Another shot of the moon and a jet this time....

[AgentDrex]

This jet was photographed using a Sigma Zoom II 75-300mm with a 2x converter and aperture set at f/22...obviously this is a cropped version as the jet was at least 30,000 feet above me...

And this is most likely the best shot of the moon I have captured to date. It was taken using my FD-mounted Vivitar 70-210mm lens at an aperture of either f/16 or f/22 (don't remember):

 

[Trever1t]

try using a wider aperture for starters, allowing a lower ISO and faster speed. There's a hellalota grain in both pics. The partial moon is more interesting than the average full moon obligatory shots.

 

[Geaux]

Lower the iso for that moon shot. Was your cam on the tripod? If so, low iso, f/11'ish, 1/250'ish, focus on moon and let er rip.

 

[AgentDrex]

I found that there is less sharpness at f/11 on this lens than f/22, I can only go down to ISO 100 on the 1000d and so that is what was used. Canon is notoriously noisy (or so a ton of people on the net say, even at low ISO apparently) and this "fact" was augmented when I cropped and re-sized the photo. I did have the 1000d on a tripod and actually used mirror-lockup and a two-second delay to give the camera time to stabilize from me touching it. I used a shutter speed of 1/6 actually...I could have sped that up by going f/11, but then I also would have lost some sharpness (I made several shots with different aperture settings and noticed that at f/16 and f/22 the sharpness was better than at bigger apertures)....

 

[AgentDrex]

I also believe this Vivitar 70-210mm is going to be a great portrait lens as well...I'm going to practice today if anyone comes into the office who is willing to allow me to practice...

 

[Trever1t]

I forget the term regarding the effect you will get with such a small aperature but I find it difficult to believe that your getting sharper results.

 

[AgentDrex]

More precise light down the center of the lens and less light pickup from the outside edges of the lens....

 

[Stryker]

I havent tried taking a photo of the moon and a moving subject (a jet in this case) at f/22 and with a 2x converter because that would slow down the shutter speed and I would have a blurry output. If the focal length is 300mm (480mm since you use a cropped body), my shutter speed must be 1/1000 at least, a low ISO (maybe 400max), f/7.1.

 

[AgentDrex]

Just for reference...an earlier, un-cropped photo of this same plane:

 

[kundalini]

I forget the term regarding the effect you will get with such a small aperature but I find it difficult to believe that your getting sharper results.

Defraction.

I found that there is less sharpness at f/11 on this lens than f/22,....

I seriously question this statement and sounds reminiscent of urban legend, old wives tales or just plain not true. The sweet spot in most lenses is somewhere in the neighborhood of f/8 to f/11.
[

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

More precise light down the center of the lens and less light pickup from the outside edges of the lens....

Understanding Lens Diffraction

This test was done with a camera that costs around $20-$30k and lenses that I am guessing are about 2k-5k.


Trust me, your SIGMA suffers from diffraction.

Diffraction ( I don't care much for KR, but this is atleast more easily digestible than some articles )

Of course when you crop that much you are going to end up with essentially a low res image., regardless of how good a camera's noise control claims to be. That jet picture is basically equivalent to less than a half megapixel camera and then enlarged to boot.

 

[altitude604]

it may be low res but it's still able to be identified as a Boeing 747-400. the colours aren't quite good enough for me to get the airline. lol

 

[AgentDrex]

The plane belongs to UPS:

Here's a photo with more detail, remember, this was taken while plane was at cruising altitude:

Just joking, obviously I didn't take this photo...but it looks exactly like the plane I did photograph....

 

[photocist]

Look at wikipedia for a better description of diffraction. As an aspiring physicist I cannot stand to see those "explanations of diffraction" where they dont even mention the light interfering with itself (rockwell sort of mentions it, but not really)!

Diffraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your lens really does have a sharper image at f22 than any lower stop, you need to get a better lens.

 

[MissCream]

Here's my edit.