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

Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:59 pm    Post subject: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
Yep, 11 different configurations. I've been waiting for clear skies to get this done and finally, I got them Friday night.

What I decided to do was to attempt to shoot the moon with every lens I have of 300mm focal length or longer that is a reasonably sharp optic. I have a few that I didn't include because they're not very good. As it is, I included one that is not behaving well, just to show what a pretty bad image of the moon looks like, I guess.

The camera I used is my NEX 7, set to ISO 100 and Aperture priority. I have the camera set to the "center" metering pattern, which is actually a rather strongly weighted partial metering pattern. So I just let the camera meter the scene and select shutter speeds, which is not what I usually do. Usually I set my camera to manual: 1/125 @ f/8 or f/11, depends on the lens, really. But this time I decided to let the NEX do the work, since the on-screen images were telling me it was doing a reasonably good job of metering the moon.

About the NEX, though, I've owned it for about 9 months now, I guess, and I'm still getting used to the way it produces images. For example, invariably the image I see in the viewfinder is brighter and contrastier than the image that is converted from raw to jpg. This also includes images that I'm reviewing in camera -- they always look brighter, sharper, and contrastier than they do when they're loaded into the raw-to-jpg translation utility, and even after they've been converted to .jpg -- even when I indicate maximum image quality for the .jpg conversion. I use Paint Shop Pro version X7 for my image processing. It includes a raw image converter, but the converter has few features. Mostly just brightness, saturation, shadow, and noise controls. That's enough, but I end up having to use PSP to boost contrast back up to the level I was seeing on the display screen. The NEX 7 came with its own conversion software that, according to the folks over at the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) Talk Forum over at DPReview, nobody uses the utility. I can kinda see why because the workflow with it is tedious and slow, plus I've found that when I use it to pre-process images, the result is not of very good quality, so I just don't use it much.

You'll note in the following listings that I've included three lenses with and without 2x teleconverters. Why am I using 2x teleconverters, you may ask? I realize there are still some people who insist that a teleconverter degrades the image. You be the judge. Compare the images taken with and without teleconverters. It's plainly obvious to me that the images taken with teleconverters contain more image detail than the images taken without the teleconverters. Of course, it's important to use best quality teleconverters, such as those made by the camera makers. Aftermarket brands that make high-quality teleconverters include Kenko and Komura. And then there's the rather special Vivitar 7-element macro-focusing teleconverter. The dedicated teleconverters that Tamron makes to fit directly to a Tamron mount are also of very high quality.

Here's a list of the lenses I used Friday night:

Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror
Tamron SP 55BB 500mm f/8 mirror
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD with Nikon TC-201 2x
Tamron SP 23A 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4
Tamron SP 23A 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 with Nikon TC-201 2x
Tamron SP 31A 200-500mm f/5.6
Tamron SP 60B 300mm f/2.8 LDIF
Tamron SP 60B 300mm f/2.8 LDIF with Tamron SP 01F 2x
Century Precision Optics Tele Athenar II 500mm f/5.6
Century Precision Optics Tele Athenar II 650mm f/6.8

I will display the images in the order listed above. All lenses were set to an aperture of f/8.

Might as well show the worst first. My Sigma 600mm is an optic that should have never left the factory. A good copy of this lens can produce fantastic images, but sadly this is not one of them. I've determined that this Sigma has decent resolution, but it gives off so much flare that it is often impossible to extract a good image from it. This image is a pretty good example of that. What I find odd is that, when I was looking at the moon on the screen with the Sigma 600, the image looked good. Plenty of detail. But the recorded image was anything but good looking. Puzzling.


The Tamron SP 55BB is a mirror lens that most folks here know about. It's one of the very best mirrors on the market, in my opinion. Its only drawback, really, is the fact that it does not have a tripod mount. The earlier 55B model does come with a mount, though.


Next is the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD zoom. This is a surprisingly sharp lens, even wide open at f/4. But I had it stopped down to f/8 for this shot. This image was taken at 300mm.


Here's the Tokina 100-300mm with the Nikon TC-201 2x teleconverter, for an effective 600mm f/16.


Next up is the Tamron SP 23A 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 zoom. A good, solid performer, as always. It's only drawback is the lack of a tripod collar, which it could really use, given its length. There was a lot of image shake when I used this lens, part of which I think can be attributed to the NEX 7's flimsy tripod mount. The lens was set to 300mm for this shot.


