how is this for astrophotography/star trails? Considering this vs the 16-35 and im thinking the extra 1/3 stop would be helpful
1414086
I have used mine for astrophotography but it is on the slow end if what is possible. For occasional use it is fine, but if this will be its main use you may well get frustrated. How well does your camera handle noise at high ISO? I don't think 1/3 stop should make enough difference for you to change your mind if this is the lens you prefer. It is very light and the IQ on full frame is fantastic. I have since bought a 24 - 70 f2.8 and despite the longer focal length I use this at night for the extra speed. So for dedicated astrophotography lens consider something faster. For occasional use it will do the job. I have used mine for astrophotography but it is on the slow end if what is possible. For occasional use it is fine, but if this will be its main use you may well get frustrated. How well does your camera handle noise at high ISO? I don't think 1/3 stop should make enough difference for you to change your mind if this is the lens you prefer. It is very light and the IQ on full frame is fantastic. I have since bought a 24 - 70 f2.8 and despite the longer focal length I use this at night for the extra speed. So for dedicated astrophotography lens consider something faster. For occasional use... » Read More I have used mine for astrophotography but it is on the slow end if what is possible. For occasional use it is fine, but if this will be its main use you may well get frustrated. How well does your camera handle noise at high ISO? I don't think 1/3 stop should make enough difference for you to change your mind if this is the lens you prefer. It is very light and the IQ on full frame is fantastic. I have since bought a 24 - 70 f2.8 and despite the longer focal length I use this at night for the extra speed. So for dedicated astrophotography lens consider something faster. For occasional use it will do the job. « Show Less
1414087
I haven't tried it but I know you need longer exposures and deeper depth of field for astrophotography. I wouldn't use it at it's widest aperture for that kind of photography. Instead I'd stop down and drop my ISO. I'd leave the shutter open as long as possible.
1414088
I have used mine for astrophotography but it is on the slow end if what is possible. For occasional use it is fine, but if this will be its main use you may well get frustrated. How well does your camera handle noise at high ISO? I don't think 1/3 stop should make enough difference for you to change your mind if this is the lens you prefer. It is very light and the IQ on full frame is fantastic. I have since bought a 24 - 70 f2.8 and despite the longer focal length I use this at night for the extra speed. So for dedicated astrophotography lens consider something faster. For occasional use it will do the job.
1414089
Honestly, you would be better of with something like new nikon 20mm 1.8 if you are looking to do wide angle astrophotography. This lens is a fantastic all around landscape lens, but for that application you want as muchligjt as possible, and the extra couple stops means a lower iso is possible
1895515
I was speaking of the basic, bare bones CPC1100 as it comes from the factory. It is also a great photographic scope for short duration exposures up to about 30 seconds. This is due to the standard Alt-Az mount. Adding the optional "Heavy-duty wedge allows for a polar alignment much like an equitorial mount. Then true long exposure photos are easily done. In fact it could even be claimed to be a bit better since there is no "meridian flip" caused by an EQ mounts' counterweight. Add an off-axis guider or a piggyback guide scope, an autoguider camera, either a DSLR or CCD camera, and a lap-top computer and observatory grade photos are easily within your reach with the CPC1100.
1546869
I would say no. The focal length won't let you get enough magnification to get good pictures of distant nebula or things like that. I'd recommend something a little bigger like a 8 inch. Plus you'd probably want something with a motor drive so you can have long exposures, without distorted images.
1811712
I took some AMAZING picture on a virtually black night with just a little bit of moon. Be careful, though -- you need to use a tripod. Above 200 ISO the images are very noisy, and the image stabilization only works down to about 1/8 second. But with a good tripod you can go to a multiple second exposure.
86102
Hi. I have been playing with this camera a good deal the last couple of weeks but mostly on how well it does bracketing and comparing the exposure control settings vs a true representation of the scene at low light. I will keep a hold of the question and test out the GPS this weekend and let you know. Hope that helps. (Great little camera by the way).
2127493
I shoot with a D7000 and if you place it in BULB mode, the tiumer on the remote will take over. There you can run a single, continuous 100-hour exposure if you wish. this is great for getting star trails as you can also set the number of shots and interval between them very quickly versus drilling down though the menu in the camera.
