Doctorbird wrote:
The Mk II version of the 400 would have brought out a lot more of the ISS feather details.

Db

Lol.

Now, I'm really curious how the Mk II works with stacked 2x TCs at astro shots.

Liquidstone wrote:
Peter, having used both versions of the 400 2.8 IS, how would you compare the optics of the new vs the old? My old one is so unbelievably sharp that I see an increase in captured detail at moonshots up to a 4x TC. I'm curious if Canon was able to improve on the near optical perfection of the older one.

Romy, you'd be hard pressed to tell any IQ difference between the old and the new 400 f/2.8 IS, when bare. However, with 2xTC MkIII, I see somewhat better resolving power with 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, although the MkI is not that far behind.

Amazing stuff, bravo!

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but why aren't there any stars?

Hi Romy,

Great photos! Did you use the same TC setup in April 2011? The 2011 image appears to have higher magnification - maybe the ISS was more directly overhead, which would provide both a greater apparent size, and reduce atmospheric effects, in comparison with a lower eleveation angle.

Jim

Thxs :-)
The Moon pic is my fav.

Ralph

PetKal wrote:


Romy, you'd be hard pressed to tell any IQ difference between the old and the new 400 f/2.8 IS, when bare. However, with 2xTC MkIII, I see somewhat better resolving power with 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, although the MkI is not that far behind.

Looks like Canon did their job well on the II, Peter.

BTW, I've shot many copies of the 300 2.8 IS (older one), and IMHO the old 400 IS is noticeably sharper than its shorter sibling (particularly with 2x TC), despite what Canon MTF charts say. Is that your experience as well?

dhphoto wrote:
Amazing stuff, bravo!

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but why aren't there any stars?

There are stars in the background. However, the exposure required for the bright ISS is too dark for the stars to be visible in the photo.

Thanks Jim and Ralph!

jcolwell wrote:
Hi Romy,

Great photos! Did you use the same TC setup in April 2011? The 2011 image appears to have higher magnification - maybe the ISS was more directly overhead, which would provide both a greater apparent size, and reduce atmospheric effects, in comparison with a lower eleveation angle.

Jim


Yes, I used the same set of gear in both attempts.

The ISS in the April 2011 shot was indeed nearer/brighter. After doing many attempts since, it would seem to me now that particular shot might be the best that my gear can do if the other conditions (seeing and shot execultion) are optimal.

Liquidstone wrote:
PetKal wrote:


Romy, you'd be hard pressed to tell any IQ difference between the old and the new 400 f/2.8 IS, when bare. However, with 2xTC MkIII, I see somewhat better resolving power with 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, although the MkI is not that far behind.

Looks like Canon did their job well on the II, Peter.

BTW, I've shot many copies of the 300 2.8 IS (older one), and IMHO the old 400 IS is noticeably sharper than its shorter sibling (particularly with 2x TC), despite what Canon MTF charts say. Is that your experience as well?

Yes, Romy, I am on my 3rd and the best copy so far of 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, but my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI had just a bit more "bite" to it. (I say "had", because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )

PetKal wrote:
...because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )


Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')

jcolwell wrote:
Hi Romy,

Great photos! Did you use the same TC setup in April 2011? The 2011 image appears to have higher magnification - maybe the ISS was more directly overhead, which would provide both a greater apparent size, and reduce atmospheric effects, in comparison with a lower eleveation angle.

Jim

Liquidstone wrote:
Thanks Jim and Ralph!
Yes, I used the same set of gear in both attempts.

The ISS in the April 2011 shot was indeed nearer/brighter. After doing many attempts since, it would seem to me now that particular shot might be the best that my gear can do if the other conditions (seeing and shot execultion) are optimal.


You should get into low earth orbit. Save weight by leaving the TC's at home...

jcolwell wrote:
PetKal wrote:
...because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )


Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')

Not 400 MkII....sold the 400 MkI.

PetKal wrote:
...because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )

jcolwell wrote:
Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')

PetKal wrote:
Not 400 MkII....sold the 400 MkI.


Sorry Peter. I meant was the Mk II "your better half"....

jcolwell wrote:
PetKal wrote:
...because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )

jcolwell wrote:
Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')

PetKal wrote:
Not 400 MkII....sold the 400 MkI.


Sorry Peter. I meant was the Mk II "your better half"....



Jim, you do not have to feel sorry for me because I am slow on uptake sometimes.

PetKal wrote:
Liquidstone wrote:

BTW, I've shot many copies of the 300 2.8 IS (older one), and IMHO the old 400 IS is noticeably sharper than its shorter sibling (particularly with 2x TC), despite what Canon MTF charts say. Is that your experience as well?

Yes, Romy, I am on my 3rd and the best copy so far of 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, but my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI had just a bit more "bite" to it. (I say "had", because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )

Thanks for the info, Peter.

My back and arms are tortured everytime I use the 400 2.8 IS, but it's just so sharp that I can put up with the suffering.

Liquidstone wrote:
ytwong wrote:
Interesting. How did you locate that thing?



I use this site. I input my coordinates and it gives me the schedule of passes for the next 10 days,

http://www.heavens-above.com/

Thanks for the info