karohemd: by LJ user gothindulgence (d70)
[personal profile] karohemd
Completely forgot about this one. Taken last night with the 70-200mm (at 200mm, ISO200, f2.8. 1/125, cropped with Shadows and Contrast adjusted):

Date: 17/11/05 04:25 pm (UTC)

Date: 17/11/05 04:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
it was a great sky last night wasn't it?

Date: 17/11/05 04:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] karohemd.livejournal.com
Indeed. Luckily, the light pollution isn't that bad around my end of town, I just need to wait until the motion-triggered outside light goes out.

Date: 17/11/05 04:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bibliogirl.livejournal.com
Heh, I had a go with my 600mm lens, but need to finish working out how to use the damn tripod first (it's [livejournal.com profile] rotwang's not mine)

Date: 17/11/05 05:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] karohemd.livejournal.com
600mm? Blimey. What's the maximum aperture?
Tripods can be a tad complicated, that's true, but for such a big lens you need one. I only have a light plastic one which has been alright so far as it's reasonably stable but I'll have to fork out for a decent one soon enough. The 70-200 is big and heavy enough and anything under 1/125 is tricky to hold steady.

Date: 17/11/05 05:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gbsteve.livejournal.com
Where's the flag? I can't see the flag!


Nice piccy though.

Date: 17/11/05 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bibliogirl.livejournal.com
It's a catadioptric lens -- one of the kind that uses mirrors and thus is a lot shorter than the focal length would suggest. Still quite heavy though, and the tripod's a must, but I wasn't applying enough force to get the main column up as far as I needed.

It's fixed f8, and manual focus, so it's fine for this sort of thing (tripod issues aside) but if whatever you're trying to focus on is moving, forget it. (Yes, yes, the Moon moves, but not fast enough to be a major issue.) Seemed to be working okay somewhere around the 1/60 mark yesterday for the Moon.

Date: 17/11/05 05:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] karohemd.livejournal.com
I know the kind. They were all the hype 20 or 15 years ago but with the advent of better glass and grinding technologies, they've almost passed into obscurity.

1/60 at f8 sounds about right, as the moon probably filled most of the picture at that focal length.

Date: 17/11/05 05:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bibliogirl.livejournal.com
I bought it cheap off my mother, who wanted rid of it; as long as you understand its limitations it has its uses... (and I have a standard 75 - 300mm lens also)

I guess it'd really be (1.6 x 600mm) effectively on my Canon, but yeah, the moon is about half the height of the frame at that length. I may give it another go tonight if it's clear enough.

Date: 17/11/05 05:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lonewolfi.livejournal.com
VERY Nice!!!

Date: 17/11/05 06:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sparksoflight.livejournal.com
Oooh, nice one!

Date: 17/11/05 07:41 pm (UTC)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 30 Jan 2026 05:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios