Another Lens Specific "Starburst Effect" Question

I have asked several different questions here inquiring the best method for achieving sharp starburst effects when shooting cities or lights at night. I have received a great amount of valuable information about the right method to achieve this effect, but am still lacking information as to what lenses perform this task the best.

I have tried countless times to achieve a sharp starburst effect with my 24-105L and it just doesn't do the trick. I have no problem getting the starburst itself, it just lacks the sharpness that I am looking for.

Here is an example of one of my better starburst shots.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/57465123@N08/9​313282012/

I have had very good results with a Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 on a 7D. This lens can be used on a full frame at f/16 but I have not tried it on my 6D - I would expect good results.

The exif on the Queensboro Bridge shot indicates f/11 using an EF 50mm f/1.4. Have you experimented with your 50mm 1.8 to see if you get better results?

magoosmc wrote in post #16605119
I have had very good results with a Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 on a 7D. This lens can be used on a full frame at f/16 but I have not tried it on my 6D - I would expect good results.

The exif on the Queensboro Bridge shot indicates f/11 using an EF 50mm f/1.4. Have you experimented with your 50mm 1.8 to see if you get better results?

I was actually going to use the 50 because I got that suggestion last time I talked to people about the issue. Haven't had time to get around to it or found the right subject yet. I will do that before I shoot next time.

Also, how about the 17-40 for starbursts and sharpness?

Your photo, if I am not mistaken, is taken at f22. Diffraction has well set in by then, so there is no surprise that you complain that your starbursts are soft...

By the way, if you want comments about such a detail, upload a large resolution photo on Flickr and do not disable the copying. I can look at a photo 5184 pixels wide and decide whether is soft or not and whether the postprocessing is adequate in terms of USM.

A 1024 pixel wide shot is prqactically worthless, especially viewed with a browser.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16605235
Your photo, if I am not mistaken, is taken at f22. Diffraction has well set in by then, so there is no surprise that you complain that your starbursts are soft...

By the way, if you want comments about such a detail, upload a large resolution photo on Flickr and do not disable the copying. I can look at a photo 5184 pixels wide and decide whether is soft or not and whether the postprocessing is adequate in terms of USM.

A 1024 pixel wide shot is prqactically worthless, especially viewed with a browser.

My flickr is generally just used for viewing purposes (purposefully use the small versions and save the large versions on my own computer for printing. I wouldn't like for my work to be available for anyone to take as they wish...but if you simply ask, I can just as easily upload a full res image to some quick photo sharing site like photobucket or tinyimage to temporarily share.

But thanks for the comment, Ill make sure to drop down to f/16 next time.

Maybe f11?

Then I will take you up on the large resolution drop, if needed...

I have not tried it but there is a topaz app for that -- Star Effects -- you may want to try it out.

Why not just get the starbust/star filter.

In the digital world, IMO, filters are frowned upon. The number of rays one gets from a point source of light is solely dependent on the number of aperture blades in the lens (assuning you are not shooting wide open.) An even number of blades gives that many rays ( 8 = 8.) Odd number gives double the rays (15 blades = 30 rays.) Gene

lance60031x wrote in post #16605319
I have not tried it but there is a topaz app for that -- Star Effects -- you may want to try it out.

An app? I'm not using my iPhone for photography.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16605554
Why not just get the starbust/star filter.

Te starburst filters suck. I've seen so many shots where people used them and they look absolutely horrendous. Every light source picks up the starbursts with that filter...reflections, glows, everything as opposed to just light sources. Plus I'd rather do it naturally from the camera instead of relying on a filter. Plus the starburst filter makes the points way too long and they're colored weird.

[QUOTE=JM Photos;16605728]An app? I'm not using my iPhone for photography.

lol Topaz Lab http://www.topazlabs.c​om

I do use my Mac for processing

[QUOTE=lance60031x;166​06000]

JM Photos wrote in post #16605728
An app? I'm not using my iPhone for photography.

lol Topaz Lab http://www.topazlabs.c​om

I do use my Mac for processing

Thank you for clarifying. I had no idea there was a software called that. When he said "app" I just thought about a phone. I don't think software or websites when someone says "app"

MakisM1 wrote in post #16605235
Your photo, if I am not mistaken, is taken at f22. Diffraction has well set in by then, so there is no surprise that you complain that your starbursts are soft...

By the way, if you want comments about such a detail, upload a large resolution photo on Flickr and do not disable the copying. I can look at a photo 5184 pixels wide and decide whether is soft or not and whether the postprocessing is adequate in terms of USM.

A 1024 pixel wide shot is prqactically worthless, especially viewed with a browser.

I just zipped through my Photostream and the sharpest "starbursts" I have were taken at f/22. As far as diffraction, it's not nearly as bad as it's claimed to be and can often be corrected for in post.

Ok, entirely unscientific but. . . . . . I just zipped through my photostream and what I noticed was that the longer focal lengths tended to render crisper bursts, while the shorter focal lengths rendered bursts that tended to "flare out"; getting wider as they moved from the center of the light. Now I'm feeling compelled to experiment with this.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16606050
Ok, entirely unscientific but. . . . . . I just zipped through my photostream and what I noticed was that the longer focal lengths tended to render crisper bursts, while the shorter focal lengths rendered bursts that tended to "flare out"; getting wider as they moved from the center of the light. Now I'm feeling compelled to experiment with this.

lol, I noticed with my own photos. I prefer odd number of aperture blades than even number. Longer lenses did seem to have bigger bursts. Size of light source changes how bursts look, pointy vs wide.