Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Moon with 300mm f/4.5 AI
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:38 pm    Post subject: Moon with 300mm f/4.5 AI Reply with quote
A quick monopod-stabilised shot of the quarter moon. Taken from my bedroom window.



Nikon D40, Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 AI @ ISO 200, f/8, 1/400s. This is a 100% crop.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice capture ! Is it cropped ?


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Would it be sharper or less sharp if it wouldn't have been the "bed-room" window....sorry could just not resist.... Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Nice capture ! Is it cropped ?


Yes its a 100% crop.

I could have got a better/bigger photo with a 10Mp or 12Mp camera. Mine is 6Mp...


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you not write this is taken a 300mm lens ,nobody can figure out well done.I like it really.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Would it be sharper or less sharp if it wouldn't have been the "bed-room" window....sorry could just not resist.... Wink


I'm currently in bed and off work with a bad back. I happened to see the moon and took the photo. The bedroom faces south.

It would doubtless be sharper if I was not wobbling about saying 'ow ow ow' but as soon as I got this lens I wanted to take a moon shot with it and this was my first chance.

A tripod and remote release would also have given a better shot, no doubt.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What beauty pic!!

The brownish tonality is inherent to this kind of shot, or is caused for

others reasons?

Regards.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
they seem to come out like that. No colour cast in the lens. Not sure what the white balance should be though.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks good, Chris. I've seen some moon pics where they look like
moldy grapefruit for the lack of detail.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the reddish colour cast. It adds a lot of drama to the image.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A truly fine image of the moon! The lens shows great sharpness, and I'm envious that you were able to hold the camera steady with a monopod.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You've got a far steadier hand than me!


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Nice capture ! Is it cropped ?


I found that it takes a 1200mm lens to give a nice frame-filling moonshot. This is not too sharp, as it was taken with no rigid mount. Novoflex 600+2X TEX.




PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the reddish colour too. Unless there's a better reason I'd guess it might be due to the infrared shift caused by the earth's atmosphere. How high was the moon in the sky in this shot Chris?


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Looks good, Chris. I've seen some moon pics where they look like
moldy grapefruit for the lack of detail.


Yes, like the one on the left here:



PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:

I found that it takes a 1200mm lens to give a nice frame-filling moonshot. This is not too sharp, as it was taken with no rigid mount. Novoflex 600+2X TEX.


I may try again tonight with a 2x tele just to see what happens.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh and just for handy comparison:
Nikon D40, ТЕЛЕАР-Н 200mm f/3.5 (Telear-N) @ 1/200s, f/8, ISO 200. Tripod mounted. Although the velbon tabletop tripod is at its limit with this lens and quite unable to support the 300.



PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the same lens but in preAI form. While its not rated as one of Nikon's better lenses, I basically like it. However, like most long lenses of this era its a bit hard to focus due to its long throw and best used on static or slow moving targets.

This somewhat boring shot was taken from my front porch, when I was comparing it with a Takumar 300mm lens. Both seemed to produce similar results although I like the Bokeh on the Nikkor better. On the whole I would say its a lens worth having especially at the price you will get this for compared with the (better but more expensive) ED version.


This second shot conveys its sharpness better. I certainly would not complain about this shots sharpness or color rendering. Not too bad for a lens of around 40 years in age (my example.)



And finally a shot taken on the same day at near the closest point of focus to see how it performs there. Not bad is my conclusion.



PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterm1 wrote:
I have the same lens but in preAI form.


This one?

or this one:


If the latter then yes, it seems that it has the same optical formulation of 6 elements in 5 groups as the Ai one:



peterm1 wrote:
While its not rated as one of Nikon's better lenses, I basically like it. However, like most long lenses of this era its a bit hard to focus due to its long throw and best used on static or slow moving targets.


Yes, the ED versions are supposed to be superior. They do go for rather higher prices however. (I have two Nikkors with ED glass, both AF - the 18-55kit lens and the 24-120 VR.) I'm pretty impressed with my non-ED version so far, although I'm sure it would benefit from a tripod rather than a monopod. I have not seen very much CA from it (and I have been looking).

Long focus throw is something that I see as an advantage. I would much rather turn and turn to get the precise point, than try to nudge a short-throw ring onto the right point. The AiS lenses (and the E series) unfortunately moved to short throw, as a precursor to AF which needs a short throw for speed. In consequence I usually prefer the Ai or pre-Ai lenses, unless the AiS had a superior optical formulation or some other benefit like shorter close focus distance.

My ideal MF lens would have two focus rings, coarse and fine - I am influenced by having worked with microscopes, which always have coarse and fine focus adjustments.

peterm1 wrote:
This second shot conveys its sharpness better. I certainly would not complain about this shots sharpness or color rendering. Not too bad for a lens of around 40 years in age (my example.)


No, not bad at all! Thanks for sharing these shots.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1