Here's the result using the Tamron 23A with the Nikon TC_201 teleconverter:


Moving up to the big guns now, this is the heaviest lens I shot with last night. A bazooka otherwise known as the Tamron SP 31A 200-500mm f/5.6 zoom. At least it has a tripod collar. It was actually very steady on the tripod and quite easy to focus because it moved barely at all as I turned the focusing collar. One of the side benefits of plenty of mass. This zoom is actually a very sharp lens, one of the sharpest zooms I've ever used, in fact. The below photo was shot with the lens set to 500mm.


One of my favorite telephotos is the Tamron SP 60B 300mm f/2.8 LDIF. It's big and heavy, but worth it. It balanced well on my tripod, and, like the Tamron 31A, because of its mass, and also because it is an internal focusing lens, there was very little vibration caused by turning the focusing collar.


Here's the Tamron 60B with a Tamron 01F 2x teleconverter, for an effective 600mm f/16.


A great old lens, the Century Precision Optics Tele Athenar II 500mm f/5.6, is one of my best refractors. This particular lens was US Navy surplus and was most likely mounted to the big missile and test aircraft tracking telescopes they used. The Century 500mm would have actually been used as a spotter scope for the big gun recording the photos.


Another Century lens, and the final lens in this comparison, the CPO Tele Athenar 650mm f/6.8, looks like the 500/5.6 but just stretched some. This lens was sold to the civilian market, though, the biggest difference being its black crinkle finish. The above CPO 500 is painted in white enamel, which is a giveaway that it is military surplus.


I've been thinking today . . . I have a few tack-sharp 200mm lenses and I'm wondering how well they would handle shooting the moon with a good 2x teleconverter . . . Stay tuned. Cool

Last edited by cooltouch on Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:03 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Tamron is a great lens, and it shows. . Very interesting comparison altogether.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
The Tamron is a great lens, and it shows. . Very interesting comparison altogether.

Heh. Which one?

There was something I forgot to mention in my opening post. The above photos are in color and there is a small amount of fringing visible in several of them. Mostly green. Since the moon is just a big monochromatic ball in the night sky, I was thinking about converting all the images to grayscale. But for the moment, I'm holding off.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great shots Michael and impressive results you got! The Tamron 55BB + 60B really shines IMHO!


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:40 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bernhardas wrote:

The Tokina with x2 seems to be right behind the two Tamrons.

Is that also your perception looking at full resolution images?


I'd say, of the two smaller zooms -- the Tokina 100-300 and the Tamron 60-300, the Tokina slightly edges out the Tamron. But I'd also give a nod to the big Tamron zoom: the 200-500/5.6. To me, it is neck and neck with the other two Tamrons. And the two old Century lenses did a respectable job, too, I thought.

Oh, and speaking of full resolution images, I did not downsize them before uploading them to the mflenses server. So if you click on an image and (in my browser, at least) click on the image again, you're looking at it full-size.

I think I should also state, in the spirit of full disclosure, that since posting the original message, I've gone back and re-edited a few of the images because I felt the contrast and/or noise could be improved.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:05 am    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Yep, 11 different configurations. I've been waiting for clear skies to get this done and finally, I got them Friday night.


About the NEX, though, I've owned it for about 9 months now, I guess, and I'm still getting used to the way it produces images. For example, invariably the image I see in the viewfinder is brighter and contrastier than the image that is converted from raw to jpg. This also includes images that I'm reviewing in camera -- they always look brighter, sharper, and contrastier than they do when they're loaded into the raw-to-jpg translation utility, and even after they've been converted to .jpg -- even when I indicate maximum image quality for the .jpg conversion. I use Paint Shop Pro version X7 for my image processing. It includes a raw image converter, but the converter has few features. Mostly just brightness, saturation, shadow, and noise controls. That's enough, but I end up having to use PSP to boost contrast back up to the level I was seeing on the display screen. The NEX 7 came with its own conversion software that, according to the folks over at the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) Talk Forum over at DPReview, nobody uses the utility. I can kinda see why because the workflow with it is tedious and slow, plus I've found that when I use it to pre-process images, the result is not of very good quality, so I just don't use it much.

I've been thinking today . . . I have a few tack-sharp 200mm lenses and I'm wondering how well they would handle shooting the moon with a good 2x teleconverter . . . Stay tuned. Cool

The trick is to set the jpg settings(brightness, contrast, color etc...) to match what the raw is doing, you can also boost sharpness to help with focusing, this works because the live view uses the jpg output, same with metering and histogram, when you get it all dialed in, there are no surprises when you open the raw, I prefer Lightroom.

