Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Mirror lens not good for Moon shot?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martyn_bannister wrote:
Jes, I don't think these are bad at all. Some sharpening and contrast adjustment would do wonders.


Thanks for your comment, Martin.
The second one has contrast and strong sharpening Sad
I'll give them another try.

Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen some very good terrestrial (bird) shots made with APO refractors, btw -- something that is simply not possible with reflectors (due to the poor bokeh).


PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesito wrote:

The second one has contrast and strong sharpening Sad
I'll give them another try.


Post processing seems to be half of the work needed for these shots. The 500 with 2x TC should give you a pretty large image to work with - I'd start with that.

AhamB wrote:
I have seen some very good terrestrial (bird) shots made with APO refractors, btw -- something that is simply not possible with reflectors (due to the poor bokeh).


Of course it's possible. Donut bokeh doesn't form out of nowhere - it all depends on the background.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I compared reflectors to refractors, I was comparing dollar for dollar. If you can spend top-dollar for a big, true apochromatic refractor, they are hard to beat for anything but capturing the faintest deep sky objects.

However, If you compare a $500 reflector to a $500 refractor, the $500 reflector is going to give you better results for planetary astrophogtography because of the lack of chromatic aberration. You don't want color fringing around your already pretty small image of the planet Smile

If you want to check out some truly amazing planetary astrophotography using fairly lowly equipments (Meade Starfinder 10 + webcam), check this guy out:

http://www.astrokraai.nl/viewimages.php?category=3


PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Took this one a couple of days prior to the SuperMoon. Used my Tamron 500mm F8 mirror. Heavily cropped from my K7. I think it turned out good.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eccs19 wrote:
Took this one a couple of days prior to the SuperMoon. Used my Tamron 500mm F8 mirror. Heavily cropped from my K7. I think it turned out good.


Yes, I think this is about the limit of what you can get with a mirror lens. You can milk a bit more from that shot, as I also tried to do, but there are limits to what you can get.

I am really intrigued by the nice images from the Beroflex and the CPO. Those CPO 500/5.6 and 650/6.8 are cult lenses - I doubt any of them can be found easily these days. Does anyone have any experience with the Samyang refractors available these days? There seems to be both a 500mm and a 650mm available. I normally trust Samyang, but I was disappointed by their 500/8 mirror.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Minolta RF 800mm 1:8 with Tokina RMC Doubler seems to do an okay job on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II in 1920X1080 HD video capture mode:

http://vimeo.com/21248679


PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is one taken last week with my Russian MC 3M-5CA 8/500 mirrorlens. I have used a tripod at 1/250s, it is a 50% crop and a bit sharpened.



PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

motleypixel wrote:
My Minolta RF 800mm 1:8 with Tokina RMC Doubler seems to do an okay job on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II in 1920X1080 HD video capture mode:

http://vimeo.com/21248679


Very nice, Roy. You can see the atmospheric turbulence along the edge of the moon. That Minolta 800 looks to be a very good performer.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reviving this thread with a shot from the Rubinar 1000/11:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6139620084


PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fantastic moon shot -- you don't usually see that much detail in full moon shots.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as a comparison, I shot this with a NEX 5n and Canon FD 80-200mm f4 at 200mm with a doubler (Canon FD 2x-b) taking it to 400mm. Was thinking about getting a mirror for extra reach but not so sure now as a lot of the mirror shots look out of focus to me.



PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darrensmith2 wrote:
Just as a comparison, I shot this with a NEX 5n and Canon FD 80-200mm f4 at 200mm with a doubler (Canon FD 2x-b) taking it to 400mm. Was thinking about getting a mirror for extra reach but not so sure now as a lot of the mirror shots look out of focus to me.



PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome ! Beautiful moon shoot!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm just being a buttinsky here, but being on the subject of mirrors/cats, I just had to ask:
Are the 500mm Sigma M42 cat/mirror lenses really worth the US $300 and more that eBay sellers are asking?

I'm only curious, being on the hunt for info on my new reflex lens, but it seems that $300 or more
for an old 500mm Sigma cat lens is rather steep. Or is there something I should know about the Sigmas?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SkedAddled wrote:
I'm just being a buttinsky here, but being on the subject of mirrors/cats, I just had to ask:
Are the 500mm Sigma M42 cat/mirror lenses really worth the US $300 and more that eBay sellers are asking?

