Shooting the moon with 55-300 + 1.7x - Page 2

*DanielT74* · 01-12-2009, 05:20 PM

Thank you for a very informative reply, Ben. very much appreciated!!

By the way I did use f19 and f22 and they were very similar and the best of the bunch (I took about 100 shots on different settings).

Miserere, I should have probably used higher ISO and faster shutter speed, right?
I will try again during the first half as suggested and see if I can get better results with a teleconverter then.

georgeweb, the teleconverter is Pentax 1.7x current model.

You got much better shots, Illigan and Mike! But I guess this is a prime lens, faster and with longer focal range, so that probably explains this. Do you get much less detail without the teleconverter?

One thing I am still not sure with the TC is the shake reduction. It asks to set the focal length, what focal lens should I set??

Georg, I think it is working quite well with Tamron 90mm macro, providing extra magnification and not losing much sharpness, but once I do some comparisons I can post them in another thread.

Piotro, you have quite a bit more detail - very nice! I am wondering whether this is due to you using 1.5 teleconverter (which brand? - sigma?) or that K20 is resolving more detail or better processing (from raw)?

Thank you for everyone's help - it's been very informative!

*Igilligan* · 01-12-2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by DanielT74

Thank you for a very informative reply, Ben. very much appreciated!!

By the way I did use f19 and f22 and they were very similar and the best of the bunch (I took about 100 shots on different settings).

Miserere, I should have probably used higher ISO and faster shutter speed, right?
I will try again during the first half as suggested and see if I can get better results with a teleconverter then.

georgeweb, the teleconverter is Pentax 1.7x current model.

You got much better shots, Illigan and Mike! But I guess this is a prime lens, faster and with longer focal range, so that probably explains this. Do you get much less detail without the teleconverter?

One thing I am still not sure with the TC is the shake reduction. It asks to set the focal length, what focal lens should I set??

Georg, I think it is working quite well with Tamron 90mm macro, providing extra magnification and not losing much sharpness, but once I do some comparisons I can post them in another thread.

Piotro, you have quite a bit more detail - very nice! I am wondering whether this is due to you using 1.5 teleconverter (which brand? - sigma?) or that K20 is resolving more detail or better processing (from raw)?

Thank you for everyone's help - it's been very informative!

Well on my shots with the old vivitar 400 + 1.4x I was at F11 and ISO 200 (the lowest on the K100d)

And about the shake reduction... I assumed you were on a tripod so you should probably not be using SR... turn it off and use the 2 second timer to take out any shake from the shutterpress.

Sean Nelson · 01-12-2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by DanielT74

But why exactly is this so (forgive me if I am asking the obvious) too much illumination??

As Ben mentioned, it's because of the angle of the light. It's similar to holding a flashlight to illuminate someone's face - if you stand in front of them and point the flashlight directly at them, the lighting will be relatively flat. But if you give the flashlight to the person and have them hold it below their face pointing upward, you'll get dramatic shadows!

*DanielT74* · 01-12-2009, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Igilligan

Well on my shots with the old vivitar 400 + 1.4x I was at F11 and ISO 200 (the lowest on the K100d)

And about the shake reduction... I assumed you were on a tripod so you should probably not be using SR... turn it off and use the 2 second timer to take out any shake from the shutterpress.

Yes, I was just using the tripod and timer for the moon shots but I was wondering for other usage?

Thanks, Sean.

*Igilligan* · 01-12-2009, 07:53 PM

I dont use my tc very often with my cheaper zooms because as you have seen it is usually better on the detail just to crop IMO... but with fixed primes I would add the 1.7 multiplied SR setting. And I guess you could with the zoom too if you know you are going to be at the 300mm end of the zoom you could set the SR to 500...

From my limited usage, the SR usually works better on the smaller side of the estimation than on the larger side. Better to be under than over.

*DanielT74* · 06-03-2009, 06:52 PM

This lens is currently on sale on ebay in Australia

SMC Pentax 1000mm F8 Lens - eBay Film Camera Lenses, Lenses, Photographic Accessories, Cameras. (end time 07-Jun-09 21:25:18 AEST)
and here's the moon shot with it:

It's a better cleaner shot but I am not seeing much more detail than with with my 55-300mm

I thought those old lenses were pretty good or was it just a lousy shot? Or maybe the mold?

Not sure but I will try again with a 1.7x teleconverter and a K series 300mm I just bought (once it arrives). Will shoot both full moon as crescent/half moon pics and repost, in case people are interested!

Cheers,

Daniel

*NorrisTudor* · 06-05-2009, 04:14 AM

Saw this thread last night and had a go myself....

I think I've pushed the sharpening a bit too much...but still was amazed at the image you can get from the long end of a 55-300mm.

I was surprised I had to focus so much, I though the lens at infinity would do the trick...but in fact it was quite hard to get a crisp focus.

cupic · 06-05-2009, 06:52 AM

With a astronomical event coming soon (August 09) when Mars is as it closest in 6000years(scientist saying that Mars will be as close as the moon is)it should be a once in a hundred lifetimes to capture this
Time to get the big one out

cheers

*NorrisTudor* · 06-05-2009, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by cupic

With a astronomical event coming soon (August 09) when Mars is as it closest in 6000years(scientist saying that Mars will be as close as the moon is)it should be a once in a hundred lifetimes to capture this
Time to get the big one out

cheers

does that mean a telescope or just lens?

AlpenTak · 06-05-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by cupic

With a astronomical event coming soon (August 09) when Mars is as it closest in 6000years(scientist saying that Mars will be as close as the moon is)it should be a once in a hundred lifetimes to capture this
Time to get the big one out

cheers

Sorry cupic but i think you need to check your source on that.

If Mars was as close as the moon then i'm pretty certain we would be in a bit of trouble...

Dr_who · 06-05-2009, 12:44 PM

AlpenTak is right the whole Mars email thing is a farse. Will Mars Look as Big as the Moon on August 27? Nope | Universe Today It will be closer but not anything moon sized.

DanielT74 the photos look good. A full moon is brighter but you will certinly get alot more details in a cresent/half vew of the moon. This has made me want to try and take some pictures of the moon myself now. I havn't done so in awhile.

Steven

Dom · 06-05-2009, 01:20 PM

Not really adding anything do the discussion but.

Here what is possible with the DA 55-300 ED.

Mike.P® · 06-05-2009, 01:27 PM

This one made it onto the PPG.

Pentax F* 300mm f4.5 and Pentax 1.7x Teleconverter.

Dr_who · 06-14-2009, 04:34 AM

I thought I'd share my moon photo as well that I took the other day... I hope I have the orientation correctly. If not I'll feel stupid.

*DanielT74* · 06-14-2009, 10:10 AM

Great shots!!! What did you use, Dr Who?

Just a quick update - I got a Pentax K 300mm f4 and again, the 1.7x TC just produced a softer image without adding any detail, while the 55-300mm was very very close to the 300mm when both were used without the TC.

I thought the prime would be significantly sharper, being a serious chunk of glass, and I thought the TC would work better with it. Wrong on both counts!

1. Pentax K 300mm with TC last night
2. Pentax FA 55-300mm without TC
3. Pentax K 300mm without TC