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.
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.
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.
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'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".
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...
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.
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.
