[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Actually lenses are overall sharper at their middle f-stop, and sharpness drops at larger/smaller apertures. So, assuming this was an f/2.8 lens it would be at ~f/8.

It could be diffusion effect, but I don't think so in this case. Diffusion is really problematic with super-tele lenses, which I almost never stop down more than f/11. Jeff's 5D MkII has decent sized pixels, so I don't think it'll be extra sensitive to diffusion.

Still, it's something worth looking into, with a few test shots where you vary the aperture and change the ISO do compensate. Start around f/8 and decrease 1-stop at a time and double ISO at each step. With my big lenses I can start seeing diffusion at f/16.

Dave

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Sick shot Jeff! What lens did you use? 14 blades?

Thanks, Chewy! I've been meaning to go thru that shot for a while now. I used my 16-35L for this shot. Actually, I use it on probably 90% of my shots. I sometimes wonder why I have my other lenses. lol

Originally Posted by dcstep

Jeff, was it a little breezy at the Pavillion? I think there might have been slight camera movement during your long exposure. At f/22, I'd expect sharper detail than you getting. It looks good, but I'd expect more pop from deep DOF and ultra sharpness.

Hi, Dave. To be honest, I no longer remember. Being winter, albeit a warm one, in Chicago and not too far from the lake it is quite possible that it was a little breezy. Also, although I had a tripod, I don't believe I used a remote to trigger the shutter so I may have nudged the camera a little bit when depressing the shutter button.

That said, I've had a suspicion for a while now that my 16-35L has gotten a little on the soft side. However, I've done nothing to look into verifying that notion.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Thanks, Chewy! I've been meaning to go thru that shot for a while now. I used my 16-35L for this shot. Actually, I use it on probably 90% of my shots. I sometimes wonder why I have my other lenses. lol

...

Also, although I had a tripod, I don't believe I used a remote to trigger the shutter so I may have nudged the camera a little bit when depressing the shutter button.

I've been eyeing the Mark II of that lens for quite some time... I'm really itching to get one to replace my 17-40mm f/4L.

Also, you know that your camera can due a timed delay to avoid that nudge while pressing the shutter, right?

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I've been eyeing the Mark II of that lens for quite some time... I'm really itching to get one to replace my 17-40mm f/4L.

Also, you know that your camera can due a timed delay to avoid that nudge while pressing the shutter, right?

16-35L mkII is what I have.....love it, love it, love it! Are you looking for a wider aperture, ultra wide angle lens? Or are you not happy w/ the 17-40L?

That would probably require reading the instructions and I am widely known to not read instructions of any sort. lol

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by bosstones

16-35L mkII is what I have.....love it, love it, love it! Are you looking for a wider aperture, ultra wide angle lens? Or are you not happy w/ the 17-40L?

That would probably require reading the instructions and I am widely known to not read instructions of any sort. lol

That's cool. The main reason is more sharpness at the edges, and less distortion. The f/2.8 doesn't do much for me when shooting landscapes in daylight, and 1mm isn't a big difference in focal length. Are you able to put any filters on that lens without any vignetting on the FF?

Dude, you don't need to read the manual to figure out how to put a self-timer on.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

That's cool. The main reason is more sharpness at the edges, and less distortion. The f/2.8 doesn't do much for me when shooting landscapes in daylight, and 1mm isn't a big difference in focal length. Are you able to put any filters on that lens without any vignetting on the FF?

Dude, you don't need to read the manual to figure out how to put a self-timer on.

The 16-35 has less distortion?

I have a UV filter on it w/ no vignetting. I actually have a circ polarizer for it. It's low profile and intended for ultra-wide angle lenses. I want to say that I've gotten some vignetting from it but nothing too bad. I don't really use it much.

Oh yeah...self/auto timer. Something so obvious! I will blame 15 years of sleep deprivation for this.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by bosstones

The 16-35 has less distortion?

I have a UV filter on it w/ no vignetting. I actually have a circ polarizer for it. It's low profile and intended for ultra-wide angle lenses. I want to say that I've gotten some vignetting from it but nothing too bad. I don't really use it much.

Oh yeah...self/auto timer. Something so obvious! I will blame 15 years of sleep deprivation for this.

I thought it did, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

That's cool. Low-profile filters are the way to go, but sadly they are more expensive than the normal ones. I need to find that damn LEE Foundation Kit without paying a premium for it.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I thought it did, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

That's cool. Low-profile filters are the way to go, but sadly they are more expensive than the normal ones. I need to find that damn LEE Foundation Kit without paying a premium for it.

I fully encourage the switch to the 16-35l from the 17-40l. I hated that lens and switched within 5 days.

[TL]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Ha! Just saw that shot on your Flickr, Tim. Awesome shot.

From January of this year....more Millennium Park fare....I think I'm obsessed w/ the pavilion there. Too much yellow cast in this one? Something seems slightly off.....shouldn't be doing this while I'm sleepy.

thanks Jeff, Millennium Park shot looks great

Originally Posted by Chewy734

something's weird about that photo Tim. Too much jpeg compression or high ISO noise (in the water, and the green area in the bottom right)? Maybe I'm just seeing things... I think you could've done better with the shot, since the flare blocks the building. Also, you could've done something slick with your sig and the curved walkway. See... this is what happens when you raise the bar on your previous night shots; I'm forced to focus on the smallest things.

yea i've been posting my pics compressed (saved for web), instead of full resolution since I'm no longer paying for flickr.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by TL

yea i've been posting my pics compressed (saved for web), instead of full resolution since I'm no longer paying for flickr.