Thanks for the comparison, looks like a fare bit of work to haul those bazookas around.
I'm thinking the Leica R 180/3.4 APO & R 2X APO extender would be a nice combo for the moon.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice job Michael!
A fun read and comparo.
The 31A is impressive, your result and kryss' in the Blue Moon thread.
And the teleconverter results are acceptable. A good model makes the difference.
The AT-X 100-300 + 2x yielded a good image. I have this lens, plus the 23A, but I don't pull them out much for the Moon given the one-touch zoom. I prefer to stick with primes.

I agree on how you feel about the Sony IDC software. If a converted raw looks worse than the JPG SOOC, it's pretty poor. I see a lot of contrast in the images, a lot of processing? My shots out of the Tamron 55BB are pretty matte.

It was clouds and slightly hazy skies for the Blue Moon. It didn't clear until it was over. But I made the best of it.

Tried recently to get a Tou/Five Star 500 f/8 refractor like the one from the Tamron and Sigma mirror threads. But so far unsuccessful. On Friday, I lost out on a MTO 1000mm f10 in pristine condition for a good deal. Quite disappointed. I had to settle for a ZM 3M-5A-MC 500mm F8 kit as consolation. Some say it's better than the Tamron.
Just have to wait and see.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
VERY interesting and useful comparison - thanks for sharing your efforts. [I have never thought of using my Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 to shoot the moon before -- I will definitely have to try that.]

cooltouch wrote:
There was something I forgot to mention in my opening post. The above photos are in color and there is a small amount of fringing visible in several of them. Mostly green. Since the moon is just a big monochromatic ball in the night sky, I was thinking about converting all the images to grayscale. But for the moment, I'm holding off.


Please do NOT convert to grayscale. Part of the usefulness in your comparison is the presence or absence of green fringing. If you remove the color info, part of that usefulness would be lost. [Thanks.]


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
The AT-X 100-300 + 2x yielded a good image. I have this lens, plus the 23A, but I don't pull them out much for the Moon given the one-touch zoom. I prefer to stick with primes.


I would generally prefer primes for any sort of astro use, and I have to admit to not ever having used my AT-X 100-300/4 on a moon shot (a lapse that should be remedied soon).

However, while one-touch zooms (love 'em or hate 'em -- and I love 'em most of the time) can sometimes be a nuisance (thanks to "zoom creep" perhaps, for example), if you're using them for pointing upward, and if you happen to be using whatever focal length is in effect when gravity is holding the zoom/focus collar all the way back (e.g., 300mm with the AT-X 100-300/4), you can "treat 'em as if they're primes" - Smile (well, sort of).

Last edited by fwcetus on Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:41 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Next is the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD zoom. This is a surprisingly sharp lens, even wide open at f/4. But I had it stopped down to f/8 for this shot. This image was taken at 300mm.

Here's the Tokina 100-300mm with the Nikon TC-201 2x teleconverter, for an effective 600mm f/16.

So, is it just my eyes, or did the TC on the Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 somehow "cure" the green fringing (upper left) from the lens used without the TC? (Is it just softness from the TC "masking" the color somehow?)


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:

The trick is to set the jpg settings(brightness, contrast, color etc...) to match what the raw is doing, you can also boost sharpness to help with focusing, this works because the live view uses the jpg output, same with metering and histogram, when you get it all dialed in, there are no surprises when you open the raw, I prefer Lightroom.

Thanks for the comparison, looks like a fare bit of work to haul those bazookas around.
I'm thinking the Leica R 180/3.4 APO & R 2X APO extender would be a nice combo for the moon.


I suspect that combination will work very well. 1/125 @ f/8 or f/11 @ ISO 100 is optimum exposure, so it should work well with that combo. I don't compensate for the teleconverter in terms of aperture adjustment when I use a TC. In other words, I leave the lens set to f/8 or f/11 and then adjust the shutter speed as necessary.

Yes, well, it was a fair amount of work. But I had everything organized, taking the lenses out to the backyard in pairs, and then bringing them back in in pairs. It took about two hours to shoot with all the lenses. I took two to three images with each one, refocusing between each.

