Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
Thread started 20 Oct 2011 (Thursday) 11:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Milkyway nightscapes

 
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1025
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
Post edited over 4 years ago by pdxbenedetti.
     
Jun 18, 2016 19:13 |  #3061

FEChariot wrote in post #18043551 (external link)
I'm from Denver and while there is plenty of landscape options, the Astro is better left for out of town. about 90 min east of denver around Last Chance CO has dark skies. If you want to shoot in the astro in the mountains, you are going to want to be an hour away from any ski resort areas.

What are you trying to shoot? 14-35 range on crop seems to be in the not useful for much range. It seems too tight to do Milky way and too wide for anything deep sky.

Huh? 14mm on a crop is only ~21mm, even 35mm is only ~52mm. I shoot nothing but my 24mm for widefield astro, the two best astro lenses on the market right now are the Rokinon 24mm and Sigma 35mm. Hell, I shot this from a Bortle 6 zone with my 50mm lens (without a tracker as well):


IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5715/22405719180_d6dd1493d5_b.jpg


You don't really shoot anything deep sky with less than 150mm focal length.

flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TCampbell
Senior Member
452 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 284
Joined Apr 2012
     
Jun 18, 2016 19:25 |  #3062

Fletcher407 wrote in post #18043446 (external link)
Please forgive me for being a little off topic. I am looking to get a different lens for astrophotography and landscape shooting. I currently have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for my 7DmkII, but I find myself wanting to zoom in closer many times than the 16mm affords when shooting landscapes. Do any of you have experience with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or the Tokina 14-20mm f/2 for astrophotography (not sure this tight enough either)? Or should I continue to save up and just get a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L. I have not seen many reviews on these first two in reference to astrophotography. I am wanting to use the lens for both astrophotography and landscapes on a trip to Golden Colorado area. Thanks for helping

I find that you either want to be "very wide" for full Milky Way panoramas, or... tighten up quite a bit for images of deep-space objects (but now you need a tracking head).

Remember that on a full-frame body, divide 600 by the focal length of the lens for the max seconds you can get away with on an exposure before you start to notice the stars growing "tails" (and some people feel the 500 is a bit safer). With an APS-C camera you have to divide that by the crop factor of your sensor.

That means at the 35mm end you're going to get maybe 10 seconds before the exposure time is too long to have pinpoint stars (unless you have a tracking head.)

If you use a tracking head, you can go much longer (assuming you've got a good polar alignment with it.) I've done 8 minutes on a 135mm lens with no problem (but these don't include the "landscape" -- just the sky. At 8 minutes the horizon and land would be heavily blurred.)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
Avatar
21,724 posts
Gallery: 1956 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 74791
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jun 18, 2016 21:12 |  #3063

Next time I get a chance to aim at the Milky Way I want to train the 135mm on it.
I bet someone already has examples with that focal length ??


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 4 years ago by FEChariot.
     
Jun 18, 2016 22:05 |  #3064

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18043554 (external link)
Huh? 14mm on a crop is only ~21mm, even 35mm is only ~52mm. I shoot nothing but my 24mm for widefield astro, the two best astro lenses on the market right now are the Rokinon 24mm and Sigma 35mm. Hell, I shot this from a Bortle 6 zone with my 50mm lens (without a tracker as well):

You don't really shoot anything deep sky with less than 150mm focal length.

Your work here is amazing. In fact there are only a hand full of a people even playing in the same ball park as you, so your 50mm shot beats anything I have ever done with any lens. However if we level the playing field and compare your work to your work and had you taken another image of that scape at 24mm, I would tell you the 24mm one looked better than the 50mm then if you took another shot at 14mm and asked me if I liked the 14mm shot or the 24mm shot more, I'd tell you 14mm.

So call it personal preference or what ever but with Milky Way the wider the better for me.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maureen ­ Souza
Ms. MODERATOR     Something Spectacular!
Avatar
33,791 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 7311
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Central California
     
Jun 19, 2016 00:09 as a reply to  @ post 18043469 |  #3065

You can open this topic in the Talk section & save this for picture sharing.


Life is hard...but I just take it one photograph at a time.

5DMK4
7DMK2
Canon Lenses: 50/1.4, 135/2.0, 100-400mm II, 24-70/2.8 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,011 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2141
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jun 19, 2016 18:47 |  #3066

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18043632 (external link)
Next time I get a chance to aim at the Milky Way I want to train the 135mm on it.
I bet someone already has examples with that focal length ??

I'm working on that one :) haven't had the Skytracker out for a while but really want to test the 135mm ƒ2 on the core!


6D x 2 | TM SP 35mm ƒ1.4 | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 17-40mm ƒ4L | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4 Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,011 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2141
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jun 19, 2016 18:47 as a reply to  @ post 18043305 |  #3067

FF camera, 6D :)


6D x 2 | TM SP 35mm ƒ1.4 | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 17-40mm ƒ4L | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4 Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
Avatar
21,724 posts
Gallery: 1956 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 74791
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jun 19, 2016 22:07 as a reply to  @ NCHANT's post |  #3068

Mickey tell me this. With the skytracker and say a 14mm lens, I don't have to be so exacting....but with
the 135 I need to pay particular attention to alignment, correct?