I'm only curious, being on the hunt for info on my new reflex lens, but it seems that $300 or more
for an old 500mm Sigma cat lens is rather steep. Or is there something I should know about the Sigmas?


Sigma XQ SCT 500/8 is better than the Spiratone Mini-tel in my experience, results look more like results from better Russia mirrors and Tamron SP.

Sigma XQ SCT 500/8 has T2 mount. I paid US$49 few years ago; now $300?!, really?

Best 500/8 results I have seen are from Tamron SP, Russian, & member BigDawg has shown his most excellent (handheld!) results from Vivitar.

For me focus is difficult because of narrow dof combined with short focus ring throw -- tiny movement of focus ring makes BIG changes in focus plane position.

Playing around with dof calculator at moon distance, dof is relatively shallow -- focus error is easy to make off by many kilometers! Laughing

I use viewfinder magnifier to bring focus plane from past infinity just a little past where closest part of moon comes into focus. STURDY tripod & head, mirror lockup, & remote release is essential for me.

I still get better results from 400mm wundertube crop, than from mirror lens.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darrensmith2 wrote:
Just as a comparison, I shot this with a NEX 5n and Canon FD 80-200mm f4 at 200mm with a doubler (Canon FD 2x-b) taking it to 400mm. Was thinking about getting a mirror for extra reach but not so sure now as a lot of the mirror shots look out of focus to me.



Another nice full moon shot. I've never seem to get good details with the full moon.

That 200mm zoom must be really high quality, if you can get good results with a 2x TC. (Normally, zoom lenses are looked down upon for astroimaging.)


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

s58y wrote:


Another nice full moon shot. I've never seem to get good details with the full moon.

That 200mm zoom must be really high quality, if you can get good results with a 2x TC. (Normally, zoom lenses are looked down upon for astroimaging.)


Yeah I think the nFD 80-200 f4 is a high quality lens, seems to work well with the FD 2x-b, cheap on ebay too! The focus peaking on NEX cameras is fantastic for manual focusing. Would it be a silly idea to use a 2x TC on a higher quality mirror (Tamron SP)?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheap cat lenses are not usually that good.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oreste wrote:
Cheap cat lenses are not usually that good.

+1 except one Russian cheap cat lenses , they are excellent. Probably properly set to infinity is an issue on some of them, if you mark on barel at daylight where you reach infinity with your adapter and use this setting result will excellent.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Cheap cat lenses are not usually that good.

+1 except one Russian cheap cat lenses , they are excellent. Probably properly set to infinity is an issue on some of them, if you mark on barel at daylight where you reach infinity with your adapter and use this setting result will excellent.


No, I have seen several cheap ones over the years and every one was poor. I do remember the Nikkor being very good though, and it was quite expensive.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oreste wrote:
Attila wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Cheap cat lenses are not usually that good.

+1 except one Russian cheap cat lenses , they are excellent. Probably properly set to infinity is an issue on some of them, if you mark on barel at daylight where you reach infinity with your adapter and use this setting result will excellent.


No, I have seen several cheap ones over the years and every one was poor. I do remember the Nikkor being very good though, and it was quite expensive.


I say again Russians are not poor.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Attila wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Cheap cat lenses are not usually that good.

+1 except one Russian cheap cat lenses , they are excellent. Probably properly set to infinity is an issue on some of them, if you mark on barel at daylight where you reach infinity with your adapter and use this setting result will excellent.


No, I have seen several cheap ones over the years and every one was poor. I do remember the Nikkor being very good though, and it was quite expensive.


I say again Russians are not poor.


Well I have not seen any of those, just the cheap Japanese ones. They were awful, frankly. The Nikkor is great though.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I seen and try them take research on MTO 500mm f8, MTO 500mm f6.3


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder how good very cheap asto-mirror-teleskopes are.
For example
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Skywatcher-Newton-Teleskop-114-1000-SkyHawk-EQ-1-/230819756409?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Teleskope&hash=item35bdedf979
etc... there are many options betwenn 50 and a few thousand euros.
At least they are optimized for a sharp center at infinity so maybe they could easily beat the Vivitar/Rokinon etc. crap - and they often come with very good or at least decent tripods

I try to buy some and try it.


Last edited by ForenSeil on Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:10 am; edited 4 times in total