Thanks for the tips on configuration. Are you referring to the processing software with respect to the jpg settings? I already have the in-camera focus peaking set to "high," but I usually find that, when looking at the subject at higher magnifications, focusing still needs adjustment. Focus peaking isn't precise enough. I find that some light sharpening in the processing software can produce excellent results. I've never quite gotten the hang of Lightroom, so I just use what I'm comfortable with.

As for contrast adjustment, here are some screen shots taken from within PSP. First is a shot of the moon, the way it looks after loading it into PSP's converter.


Here is a shot of the screen showing the moon after contrast adjustment and a graph of the "curves" setting, and how much contrast I had to dial in, which in this case was a fairly substantial amount.


WNG555 wrote:
Nice job Michael!
I agree on how you feel about the Sony IDC software. If a converted raw looks worse than the JPG SOOC, it's pretty poor. I see a lot of contrast in the images, a lot of processing? My shots out of the Tamron 55BB are pretty matte.


As for the processing, the above graph should be a good indication for you.

fwcetus wrote:

However, while one-touch zooms (love 'em or hate 'em -- and I love 'em most of the time) can sometimes be a nuisance (thanks to "zoom creep" perhaps, for example), if you're using them for pointing upward, and if you happen to be using whatever focal length is in effect when gravity is holding the zoom/focus collar all the way back (e.g., 300mm with the AT-X 100-300/4), you can "treat 'em as if they're primes" - Smile (well, sort of).


When I first cut my teeth with 35mm photography (1982), 2-ring zooms were considered old school and rather out of fashion. Everybody who was making good zooms back in the 80s was building them as 1-ring push-pull zooms. So as a consequence of this, I was first exposed to push-pull zooms and only later tried out 2-ring zooms. I found 2-ring zooms to be very useful for precisely holding focus while zooming, whereas with a one-ring zoom, focus might have shifted when pushing or pulling the collar. But since 2-rings had become rather uncommon (or in the case of Canon's 2-ringers, very expensive), I just got used to one-ring zooms.

I've owned, and still own, some one-ring zooms that have slipping focusing collars and what I do to prevent them from slipping is to use a wide rubber band on the edge of the collar. This totally stops the creep.

fwcetus wrote:

So, is it just my eyes, or did the TC on the Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 somehow "cure" the green fringing (upper left) from the lens used without the TC? (Is it just softness from the TC "masking" the color somehow?)


Well, the green fringing is definitely gone, but I wouldn't ascribe it to softness. The image where I used the 2x with the AT-X 100-300 shows more detail than the image without. And if you compare the two images closely, any percieved softness you see in the image using the 2x is also there in the image without the 2x.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

fwcetus wrote:
However, while one-touch zooms (love 'em or hate 'em -- and I love 'em most of the time) can sometimes be a nuisance (thanks to "zoom creep" perhaps, for example), if you're using them for pointing upward, and if you happen to be using whatever focal length is in effect when gravity is holding the zoom/focus collar all the way back (e.g., 300mm with the AT-X 100-300/4), you can "treat 'em as if they're primes" - Smile (well, sort of).

When I first cut my teeth with 35mm photography (1982), 2-ring zooms were considered old school and rather out of fashion. Everybody who was making good zooms back in the 80s was building them as 1-ring push-pull zooms. So as a consequence of this, I was first exposed to push-pull zooms and only later tried out 2-ring zooms. I found 2-ring zooms to be very useful for precisely holding focus while zooming, whereas with a one-ring zoom, focus might have shifted when pushing or pulling the collar. But since 2-rings had become rather uncommon (or in the case of Canon's 2-ringers, very expensive), I just got used to one-ring zooms.

I've owned, and still own, some one-ring zooms that have slipping focusing collars and what I do to prevent them from slipping is to use a wide rubber band on the edge of the collar. This totally stops the creep.

Hmmm... I guess I didn't explain that very well. Embarassed My point is that sometimes (as with the AT-X 100-300/4, when the zoom/focus ring is pulled all the way back to 300mm, either by hand or by gravity), it no longer matters that it's a zoom at all, since, with the lens pointed uphill, and with gravity continuing to hold the focal length back at 300mm, the only hand adjustment that will easily be made is rotating the ring for focusing (no rubber band needed). Smile


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Well, the green fringing is definitely gone, but I wouldn't ascribe it to softness. The image where I used the 2x with the AT-X 100-300 shows more detail than the image without. And if you compare the two images closely, any percieved softness you see in the image using the 2x is also there in the image without the 2x.

