Image & Video Galleries > Lens Gallery

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM

<< < (5/20) > >>

tron:

--- Quote from: Kernuak on December 12, 2011, 04:23:49 PM ---A recent acquisition for a trip to Norway to see the northern lights, it blows my 24-105 out of the water even more than I expected. I haven't made use of the wide aperture beyond the northern lights yet though.


Tromsbrua by Night by Kernuak, on Flickr


Aurora Arc by Kernuak, on Flickr

--- End quote ---


Nice photos.

Can I ask something about the northen lights photo?

You  mentioned in flickr that it isn't very sharp. Was this due to focusing?
All Canon lenses focus beyond infinite and when I take a night sky picture I try to
focus on a bright star using the center point. Sometimes it works some not but
lately I use my manual focus 21mm Zeiss. Infinite is infinite.
However if focusing is correct and you see star trails this is normal if you shoot
with a shutter open more seconds than stated in the following formula:

(500 to 600) / focal length. For a 24mm this is 20 to 30 sec tops. Beyond that the
startrails are obvious.

Also if the trees look blurry it could probably be attributed to wind.

Anyway I meant to say that there is a probability that a little blurrying couldn't have been avoided. You still must feel lucky. I wish I were there but it is almost impossible.

Congratulations anyway.

Kernuak:
Thanks Tron. The sharpness was basically human error. I may be being a bit hypercritical of my attempts, but I was trying to run before I could walk. I was trying to focus at the hyperfocal distance (10m @ 24mm and f/1.4) to get some of the foreground in focus as well, when I should have gone for the shot first, then started experimenting. One of the criticisms of modern lenses (and it is one area where Zeiss lenses have the edge), has been the depth of field scales. Basically, the scale on the 24mm f/1.4 MkII (and in fact most Canon WA lenses) goes from 3m to infinity, making it a guestimation that it is focused at the hyperfocal distance, unless you prefocus on something at 10m. I could have afforded to stop down a bit too (which I did later on, when the lights had subsided a bit).
The ISO 800 shots were 15 secs, so it is likely that there would have been some star trails, while the ISO 1600 shots were at 8 secs (mostly f/1.4, but some later ones at f/1.6). The lights weren't exactly bright, but at least I saw them and got some usable shots. Incidentally, the two shots that I thought were teh best in terms of sharpness (both when the lights were subsiding), can't have been too bad, as they were accepted by Alamy, in a batch only containing the two shots and nothing else. Alamy typically scan two images from each upload to make sure the image quality is high enough.

dolina:

Ocean Drive by alabang, on Flickr

dolina:

Se7en by alabang, on Flickr

Mencho(22):

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page