Sigma 10mm fisheye Startrails

Both of these are in my backyard.

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

that would be cool, the second one hurts my eyes but the first one is awesome. i've been looking at the sigma 14mm fisheye so this encourages me!

harrisa wrote in post #11915173
Both of these are in my backyard.

2011-02-10 106.67m(200*32s), ISO 200, f/2.8, Sigma 10mm fisheye, Canon 40d.


2011-02-11 21.8m (41x32s), ISO 200, f/2.8. Saturn just coming up from the horizon. Had to stop because the lens started frosting over.

Good news was this was the first clear night in the 3 weeks after I bought this lens... bad news was it was 6 degrees outside. Thankfully I had the ACK-E2.

I'm really itching to get out to the middle of nowhere w/ this setup.
aa

These are the first digital star tracking shots that I can say I like, to me they are very close to the shots done by film cameras, which I always thought were great. So many of the "stacked" shots just look bad to me, but hey, that's just my opinon.

Nice fish eye, you'll have fun with this lens

Nice! I just picked up this lens a few days ago... If you don't mind, how does one go about getting shots like these? When you say "200x32s", does that mean you combined 200 32 second exposures?

Thanks everyone.

Jett-the-Hut, I think you hit the nail on the head... the photos with it either hurt your eyes or they rock. For me, fisheyes in general are challenging lens to get pleasing pics out of. I don't know much about your Nikon gear, but in my case the 15mm on a 1.6x crop wasn't "fishy" enough, and the 8mm was too fishy. But with fisheyes in general, that's just my personal preference. Have you looked at the Tokina fisheye any?


jdmsds, you're correct, two-hundred single pics with a 32s exposure each. All it takes a steady tripod, remote cable(or EOS Utility), full batteries, a clear night and time. I've been meaning to write this up on a web page... I'll try and do that tonight.

aa