Moon with EOS converted FD500/4.5L

Yeah i think we've all seen a few hundred of these on this forum,LOL

Still,i wanted to post my best effort (to date).After quite abit of practice i think i'm getting reasonably close to the full potential of my gear - 400D,EOS-converted FD500/4.5L and 'improvised' tripod .
This image is 100% pixels and has been processed .As always i try to do it in such a way that it looks as natural as possible.

Any Criticisms/suggestions​/questions welcome

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

very nice

Fantastic shot, well done.

May I ask :- you say it's a converted FD500mm lens, yes? What did you use to convert it? It's just that I've recently purchased an FD-to-EOS converter and a cheap 28mm f/2.8 FD lens for the sole purpose of shooting wide-field astro-shots. Around £30 for the two. Just a test really, as the FD lenses seem very cheap, (though I've no idea what the quality will be like). If your shot is typical of a 500mm FD lens then I might splash out for something like a 100mm f/2.8 FD lens at some point. Thanks.

Ron will possibly come back with a more succinct answer but take a search on his username and look at some of his older posts - he's got a habit of doing 'unusual' things with lenses... I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear he has welded an EF mount onto the back of the FD lens... just sayin'

HAHA,Not far off it John
Here is a link describing the basic mod-
http://forum.manualfoc​us.org …ic.php?pid=1057​06#p105706

Adrena1in wrote in post #7765866
Fantastic shot, well done.
May I ask :- you say it's a converted FD500mm lens, yes? What did you use to convert it? It's just that I've recently purchased an FD-to-EOS converter and a cheap 28mm f/2.8 FD lens for the sole purpose of shooting wide-field astro-shots. Around £30 for the two. Just a test really, as the FD lenses seem very cheap, (though I've no idea what the quality will be like). If your shot is typical of a 500mm FD lens then I might splash out for something like a 100mm f/2.8 FD lens at some point. Thanks.

Hi Adrena1in
As you can see in the link above it's not easy to convert FD lenses (in general).Making it harder is the way they are all different in how their mounts are put together and also the fact that you want to convert a wide angle lens.These are always more difficult,and sometimes even impossible because the rear elements protrude too far backwards.
Sorry i don't know much about that particular lens.

The 100/2.8 i can tell you a little about.This model was one of the first i tried when experimenting with mount conversions a few years back.
Actually there's not alot to tell -it's certainly quite good as you would expect from a prime lens.Overall it has less contrast than a more modern design but resolution seemed to be excellent

I will always remember that reverse lens you described with the EF mount on the 'other' end and all wired for full AF

Magic

Almost a "muddy appearance. Looks wet and glazed. I actually quite like it.

Baz.

Ah,yes Baz -that would be from too much post processing.I have wondered if i overdo certain aspects of this.

What do others think?Does it look odd to you?

::John:: wrote in post #7766331
I will always remember that reverse lens you described with the EF mount on the 'other' end and all wired for full AF
Magic

Yeah that one was abit 'different',lol
Unfortunately it didnt work out in the end,i'm still not sure why.The electronics simply failed one day.
Since then i've been involved in other projects so it's only recently i've had time to think about trying that idea again.If i do,next time it will be just a reversed mount-not the double ended idea from before.This will make it simpler and easier to build while giving huge macro magnification which-ultimately- was the whole point

ron chappel wrote in post #7770121
Ah,yes Baz -that would be from too much post processing.I have wondered if i overdo certain aspects of this.

What do others think?Does it look odd to you?

It's a great shot. I wouldn't say odd but leaning away from natural. Overuse of noise reduction is a detail killer and can cause the "glazed" appearance. I see this quite a bit in bird photography and the images begin to take on a photo illustration look.

Another post process effect that is common is the white halo that becomes enhanced at the Lunar rim during sharpening. Masking in Photoshop can help avoid sharpening in that area.

ron chappel wrote in post #7770121
Ah,yes Baz -that would be from too much post processing.I have wondered if i overdo certain aspects of this.

What do others think?Does it look odd to you?

It's a great shot. I wouldn't say odd but leaning away from natural. Overuse of noise reduction is a detail killer and can cause the "glazed" appearance. Not sure if this is the case here but it's where I would start. I see this quite a bit in bird photography and the images begin to take on a photo illustration look.

Another post process effect that is common is the white halo that becomes enhanced at the Lunar rim during sharpening. Masking in Photoshop can help avoid sharpening in that area.

Ah,thanks nighthound
It's always best to have opinions of others!Even after a little time processing an image i tend to lose track.