Well, then, is this particular TC used with this particular lens fortuitously negating the lens' own CA with an "equal but opposite" correction? [Usually a TC does not "improve" on the prime lens' flaws, but (if anything) may "magnify" them.]


PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:48 am    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

Thanks for the tips on configuration. Are you referring to the processing software with respect to the jpg settings? I already have the in-camera focus peaking set to "high," but I usually find that, when looking at the subject at higher magnifications, focusing still needs adjustment. Focus peaking isn't precise enough. I find that some light sharpening in the processing software can produce excellent results. I've never quite gotten the hang of Lightroom, so I just use what I'm comfortable with.

I'm refering to the in-camera jpg settings, you need to go into the menu's function settings(within the tool box) and have Creative style settings selected as a function setting, and exit the menu.
Then press the button next to the shutter(C1) till Creative style comes up, select the vivid, neutral, standard... with the left TriNavi wheel, the back wheel selects sharpness, contrast, & Saturation, and the right TriNavi wheel is the adjustment.
There are also EVF and LCD brightness settings.

I only use Peaking on the low setting.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
fwcetus wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

I've owned, and still own, some one-ring zooms that have slipping focusing collars and what I do to prevent them from slipping is to use a wide rubber band on the edge of the collar. This totally stops the creep.

Hmmm... I guess I didn't explain that very well. Embarassed My point is that sometimes (as with the AT-X 100-300/4, when the zoom/focus ring is pulled all the way back to 300mm, either by hand or by gravity), it no longer matters that it's a zoom at all, since, with the lens pointed uphill, and with gravity continuing to hold the focal length back at 300mm, the only hand adjustment that will easily be made is rotating the ring for focusing (no rubber band needed). Smile

Yes, I understood. But I was making the comment anyway, more for the sake of being complete, especially because the Tamron 23A 60-300 is just the opposite from the Tokina. In fact, prior to taking the moon shots with it, first thing I did was check it for collar creep before continuing.

fwcetus wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Well, the green fringing is definitely gone, but I wouldn't ascribe it to softness. The image where I used the 2x with the AT-X 100-300 shows more detail than the image without. And if you compare the two images closely, any percieved softness you see in the image using the 2x is also there in the image without the 2x.

Well, then, is this particular TC used with this particular lens fortuitously negating the lens' own CA with an "equal but opposite" correction? [Usually a TC does not "improve" on the prime lens' flaws, but (if anything) may "magnify" them.]


I agree with your assessment, but to answer your question, I really don't have any idea. I can only say this -- the Nikon TC201 was the teleconverter I used for both the Tamron 60-300 and the Tokina 100-300 -- and it is the first time I've ever used this TC. I just bought it a couple weeks ago and I'm unfamiliar with its performance. But given that it is a Nikon TC, I thought it was safe to assume that it was capable of excellent results. And if it manages to cancel out CA then I would have to state that its performance is truly remarkable. Given this situation, it behooves me now to try it again against subjects that will be prone to generate CA, using examples that have known issues in this regard.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:21 am    Post subject: Re: Shooting the Moon with 11 different lens configurations! Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:

I'm refering to the in-camera jpg settings, you need to go into the menu's function settings(within the tool box) and have Creative style settings selected as a function setting, and exit the menu.
Then press the button next to the shutter(C1) till Creative style comes up, select the vivid, neutral, standard... with the left TriNavi wheel, the back wheel selects sharpness, contrast, & Saturation, and the right TriNavi wheel is the adjustment.
There are also EVF and LCD brightness settings.

I only use Peaking on the low setting.


Many thanks for this highly useful information! I hadn't run across this info in the slender guide that is supplied with the camera. But I just knew there had to be settings for contrast and sharpness somewhere in camera. So, just for grins, I set contrast to 2 and sharpness to 3. The NEX seems to handle these higher settings much better than my old EOS does. I decided to take some shots, see if any weird artifacts show up in the images, and I'm pleased to state that I couldn't detect any. So I'm gonna leave the camera set to the way it is for now. Maybe I'll need to fine tune the adjustments later. I can state this, though -- the raw images that are showing up on my converter are much closer in contrast and sharpness to the ones that I see on the display. That's a relief.

I've tried using Focus Peaking on both high and low settings and I find that too often the low setting doesn't give me enough of anything to work with, whereas the high setting often gives me too much. Well, I guess I'd rather err on teh side of too much than not enough. Besides, whenever I have the time or opportunity, I like to double check focus anyway.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1