Harvest Moon Tonight - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/28/2004 10:34:04 AM · #26

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
I'm still worried about taking the new lens out--I didn't receive my UV filter or polarizer yet, as I ordered B+W filters and they are back ordered. Am I crazy to use it or do others work with such expensive lenses without any front protection? (I didn't have the hood on either because I didn't think I neede it at night.)

I almost never use a filter on my 70-200 f/4L, but I do keep the lens hood on at all times. I got that advice from one of the more knowledgeable folks here (Gordon or Pedro maybe?). Unless I'm at a really dusty or sandy location, I use the lens as-is... the lens hood will offer some protection anyway. It's a good idea to keep the hood on for astrophotography as it will help prevent dew from settling on the lens.

I don't use any filters for protection. I use the hood all the time on my 100-400mm lens and that is a good enough protection for it. I'm not putting any filters in front of it unless maybe a polarizing filter. Adding extra glasses in front of the lens for protection isn't what we should do imo. The producers are trying to reduce the number of glasses in the lenses to make them better, adding a glass is a bad U-turn.

Message edited by author 2004-09-28 11:04:29.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/28/2004 10:47:17 AM · #27

Originally posted by Amason:

I'm not putting any filters in front of it unless maybe a polarizing filter. Adding extra glasses in front of the lens for projection isn't what we should do imo. The producers are trying to reduce the number of glasses in the lenses to make them better, adding a glass is a bad U-turn.

I use high-quality UV filters on all of my L-glass. As soon as a lens comes out of the box, the UV filter goes on. Not only does it protect the front element from water spray, sand, greasy fingers, etc., but Canon requires the use of a filter on many of their weather-sealed lenses when shooting in conditions where it may get wet. I also use the included lens hoods to prevent flare and as another layer of protection from "stuff" accumulating on the optics.

dipaulk

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/28/2004 11:01:58 AM · #28

Originally posted by atsxus:

This was a picture I took a while ago. One of the first shots with my current camera. I remember being started that takeing a night shot required be bumping the shutter up to 1/250. Didn't think about the f-stop though. I'll have to try adjusting that to 8 or above. Thanks for the info, Jab.

I tired to do some shots like this last night, but it was so dark I couldn't focus -- using auto or manual. The tree came out blurred. Mind sharing some advice on focusing for a shot like this? It was windy last night, so that added to the problem. Really nice photo.

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

09/28/2004 11:09:11 AM · #29

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by Amason:
I'm not putting any filters in front of it unless maybe a polarizing filter. Adding extra glasses in front of the lens for protection isn't what we should do imo. The producers are trying to reduce the number of glasses in the lenses to make them better, adding a glass is a bad U-turn.

I use high-quality UV filters on all of my L-glass. As soon as a lens comes out of the box, the UV filter goes on. Not only does it protect the front element from water spray, sand, greasy fingers, etc., but Canon requires the use of a filter on many of their weather-sealed lenses when shooting in conditions where it may get wet. I also use the included lens hoods to prevent flare and as another layer of protection from "stuff" accumulating on the optics.

Ofcourse you should protect your lenses when using it in wet conditions, and when using filters, they should be "high-quality" filters. But I wouldn't use it all the time, as imo it reduces the quality. The lens hoods are produced to prevent flare, but it is also a good protection in most cases.

Message edited by author 2004-09-28 14:38:30.

atsxus

Canon EOS-10D

09/28/2004 11:46:31 AM · #30

Originally posted by dipaulk:

Originally posted by atsxus:

I tired to do some shots like this last night, but it was so dark I couldn't focus -- using auto or manual. The tree came out blurred. Mind sharing some advice on focusing for a shot like this? It was windy last night, so that added to the problem. Really nice photo.

Sure. As I recall, the wind was pretty much non-existant, and while I was not using a tripod, I believe I may have been balancing on the roof of my car. Some shots I did, some shots I didn't. But regardless, the moon was pretty low, and so closer perspective wise to the trees. Not buch difference in DOF.

I shot at a high shutter speed to account for the brightness of the moon, and although I neglected to change the fstop, it's not bad. I think it was just luck, and playing around with the settings on a new camera. But like Jab said, put your f-stop lower to around 8 or 10, and raise your shutter to 1/180, or 1/125. Then lower your ISO to 200, because although it's a night shot, the moon is a VERY strong source of light the closer you zoom in, and having a lower ISO will reduce grain.

Good luck!

Olympus 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 Zuiko ED Digitial Zoom

09/29/2004 06:33:30 AM · #31

I didn't get any moonshots last night, it was cloudy :-(. Did some of you get any shots of it? Show us!

I really like the moon, it's very mysterious and dramatic.

-.clic

rayg544

Olympus E-5

09/29/2004 07:45:59 AM · #32

I took some shots last night, but they're not all that good. I'm getting better and as I continue to practice and tweek what I'm doing, I know I'll get it right (Someday soon!). I'm going to take some tonight and hopefully be able to post some tomorrow. Stephanie, your advice has been great!! :)

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/29/2004 08:07:00 AM · #33

Last night there was no moon ;) It was solid clouds.

Night before, testing my new lens. I should have shot a lower ISO and even slower speeds, in retrospect, but fortunately, you can compensate exposure after the fact when using RAW! I think 1/500 at F8 at ISO 400 or ISO 800 would have been perfect. I was not at 200mm because I was trying to capture the planes flying just below the moon on my horizon. Oh, if only I had gotten there earlier, I might have caught a nice sillouette!

Lens: Canon 70-200mm F4L
Date/Time: 2004:09:27 19:22:30
Shutter speed: 1/200 sec
Aperture: 8
Exposure mode: Manual
ISO: 1600
Focal length: 163mm
Subject distance: 655 m
AF mode: Manual Focus
Image size: 3072 x 2048
Image quality: Raw
White balance: Auto
Color space: sRGB
Saturation: High
Sharpness: High
Contrast: High
Tone: Normal

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/29/2004 10:44:36 AM · #34

Originally posted by dipaulk:

Probably the wind was going to blur the branches a bit no matter what.

For this I used/locked the auto-focus pointing right at the Moon and re-framed the shot. I had the camera on a tripod, but was using the regular manual shutter-release button. F 3.1 at 1/125 second -- I don't know what ISO value was used (it was in auto mode).

Note there's more examples in this thread.

Message edited by author 2004-09-29 10:46:27.