Milky Way shots from this weekend

06/29/2009 04:13:23 PM · #1

Had a great time this weekend trying to do some widefield night photography. The first night I walked about a mile into Yaquina Head park at about 11:00 PM. The wind was blowing which made the shots somewhat challenging. It's always fun to be the only person in a park. On the bortle scale the first shot is within a 3-4 but you can see the giant blowout from a relatively small town (Newport, OR). The second shot was done the next night which was mildly clearer, calmer, and taken south of Newport where the bortle scale is more like 2. You can still see how even minor lights can really monkey with your shot.

Both shots are stacks of 4 exposures at 15 seconds on ISO 1600 (I believe, I'll double check) with the 16-35mm at 16mm f/2.8. I to align the stars for movement I only did it manually which isn't perfect.

Thanks for the tips from people who had offered them on the other thread.

Message edited by author 2009-06-29 16:14:45.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/29/2009 04:17:07 PM · #2

great detail in the milky way

I would like to try this sometime.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

06/29/2009 06:12:28 PM · #3

Those are worthy of a frame of course. Very cool shots.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/29/2009 07:40:04 PM · #4

Very nice!
I see you shot the 16-35 wide open... couple questions for you
- Are you using the original or the "II" version of the 16-35?
- How do the corners of the individual exposures look at full resolution?

The 16-35 II is on my list, but I'm waffling since I haven't seen astro results from it.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/29/2009 09:06:46 PM · #5

Originally posted by kirbic:

I'm using my boss's lens which is an original. Like all wide stuff it's going to suffer from some CA and does have some distortion. I don't have a reference though to compare it to anything else.

Here's a 50% shot (1440x1440 compressed to 720x720) of the upper left corner for you to look at. It's converted in RAW (with a +2 exposure) but nothing else is done.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/29/2009 10:08:08 PM · #6

Originally posted by kirbic:

I've also read that the 16-35 gives a nice sunburst flare(compared to the 17-40).

They're nice shots Doc--particularly the color one. I like the color spectrum of the light "pollution".

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

07/01/2009 08:36:13 AM · #7

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Very nice!
I see you shot the 16-35 wide open... couple questions for you
- Are you using the original or the "II" version of the 16-35?
- How do the corners of the individual exposures look at full resolution?

The 16-35 II is on my list, but I'm waffling since I haven't seen astro results from it.

I'm using my boss's lens which is an original. Like all wide stuff it's going to suffer from some CA and does have some distortion. I don't have a reference though to compare it to anything else.

Here's a 50% shot (1440x1440 compressed to 720x720) of the upper left corner for you to look at. It's converted in RAW (with a +2 exposure) but nothing else is done.

Ahhh, yes. It does have some "bat wings," but not as bad as I thought. The lateral CA is pretty bad though (blue fringes). I do wonder how much better version II is. Perhaps I oughta rent it...

07/01/2009 11:18:18 AM · #8

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Very nice!
I see you shot the 16-35 wide open... couple questions for you
- Are you using the original or the "II" version of the 16-35?
- How do the corners of the individual exposures look at full resolution?

The 16-35 II is on my list, but I'm waffling since I haven't seen astro results from it.

I'm using my boss's lens which is an original. Like all wide stuff it's going to suffer from some CA and does have some distortion. I don't have a reference though to compare it to anything else.

Here's a 50% shot (1440x1440 compressed to 720x720) of the upper left corner for you to look at. It's converted in RAW (with a +2 exposure) but nothing else is done.

Ahhh, yes. It does have some "bat wings," but not as bad as I thought. The lateral CA is pretty bad though (blue fringes). I do wonder how much better version II is. Perhaps I oughta rent it...

It would be interesting to see if you come up with something better. WA lenses must just be hard as heck to make.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/01/2009 11:22:55 AM · #9

Originally posted by kirbic:

I do wonder how much better version II is.

Supposedly MUCH better, particularly with CA and distortion.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/01/2009 11:23:49 AM · #10

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:
I do wonder how much better version II is.

Supposedly MUCH better, particularly with CA and distortion.

Maybe I'm mixing it up, but I thought the 16-35 was the lens where some people felt the original was better than the replacement?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/01/2009 11:26:13 AM · #11

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:
I do wonder how much better version II is.

Supposedly MUCH better, particularly with CA and distortion.

Maybe I'm mixing it up, but I thought the 16-35 was the lens where some people felt the original was better than the replacement?

You're mixing it up. The REASON they replaced it, is the 17-40mm (a much less expensive lens) outperformed the original 16-35mm in nearly all areas, so they had to do something.

R.

07/01/2009 11:27:22 AM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you are mixing it up. The version II is much better according to the 4 or 5 jounalists I know that upgraded.

07/01/2009 11:28:24 AM · #13

ok, well that's cool. Now how do I convince my boss he needs to upgrade? :)

07/01/2009 11:30:28 AM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

ok, well that's cool. Now how do I convince my boss he needs to upgrade? :)

Tell him all your DPC pals point and snicker every time you break it out. And tell him all the other photographers have upgraded.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/01/2009 11:37:55 AM · #15

The downside is the 82mm filter size. You could get a decent prime lens for the price of a thin polarizer at 82mm. :-O

07/01/2009 11:40:28 AM · #16

Originally posted by scalvert:

The downside is the 82mm filter size. You could get a decent prime lens for the price of a thin polarizer at 82mm. :-O

Oh wow. The new one is 82mm? Ya, that sorta sucks since so many of my lenses are 77mm.