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1025
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jun 19, 2016 22:23 |  #3069

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18044463 (external link)
Mickey tell me this. With the skytracker and say a 14mm lens, I don't have to be so exacting....but with
the 135 I need to pay particular attention to alignment, correct?

Ya, once you start getting into the longer focal lengths you need to get the alignment correct. With the 85mm I noticed I'd start to get star trailing after 5 minutes or so exposure length if my alignment wasn't on (at least close to position polaris needed to be in). At 150mm and above if I want anything longer than 1-2 minutes I pretty much have to have a precise polar alignment.


flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1025
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jun 19, 2016 22:32 |  #3070

FEChariot wrote in post #18043662 (external link)
Your work here is amazing. In fact there are only a hand full of a people even playing in the same ball park as you, so your 50mm shot beats anything I have ever done with any lens. However if we level the playing field and compare your work to your work and had you taken another image of that scape at 24mm, I would tell you the 24mm one looked better than the 50mm then if you took another shot at 14mm and asked me if I liked the 14mm shot or the 24mm shot more, I'd tell you 14mm.

So call it personal preference or what ever but with Milky Way the wider the better for me.

I've found the sweet spot for me is the 24mm in terms of widefield shots of the Milky Way, with that lens it's still easy to stitch and not have to capture tons of exposures and you capture so much better/more detail than I do with my Tokina 11-16mm. This is a test I did comparing my two setups, the first image was taken with my Nikon D7000 and Tokina 11-16mm at 11mm (16mm effective focal length), f4.5, ISO 1600, 2 minute exposures:


IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1677/26196927660_e6635a377e_b.jpg

The second is taken with my D600 and Rokinon 24mm lens, f4, ISO 800, 2 minute exposures:


IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1482/25909876044_54d5bb6851_b.jpg


The detail in the core region is sooooo much better with the Rokinon, of course I had to take more shots and it was easier to stitch the shots from the Tokina, but I am not sure I'll use that Tokina again because I think the Rokinon is so much better of a lens.

flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,011 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2141
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jun 19, 2016 23:09 |  #3071

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18044478 (external link)
Ya, once you start getting into the longer focal lengths you need to get the alignment correct. With the 85mm I noticed I'd start to get star trailing after 5 minutes or so exposure length if my alignment wasn't on (at least close to position polaris needed to be in). At 150mm and above if I want anything longer than 1-2 minutes I pretty much have to have a precise polar alignment.

Yep that is correct. I usually don't go over 30 seconds though as I can see movement from the worm drive on my Skytracker :(


6D x 2 | TM SP 35mm ƒ1.4 | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 17-40mm ƒ4L | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4 Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Niteclicks
Member
161 posts
Likes: 119
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma,USA
     
Jun 20, 2016 08:42 as a reply to  @ MedicineMan4040's post |  #3072

I tried my 135 and the coma was pretty bad, was really disappointed since the 200 is so good.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
Avatar
21,724 posts
Gallery: 1956 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 74791
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jun 20, 2016 22:52 as a reply to  @ Niteclicks's post |  #3073

No doubting but first I have heard about coma with the 135.

anyway, any MW pro's want to go over my step list and see what I am missing?
1. level tripod
2. install Ioptron Skytracker--make sure fresh battery.
3. level Skytracker, set azimuth, find Polaris through the peep hole or via the little scope I got with it
4. attach camera/manual everything mode
5. direct the camera toward the core

Now what settings on the Skytracker ??? using the 135mm ??
Honestly it's been a long time since I've fooled with it, but in August we're headed to the Outer Banks
which is rich with Milky Way IF it's not cloudy.

Using a 6D or Sony A7Rii recommend some settings please.


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jun 20, 2016 23:24 |  #3074

Niteclicks wrote in post #18044802 (external link)
I tried my 135 and the coma was pretty bad, was really disappointed since the 200 is so good.

This was taken with the 135L. While there is some star trailing due to tracking and exposure time, I don't see coma.


http://www.lenstip.com …stigmatism_and_​bokeh.html (external link)

Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1025
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jun 20, 2016 23:29 |  #3075

Make sure you have an app that tells you the precise position of Polaris, there are several for both Android and Apple products. The app will produce an image like this:



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


You'll need your latitude/longitude from your location to plug into the app. The dot on the ring is the location of Polaris, but for your polar scope you need to put polaris in the opposite position because the scope is mirrored in both axis. So if Polaris is at 6 o'clock in the app, put Polaris at 12 o'clock in your scope.

There's really only 2 settings on the Skytracker, northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere, use the appropriate one. I find that the red light for the polar scope is completely useless, so I shine my red led headlamp into the end to see the markings properly. For camera settings I generally use ISO 400 or 800, I stop my lens down 1 or 2 stops (so for my f1.4 lenses I use f2-f4 usually), and an exposure of 2-5 minutes.

flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,786,227 views & 7,601 likes for this thread
Milkyway nightscapes
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is suiyuan
622 guests, 200 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.