.4 is pretty ugly in the corners wide open (it is f1.4!) but in the videos you don't really care.
Phil
Thanks Phil - the Tokina is looking pretty attractive.
But I still need a wide angle lens to go on it. When I started this thread back in August, I wasn't going to get the 5DMarkII body yet, but now I definitely will (with the Kimberley trip coming up).
From looking at the Tokina 11-16, is it true that this WILL NOT go on the 5D Mark II body?
If that's the case, what are some other recommendations of an ultra-wide (not fisheye) that can go on a 5D Mark II (AND a 40D) body?