Thinking of a 400mm for Moon Photography?

[BC_Photos]

Hey guys, brand new here!

I've been really looking to get into some moon photography for quite some time now, and I'm feeling now more motivated than ever. I've read some reviews and what not, but wanted some more input from you guys.

I primarily do landscape and nightscape stuff. So I have wide angle lenses, but am obviously looking to get some moon stuff! I'm not looking to fill the frame or anything, but am wanted to get something very nice with a decent foreground with my full frame.

I guess I can't decide on what lens is best for me for my background. I'm not sure if a 300mm is close enough for me. I'm contemplating here with all my choices. I'm pushing towards the old 400mm 5.6, mainly because its one of the sharpest and cheapest. But how does this compare against a 70-200 f/4 with a 2x convertor, or a 100-400 (1st gen)?

Also, check out my work guys, and give me some feedback!

 

[Derrel]

500mm f/8 pre-set long-focus lens for $99 to $109.

 

[Bryston3bsst]

I looked at your site......you've got some damn fine stuff on there.

 

[BC_Photos]

I looked at your site......you've got some damn fine stuff on there.

Thanks my friend! I appreciate that x10000!

 

[BC_Photos]

500mm f/8 pre-set long-focus lens for $99 to $109.

Assuming your talking about the Rokinon/Samyang 500mm?

 

[Derrel]

Or whatever other brand you can find...these have been made for many years and sold under multiple importer/reseller names....Phoenix, Quantaray, Soligor, Phoenix,etc..

 

[jsecordphoto]

the 400mm 5.6 is a great, relatively cheap lens. It'll get you in the game as far as getting some decent photos of the moon, but honestly even 600mm doesn't fill the frame. If you're just looking to use it to catch some moonrises/sets, 400 is pretty much perfect. I find myself staying right around there when I'm shoot the moon rising over a mountain or something. Though, the 100-400 would be nice as it allows some flexibility framing your shots.

Your site looks good, love the southwest stuff. The link in your signature is incomplete though, gotta add the .com

 

[BC_Photos]

the 400mm 5.6 is a great, relatively cheap lens. It'll get you in the game as far as getting some decent photos of the moon, but honestly even 600mm doesn't fill the frame. If you're just looking to use it to catch some moonrises/sets, 400 is pretty much perfect. I find myself staying right around there when I'm shoot the moon rising over a mountain or something. Though, the 100-400 would be nice as it allows some flexibility framing your shots.

Your site looks good, love the southwest stuff. The link in your signature is incomplete though, gotta add the .com

Thanks alot man! I'm in Arizona...so basically a moonrise or moonset over mountains is what I'm typically gonna be going for!

I fixed the signature about 20 min ago when I noticed. Maybe it takes a while to go through as this thread was already active. Shows up fine on mineee.
I appreciate the great feedback though. This helps so much!

 

[jsecordphoto]

For sure. As much as I loved being around that area during the new moon, I kept thinking about all the different options for moon rises. The new 100-400 is a really great lens, but the version 1 is still a beast and would be my choice.

 

[zombiesniper115 14]

I have the 400 5.6 and love it. Although a crappy shot. This is how much of the frame the moon will fill on a crop sensor.

 

[Peeb73 2]

No suggestions- but lurking to see what everyone else is doing!

 

[petrochemist118 143]

If you're that keen on lunar photography it pays to use astro gear. Get an astronomy telescope that you can connect your camera to, then you can add eyepieces into the equation to give more magnification...
My ultra cheap scope (brought used for £100) is a 130mm diameter newtonian (giving about 560mm FL & F5 at prime focus) on a motorised equitorial mount. Adding a 10mm eyepiece brings the system to an effective 3250mm FL f/25 which should still usable for something as bright as the moon. This will more than fill the frame with the moon, so you may prefer something like a 40mm eyepiece (giving ~810mm FL f/6.5).
In the past I've played with a 4mm eyepiece giving 16240mm af f/125. The image is amazing to the eye but diffraction is definitily becoming a problem - as is the moons movement compared to the stars which are held steady by the motorised mount.

The newtonian design is not ideal for connecting a camera (I have to use a mirrorless to get prime focus at infinity)

It certainly takes more setting up than a simple camera lens (the main reason mine lies dormant so much) but under good viewing conditions the results can far outway anything acheivable with camera lenses costing less than a new car.

 

[ronlane]

I would agree with you. Most of the time the primes are sharper and with it being on a tripod and using f/8 - f/11 for moon shots anyway, there is no issues with slow glass. Besides, you will be set up to shoot birds and wildlife also.

 

[beagle100]

90% moon shots? at some point you might get bored and start photographing other things ...........
anyway, look for a used 400mm 5.6

 

[jsecordphoto]

Based on his responses it sounds like he wants a lens for photographing landscape shots with them moon in them, ie moonrise or moonsets. Scopes and the like will be no good for him