You do realize you have a full website now, with unlimited storage, right?

[vachss]

Originally Posted by dcstep

It could be diffusion effect, but I don't think so in this case. Diffusion is really problematic with super-tele lenses, which I almost never stop down more than f/11. Jeff's 5D MkII has decent sized pixels, so I don't think it'll be extra sensitive to diffusion.

Still, it's something worth looking into, with a few test shots where you vary the aperture and change the ISO do compensate. Start around f/8 and decrease 1-stop at a time and double ISO at each step. With my big lenses I can start seeing diffusion at f/16.

Dave

Dave, What's this diffusion effect you're talking about? If you mean diffraction I don't think that super-teles are any more prone to it than any other lens. f/16-22 will show just as much diffractive softening with your ultrawides as your 500/4 - it just may be that the 500 is sharp enough wide open that you notice it more.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by vachss

Dave, What's this diffusion effect you're talking about? If you mean diffraction I don't think that super-teles are any more prone to it than any other lens. f/16-22 will show just as much diffractive softening with your ultrawides as your 500/4 - it just may be that the 500 is sharp enough wide open that you notice it more.

I did mean diffraction and your right, all lenses have it and there's a relationship between maximum aperture physical size vs. the pixel size. Smaller pixels aggravate the problem. (One more reason that full frame/larger pixel cameras are better for landscapes).

I think it's more noticeable in the super-teles because of the magnification and clarity of the top lenses. Also, we tend to crop super-tele images, further highlighting the issue. f/11 is as far as I go with my 500mm and I try to shoot at f/8 whenever there's enough light. The lens gets super sharp at f/8 and then falls off from there.

When I shoot scenics with my 24-105mm I'll try to limit the f-stop to f/16, hoping for ultra sharpness all the way from close to far, but something very close in the foreground may push me a little further.

Dave

[vachss]

I also never shoot my 500 at anything over f/8, but not because of diffraction but subject matter. When shooting birds I usually want the shutter speed as high as possible and find that f/5.6-8 provides enough DOF to keep the whole bird in focus.

More generally, pretty much any subject shot with a supertele is going to be highly magnified and thus have relatively narrow DOF - giving rise to that "pop-up book" look of subject isolation. When I pull out the big white lenses I usually prefer to embrace that look rather than fight it.

Where I see diffraction - a lot - is in the macro world. Shoot at 5:1 magnification and even at f/8 your effective aperture is close to f/50. Diffractive blur in that case is anything but subtle.

[gcochard]

My friend took this one at the airport yesterday.



NIKON D3100
ISO 200
Exposure 10 s
Aperture 11
Focal Length 18mm

[TL]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

You do realize you have a full website now, with unlimited storage, right?

thanks, i just worry about the loading time it takes for my viewers if i was posting my photos at full res

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by vachss

I also never shoot my 500 at anything over f/8, but not because of diffraction but subject matter. When shooting birds I usually want the shutter speed as high as possible and find that f/5.6-8 provides enough DOF to keep the whole bird in focus.

More generally, pretty much any subject shot with a supertele is going to be highly magnified and thus have relatively narrow DOF - giving rise to that "pop-up book" look of subject isolation. When I pull out the big white lenses I usually prefer to embrace that look rather than fight it.

Where I see diffraction - a lot - is in the macro world. Shoot at 5:1 magnification and even at f/8 your effective aperture is close to f/50. Diffractive blur in that case is anything but subtle.

My practical limits revolve around ISO 800, which is almost always my default ISO. I expose to the right, up to a full top for brown birds in shade, so I'm often shooting hand held at f/5.6 or f/4 and a resulting 1/320 or 1/250-sec. Since this is the night photography thread, I'll post an example in a minute, over on the Daily Image Thread, that I took yesterday.

F/8 very seldom happens for me. If I see 1/2000-sec and above in the viewfinder, then I drop the ISO down to 400 and if the SS is still high, then I pull the aperture down to f/8 and drop the ISO further, if need be. That's RARE. Most likely, I'm more worried about my low SS.

I hand hold 99.9% of my super-tele shots. It's something that you can get better and better at. The 500/f4 has excellent IS and I've now taken over 50,000 hand held shots with mine, with varying results of course, so I'm getting very good at it. (You actually build -- rebuild in my case -- upper body strength). It helps to have lifted weights in your youth.

Dave

[Satalite]

Was going to try and grab a couple pictures of the super moon this weekend. Hope you guys will do the same! http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/spa...curs-this-week

[Chewy734]

cool... thanks for the heads up!

I hope it's not cloudy all weekend.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Satalite

Was going to try and grab a couple pictures of the super moon this weekend. Hope you guys will do the same! http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/spa...curs-this-week

Ahh excellent news. I'll be up at my buddies boat this weekend, shouldn't be too much light pollution. As chewy said, hope it's not cloudy.

[M_Six]

Crap. The forecast for the weekend here is overcast and thunderstorms.

[The1]

that's good though, since you're in the night photography thread and have big skies where you are, you can get lightning shots

[The1]

some interesting skies tonight.

hope you like, its sort of my first time shooting lightning, so any advice is more then welcome. (when I say sort of, I once tryed and quickly gave up because i didn't have patients)