What's new

Just another moon shot...

Thanks - sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow your question. Do you mean, had there been more detail in the background, would the lens have had difficulty focusing?

It's been awhile since I read the article, but there was something about the way it moved an element group within the lens to compensate for camera motion, which could cause the background to move slightly different than the focal point, causing some minor visual impairments in the bokeh. As those who review equipment sometimes don't know what they're talking about, just curious if you've taken any shots with it yet where this might be confirmed or disproved.
 
  • Thread Starter 🔹
  • Moderator 🛠️
  • #17
Thanks - sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow your question. Do you mean, had there been more detail in the background, would the lens have had difficulty focusing?

It's been awhile since I read the article, but there was something about the way it moved an element group within the lens to compensate for camera motion, which could cause the background to move slightly different than the focal point, causing some minor visual impairments in the bokeh. As those who review equipment sometimes don't know what they're talking about, just curious if you've taken any shots with it yet where this might be confirmed or disproved.
Wasn't aware of that, and haven't seen any evidence of it yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks!
 
Very nice.

My only hesitation in recommending this as THE lens is the f5.6 max aperture, but as you're going up in the summer, that likely won't be an issue.

For the casual/enthusiast f5.6 at 500mm is about all most can afford so I think it is a perfect lens to recommend.
I've shot the Sigma 150-600 and though it was a very good lens. I imagine the Nikon would perform better. If so this is a very good lens indeed.
Thanks Alex! You're right, 5.6 really isn't all that bad, I'm just a bit spoiled as the rest of my stable is 2.8 or faster, but this is perfectly adequate for casual work, which is exactly why I bought it.

Oh if they ever come out with a 5oomm f2.8 I don't think the Mrs. will even wait for me to comment. She'll just fire bomb my truck for a pre-emptive strike.:madass:
 
  • Thread Starter 🔹
  • Moderator 🛠️
  • #19
Oh if they ever come out with a 5oomm f2.8 I don't think the Mrs. will even wait for me to comment. She'll just fire bomb my truck for a pre-emptive strike.:madass:
So sad how some people can't appreciate the importance of things like that. The 500 f4 is bad enough... I couldn't imagine a 2.8 version. That would be like the Sigma 200-500 2.8!
 
That is very nice and sharp, great photo! :)​
 
Nice shot, but nothing unspectacular about the moon.
True, but moon shots are a dime a dozen...

Nice shot. I'm curious to know how much you had to crop the image to get that final result. I've tried some moon shots with my 70-200 at 200mm as that is my longest lens, but by the time I crop them my image is rather small. I've thought about getting a teleconverter (the 1.7) or a longer lens, but other than shots of the moon, I don't think I'd get much use out of them. Also, was this on a full frame or crop body? Thanks
That represents about 25% of the frame on a D800

Thanks for the response. If that's about 25% on a full frame, it would work quite well on my crop body for moon shots. Now, I wonder if my wife will notice if a new lens should appear???
 
I still prefer Bill's (Trever's) moon shot. :801:
 
Oh if they ever come out with a 5oomm f2.8 . . .
Sigma makes a 200 -500 mm f/2.8.
It's huge, weighs something like 35 lbs, and costs $26,000 - new.
At 500 mm and f/2.8 the lens opening is 178.6 mm wide or, 7 inches across.
That means the objective lens needs to be about 10 inches in diameter
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom