Or maybe a EF 600/5,6L DO IS?Except DO lenses are not L
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I believe though that the photos from Samyang apart from the exceptionally low coma exhibit yet another property of Samyang: DecenteringYes, you're right - I will have to make some more experiments to see how bad it is
the sample you posted looks about right.Ok, so the Sigma 35/1.4 Art has the best coma you've so far seen a 35mm exhibit, although I would say it is still quite poor. I guess I'm just disappointed in that the 35 & 50 Art lenses seem so perfect in all other respects (including AF, for me) that I wouldn't have thought their coma to be this bad. I thought it perhaps was an inherent problem with fast designs, but then the Samyang proved this wasn't so (though it has other problems, it seems). So perhaps the SIgma 24/1.4 Art will indeed have improved coma, I sincerely hope so, because the EF 24/1.4L II is as bad (or worse) as the Art examples posted above [wide open].
As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame.I would too, that's not what I mean by poor coma.
As far as I'm concerned coma is the one area where it most obviously beats the Canon 35 IS (aside from max. aperture, of course).I start to wonder if I have a defect copy...
The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open.Is your experience perhaps from using it on APS-C? From what I recall on FF, the coma was not subtle. I will search for samples or obtain new ones tonight, weather permitting.
Which fast 35mm lenses have less coma than the Sigma Art? I haven't tried all that many, but even though it wasn't perfect the copy I briefly owned was far better in terms of coma than, say, the Canon 35mm IS.I don't really know, haven't tried any other. Perhaps it's the best, even though it's no good [wide open]. For a long while I thought it perhaps impossible to make a fast 24mm with little coma, but then the Samyang 24/1.4 came along and proved me wrong. Maybe the coma-optimised 35mm design just hasn't happened yet.
Off topic, but I would say the ultimate landscape astrophotography lens would be the Samyang 14mm/2.8. But I guess not as fast.Depends on your needs... for meteors and aurorae, speed is important. Meteors also tend to look less impressive at 14mm, and composition becomes more challenging. I certainly would prefer a good 24/1.4
what I meant was that when shot wide open, the 24L II is very sharp, the 35L is modestly sharp, and the 50L is a bit soft.I don't find the EF 24/1.4L II that sharp. Only when stepped down to 2.8 does it become reasonably sharp, and then only as sharp as the EF 24-70/2.8L II zoom (worse center, better in the corners). And as mentioned before, the coma is absolutely terrible. So I find there is definitely room for improvement.
Landscape Astrophotography! Hope it is low-coma at f/1.4 (at most "square stars" in corner). I have to say that it is a challenge getting dark enough skies to profit maximally from f/1.4 on the 35mm Art.Indeed, though the 50 and 35mm Art unfortunately have quite poor coma wide open. The press release gives some hope, but I will also wait for a reputable review. A low-coma 24/1.4 would be a dream. The Samyang 24/1.4 seems to be the best so far in that respect (though don't know about the crazy expensive Zeiss).
I have a Mirex Pentax 645 to EOS TS adapter and I have experimented with the Pentax 120mm Macro with it.Cool, thanks for your story.
Are you asking for the MP-E65 to be in focus as you move the lens in closer or further away?That would be really nice, and wouldn't have to break the laws of physics. Just fix the plane of focus to, say, 300mm from the camera image plane. Then let the magnification change by extending the lens by the appropriate amount, without changing focus distance from the image plane. The subject-to-front lens distance would change, but not the subject-to-camera body distance. One would still need a rail for focus stacking, but it would cut down on one variable for framing.
My 15mm f2.8 fisheye with MFD of 15cm can focus as close as a macro.Yes, but can you get 1:1 magnification?
Softfocus like the 135/f2.8? No, it wouldn't be a 'world first' - I had that feature with my non-L 100mm macro. The lens was also capable of activating the soft focus feature at random.Must have been a problem with your specific copy, I see no significant IQ difference between the L and non-L 100mm macros (I've used both).
There are now several posts that you get sharper images on the old 100-400 and now the new 100-400 II with IS turned off. Is that true for just these lenses or for all lenses? Why does IS cause problems? Does using a tripod cause the problems (I thought the newer lenses detected they were on a tripod)?I don't think IS causes problems in this situation, since the exposures are so short. On the contrary, I think IS could even be helpful, to reduce residual vibrations from shutter/mirror. Probably not much with a good tripod, but at least not hurtful. For longer exposures (>1 sec), the matters are different, since the IS image tends to drift around on those timescales. In astrophotography, these longer exposuse times are commonly used, which is why I think many associate astrophotography with no IS, but as I said, it does not strictly valid for shorter exposures.
There was some blurring during focus from the atmosphere, so clearer air may have helped improve this result.If you are aiming for as much detail as possible of the moon (without foreground objects), it is generally best to shoot when the moon is as high as possible in the sky, since that reduces the air column towards it, and hence "seeing" (blurring) effects from the atmosphere. Also, avoid setting your equipment up close to a heat source (like an open window, line of sight closely over roof/chimney or warm car) as the heat generates blurring air turbulence.
Using 7D +100-400 II at 400mm and manual exposure my settings were 1/100 sec, f/8, ISO 100. Used liveview at 10x and manual focus with cable release and 2-sec timer.If you haven't already, you can gain some experience by varying your settings, taking a series of images for each setting. For instance, try using the lens wide open and go down in exposure time, try with IS on/off, and so on. The degree of image blurring due to atmosphere can be episodic, so try during different times of the night.
I'll leave a proper response to jrista and the other astro-experts here, but did you turn IS off? That will ruin a shot.No, IS will ruin shots with long exposures (more than one second), but not for short exposures like this.
Since moonlight is reflected sunlight, a typical daytime exposure ought to work fine. I shot in manual mode using 1/100 sec at f/11 and ISO 200.Good argument regarding daylight settings! Though you should get better results by opening up the aperture and using shorter exposures and base ISO. Focal depth is really not an issue, vibrations much more so (though perhaps not in your case, using IS). F/11 actually gives less sharp images than f/8, due to refraction. I don't know what the optimal opening for the 7D is, but I'm guessing somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.
Quote4) Have you captured the same meteor in different cameras? I'm sure you have, I just couldn't see it easily by looking quickly.Yes, there are quite a few "repeat" meteors. The second and third composites are mostly repeats. The only difference is the time at which the background image was taken. The radiant was much higher in the third composite.