Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Photo of the Day: April 2020

At the Art House
2A53E732-894A-4769-B9D7-594D487ADEDA.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: uvafan1, JamesMike, someoldguy and 9 others
Micky Do said:
Camera? Lens? Settings? Editing? Nice photo.....
Click to expand...
Good news - it actually turned out thanks to camera capabilities, Bad news - I need a longer lens

The longest lens I have is a 70-200. Using manual setting was able to make adjustment to balance black background vs bright subject to see moon detail through the viewfinder on a mirrorless camera so knew exposure was correct. Then radical cropping in post which the camera's sensor supported.

Sony a7rIII, 200mm, iso 640, f8 1/2000. Original RAW file 7952x5304 40.8 MB, cropped finished jpg 1932x1289 284 Kb. I didn't have to reduce it further for web posting as I typically will drop them to 2000px anyway as the regular full size jpg is way to large to upload/post or more than 2 full size files as an email attachment would be rejected.

On my short list is the 200-600 (or 100-400 + 1.4x or 2x extender), but waiting to see what Tamron or Sigma introduce in that range that doesn't require an adapter but is native mount. The nice thing about the 100-400, besides being smaller, is the internal focusing rather than the lens extended focusing/breathing. If Tamron or Sigma did internal on a ?-600, I would be all over it. They have until Christmas, then they make my decision if they introduce nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Micky Do
tizeye said:
Good news - it actually turned out thanks to camera capabilities, Bad news - I need a longer lens

The longest lens I have is a 70-200. Using manual setting was able to make adjustment to balance black background vs bright subject to see moon detail through the viewfinder on a mirrorless camera so knew exposure was correct. Then radical cropping in post which the camera's sensor supported.

Sony a7rIII, 200mm, iso 640, f8 1/2000. Original RAW file 7952x5304 40.8 MB, cropped finished jpg 1932x1289 284 Kb. I didn't have to reduce it further for web posting as I typically will drop them to 2000px anyway as the regular full size jpg is way to large to upload/post or more than 2 full size files as an email attachment would be rejected.

On my short list is the 200-600 (or 100-400 + 1.4x or 2x extender), but waiting to see what Tamron or Sigma introduce in that range that doesn't require an adapter but is native mount. The nice thing about the 100-400, besides being smaller, is the internal focusing rather than the lens extended focusing/breathing. If Tamron or Sigma did internal on a ?-600, I would be all over it. They have until Christmas, then they make my decision if they introduce nothing.
Click to expand...

I have the 200-600 and love it, but yes, it's a bit heavy and awkward to carry around! I haven't used it to shoot the moon yet, though, as I still need to get a Wimberley gimbal for the tripod. My next lens is probably going to be the 100-400mm, which will be nice to use at times when I don't want to fool with a tripod, as the 100-400 is indeed a bit lighter and smaller. The 200-600mm has internal focusing, which is great since that lens is already so long that if it zoomed and extended even further, that would be very cumbersome! I thought the 100-400 lens does extend when zoomed?? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different lens, as I've been looking at reviews and such for several, so it is easy to get confused about which does what and has specific features!
 
Clix Pix said:
I have the 200-600 and love it, but yes, it's a bit heavy and awkward to carry around! I haven't used it to shoot the moon yet, though, as I still need to get a Wimberley gimbal for the tripod. My next lens is probably going to be the 100-400mm, which will be nice to use at times when I don't want to fool with a tripod, as the 100-400 is indeed a bit lighter and smaller. The 200-600mm has internal focusing, which is great since that lens is already so long that if it zoomed and extended even further, that would be very cumbersome! I thought the 100-400 lens does extend when zoomed?? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different lens, as I've been looking at reviews and such for several, so it is easy to get confused about which does what and has specific features!
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right - I got them switched. It is the 200-600 that has the internal focus. I have used the Tamron 150-600 which didn't and was a pain if you didn't lock it to avoid the zoom creep when walking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix
tizeye said:
Yeah, you're right - I got them switched. It is the 200-600 that has the internal focus. I have used the Tamron 150-600 which didn't and was a pain if you didn't lock it to avoid the zoom creep when walking.
Click to expand...

Yes, I recall reading in some reviews about one of the lenses in which I'm interested having an issue with zoom creep because it does not have a lock, which is really unfortunate. I think it's the 100-400, but am not positive. Seems to me that with an expensive lens like that one, a GM, that Sony would've ensured that there is no zoom creep! Obviously before I actually get around to buying anything I'll check out details more thoroughly prior to heading to the camera shop. This is a lens that I do want to handle in person before purchasing, since I want to be sure that it will be as hand-holdable as I'm hoping and it will be just right for what I want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back