motoroller Senior Member 474 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jul 2008 Location: Near London More info | Apr 04, 2009 06:20 | #1 https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=672365 Current: 5d III | 1Ds3 | 5d II gripped | 40d | 17-40L | 24-105L | 50mm f/1.4 | 100 f/2 | 70-200L f/2.8 | 430EX |
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BenJohnson Goldmember  1,811 posts Likes: 4 Joined Dec 2008 Location: Minneapolis, MN More info | Apr 04, 2009 09:15 | #2 I took a shot of the moon last night with my 70-200 2.8 IS and after 100% crop and sharpening it came out like this:  Yours both look WAY over exposed. With my (much inferior camera) I had to shoot in manual and play around a lot, because even with Partial Metering I needed more than -2 stops of EC to get any decent contrast in the moon. I'm no expert on moon shots though. My thread on pushing the ISO to 3200 and 6400 on the XTi, has 100% crops from both the 55-250 and the 70-20. The ISO 1600 are probably the most relevant. Here's the thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=668129 EDIT: See here. Not quite Apples to Apples, but a good comparison. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2  70-200 shots: https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=7605681&postcount=3 55-250 shots: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=7612226&postcount=19 |Ben Johnson Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JackProton Goldmember  2,348 posts Joined Feb 2007 More info | Apr 06, 2009 14:36 | #3 Too overexposed to make out detail. Try some variation of "Moon11" rule of thumb -- 1/ISO sec @f11.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 44 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Apr 06, 2009 14:41 | #4 The moon is so far away that there is little detail to gather with a 200mm lens. So both are capable of getting it all. Shoot something like a bird from closer range and you will see the difference in detail and sharpness. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xarqi Cream of the Crop  10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Apr 06, 2009 20:54 | #5 motoroller wrote in post #7664663 Thoughts? Since you ask, both of those images are appalling, neither is representative of what either lens can achieve, and together they do not offer any basis on which a meaningful comparison could be made.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Monkeytoes 1329 guests, 182 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