1891715
Gregory, I don't know if you are purchasing the Canon 20D camera body from the same person that I did. If so then this is what I think. After much research on the camera, I found it was the top of the line, of all cameras, when it first came out. The original price was up around $1800 and had more "bells and Whistles" on it than you could imagine. It was stated that it was in very good condition. When I got it in the mail, I found everything was sealed in its original wrappings and the manual's pages were not even bent. I really believe that it had never been out of the original box. It was in mint condition. I am using it strictly for astrophotography on my 3 large telescopes. It is performing flawlessly. I still had a couple of lenses from my old 35mm film camera, so I bought an adapter for the 20D so I could use the lenses. The photos are great. The 20D was made back in 2004, I believe, but it is far from being obsolete. It has a great range of speed and apertures and the ISO is very good. It even has an electronic noise reducer that gets rid of graininess when you go above 800 ISO. That works very well. Go for it. Ron
1375143
if I were taking a photo across a regular type street. fairly well.. it will be clear but not seem that "close" some of the photos I have are very sharp . but I always felt like I would of liked to get closer.. my initial impression was I was disappointed . A 300 is better, but neither take a tele lens very well. if I had it over to do Id just go with a 600
1713859
Hello, I would say the images for me are the same as I have the basic eyepieces and two sets of as you need two sets for the bino viewers but what I like is the eye relief that you get when looking through them and a almost 3d effect like you get when looking through binoculars. If you can afford it I would highly recomend it, not for just yourself but for other viewers as well. I have a Celestron 8SE and looking at Saturn, Jupiter, the moon, well its pretty awesome. My plan is to do astrophotography, if I was really into eyepieces I would go with the two inch and some nice Nagler eyepieces. Hope this helps, Good luck and dark skies.
599075
Outside no problem. Inside or in low light you need to boost the ISO quite a bit. If you are shooting things that move IS is no lost at all this is because for most sports or bird in flight you need to be at 1/500 anyway to freeze the motion. I had the lens for over a year, was hesitating to buy it for exactly the same reason and in the end its a really fantastic lens and I don't miss IS at all.
1713857
Hello, I would say the images for me are the same as I have the basic eyepieces and two sets of as you need two sets for the bino viewers but what I like is the eye relief that you get when looking through them and a almost 3d effect like you get when looking through binoculars. If you can afford it I would highly recomend it, not for just yourself but for other viewers as well. I have a Celestron 8SE and looking at Saturn, Jupiter, the moon, well its pretty awesome. My plan is to do astrophotography, if I was really into eyepieces I would go with the two inch and some nice Nagler eyepieces. Hope this helps, Good luck and dark skies. Hello, I would say the images for me are the same as I have the basic eyepieces and two sets of as you need two sets for the bino viewers but what I like is the eye relief that you get when looking through them and a almost 3d effect like you get when looking through binoculars. If you can afford it I would highly recomend it, not for just yourself but for other viewers as well. I have a Celestron 8SE and looking at Saturn, Jupiter, the moon, well its pretty awesome. My plan is to do astrophotography, if I was really into eyepieces I would go with the two inch and some nice Nagler... » Read More Hello, I would say the images for me are the same as I have the basic eyepieces and two sets of as you need two sets for the bino viewers but what I like is the eye relief that you get when looking through them and a almost 3d effect like you get when looking through binoculars. If you can afford it I would highly recomend it, not for just yourself but for other viewers as well. I have a Celestron 8SE and looking at Saturn, Jupiter, the moon, well its pretty awesome. My plan is to do astrophotography, if I was really into eyepieces I would go with the two inch and some nice Nagler eyepieces. Hope this helps, Good luck and dark skies. « Show Less
1082491
The more I read about it online, the more it sounds like it's the iA 'algorithm' that is slightly flawed. Many blogs/websites all sight setting adjustments as the easy fix. Not so cool for someone like me that was hoping to rely on the iA for my day-to-day pics, but I guess it's a learning opportunity! Good luck yourself, I will say that other than this one issue I love every aspect of the camera. Will play with settings tonight to see if I can crack it.. ~Rich
419325
It's optically great for portraits but it hunts annoyingly at portrait distances (as someone noted, not good "on the fly"). When convenient I prefer my 70 2.4 or my 50 1.4 SMC M (manual focus)..both are more conventional portrait lengths than the 35's.
464454
To be honest, unless you need 1.4 or the DOF scale, or minimum distortion at 23mm, the 18-55 is going to be better simply because of the IOS. I own this lens and I love it, but it really doesn't provide much over the 18-55, and I actually keep the 18-55 on most of the time unless I am going to do street photography in daylight.
2188489
I have not used my lense for sports yet but have gotten some really good pictures of the moon. Distance is really good. I shoot in manual mode.
1920694
The coatings actually helps the light to pass and make the images brighter. But I feel magnification of 16 may not be powerful enough for astronomy purpose. And still, a tripod will be helpful to get stable images, unless you have very steady hands.
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though