tron said:
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
Upvote
0
EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
StoneColdCoffee said:
And that's what I would need it for. why why why does it have to be f/4. I really hope the specs are wrong.
[/quote]
or you could just use it with an a7s
Upvote
0
StoneColdCoffee said:
Making something of that focal range an f/2.8 would make the lens much, much bigger than in the pic being shown, much, much heavier and obscenely expensive.
I currently have the Sigma 12-24 II. It's currently the widest rectilinear lens you can get for full frame DSLRs. It's of a decent size but it's f/4.5-5.6. Something that is a constant f/4 that is even wider on the short end and is of better optical quality is already going to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. Just imagine it at a constant /2.8.
Upvote
0
I'd be intersted in seeing a wider-than-16mm CPL example (for my personal education) if someone has one to share...
Upvote
0
I will also appreciate images produced by this beast because I will super expensive, beside very heavy for a UWA lensbereninga said:
Upvote
0
+1PhotographyFirst said:There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
Moreoever, I do not believe that's the target market Canon had in mind while designing this lens.
Upvote
0
I've not an image at hand here because my shortest focal is 16mm (but the 11-24 could change it..), but look at images containing foliage or water. Both are two common "subjects" that can highly polarize light. Most images where you see highly "transparent" water, are probably made using a PL, as well landscapes with lot of foliage in it.romanr74 said:
When you also control the light source i.e. some interior shooting - you may use a PL filter put in front of the light source. That's because only direct reflection will preserve polarization, while diffusion will not, converting into unpolarized light.
Upvote
0
PhotographyFirst said:tron said:
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
I do have astro tracker. Rumor has it that the landscape (forground) part of the photo gets blurred when using it though :
: :
Upvote
0
tron said:PhotographyFirst said:tron said:
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
I do have astro tracker. Rumor has it that the landscape (forground) part of the photo gets blurred when using it though :
You can move the camera position from one shot to the next. Don't be stuck with thinking your tripod needs to be in the same place for foreground and background. If you worry about parallax error with objects light years away, then I don't know if there is any helping you get better shots.
That's just the reality of astro landscapes and being able to print well. Static single exposures just don't cut it with current technology.
Upvote
0
I have thought too of blending 2 photos into one. Forground shot at lower ISO with many minutes exposure and background (stars) with astrotrac also at rather low ISO and many minutes exposure (I have already done that for a pure galaxy shot). But I feel this as being a little cheating. I generaly use my 5D3 at ISO 10000, shoot at 25 sec (14mm) at 2.8 and get decent results. The most difficult problem is to avoid car headlights from aside. The bulb element of 14mm does not help a lot so I dream of a new coma free 16-35 2.8 lens with a flat element that will take hood just fine.PhotographyFirst said:tron said:PhotographyFirst said:tron said:
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
I do have astro tracker. Rumor has it that the landscape (forground) part of the photo gets blurred when using it though :
You can move the camera position from one shot to the next. Don't be stuck with thinking your tripod needs to be in the same place for foreground and background. If you worry about parallax error with objects light years away, then I don't know if there is any helping you get better shots.
That's just the reality of astro landscapes and being able to print well. Static single exposures just don't cut it with current technology.
But yes I will try blending this summer.
Upvote
0
The updated specs say there is a rear drop in filter, but I don't see anything in the image. Does that make sense to anyone?
Upvote
0
It's probably a rear gelatin filter slot, which is already present on several of Canon's lenses.
Upvote
0
tron said:I have thought too of blending 2 photos into one. Forground shot at lower ISO with many minutes exposure and background (stars) with astrotrac also at rather low ISO and many minutes exposure (I have already done that for a pure galaxy shot). But I feel this as being a little cheating. I generaly use my 5D3 at ISO 10000, shoot at 25 sec (14mm) at 2.8 and get decent results. The most difficult problem is to avoid car headlights from aside. The bulb element of 14mm does not help a lot so I dream of a new coma free 16-35 2.8 lens with a flat element that will take hood just fine.PhotographyFirst said:tron said:PhotographyFirst said:tron said:
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
I do have astro tracker. Rumor has it that the landscape (forground) part of the photo gets blurred when using it though :
You can move the camera position from one shot to the next. Don't be stuck with thinking your tripod needs to be in the same place for foreground and background. If you worry about parallax error with objects light years away, then I don't know if there is any helping you get better shots.
That's just the reality of astro landscapes and being able to print well. Static single exposures just don't cut it with current technology.
But yes I will try blending this summer.
I use this method for doing daytime focus stacking, when bokeh fringing becomes a problem. It works really well! Just use the foreground shot to align the BG where it needs to be to be realistic. I don't see that as cheating, as much as being clever and one-upping the competition. I've been told by countless people that it's impossible to aoid bokeh fringing, when they have the mindset that the camera must never move. For my focus stacking, I will crank the tripod column up to get it over flower and stuff that are causing the fringing in the focus stack.
Upvote
0
If it's like the 14mm it's just behind the rear lens, a metal frame accepting gelatin filters. When mounted, it's inside the camera - and you need to remove the lens to remove/change the filter. Not the most practical solution. It's not like some drop-in filter holders on tele lenses.KitsVancouver said:
IIRC some old FD UWA or fish-eye lenses had embedded filters which could be selected via a lens ring - IIRC Sky, some classic B/W filters, and maybe an ND (but not PL). I didn't see it used anymore - too expensive, not really useful, or it didn't work properly? Never had then any of those lenses...
Upvote
0
A trick that I think is halfway between the two (and does not require tracking) is to take a shot of the whole scene just with tripod and another one of the foreground using lower ISO (and longer exposure of course). Then I guess the cleaner foreground can be superimposed in a front layer.PhotographyFirst said:tron said:I have thought too of blending 2 photos into one. Forground shot at lower ISO with many minutes exposure and background (stars) with astrotrac also at rather low ISO and many minutes exposure (I have already done that for a pure galaxy shot). But I feel this as being a little cheating. I generaly use my 5D3 at ISO 10000, shoot at 25 sec (14mm) at 2.8 and get decent results. The most difficult problem is to avoid car headlights from aside. The bulb element of 14mm does not help a lot so I dream of a new coma free 16-35 2.8 lens with a flat element that will take hood just fine.PhotographyFirst said:tron said:PhotographyFirst said:tron said:
There, I fixed it for you.
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.
I do have astro tracker. Rumor has it that the landscape (forground) part of the photo gets blurred when using it though :
You can move the camera position from one shot to the next. Don't be stuck with thinking your tripod needs to be in the same place for foreground and background. If you worry about parallax error with objects light years away, then I don't know if there is any helping you get better shots.
That's just the reality of astro landscapes and being able to print well. Static single exposures just don't cut it with current technology.
But yes I will try blending this summer.
I use this method for doing daytime focus stacking, when bokeh fringing becomes a problem. It works really well! Just use the foreground shot to align the BG where it needs to be to be realistic. I don't see that as cheating, as much as being clever and one-upping the competition. I've been told by countless people that it's impossible to avoid bokeh fringing, when they have the mindset that the camera must never move. For my focus stacking, I will crank the tripod column up to get it over flower and stuff that are causing the fringing in the focus stack.
Upvote
0
Thanks. I only have a super-tele with a drop-in filter and have never seen a lens with the filter mechanism that you described.
LDS said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
