Captain, welcome! The Noct is one of the holy grails on this thread, look forward to seeing more from it. And looks like you are finding out you do have a knack for architecture
Rafael, superb blood moon pics. It was way too cold here so I did not venture out at all with the 500 F4 P (I know, not as cold as what Peter had in Wisconsin, but still ). I remember trying out the blood moon a couple years ago with that lens and there's a lot less light in the moon than normal during the eclipse, it wasn't so easy.
pburke wrote:
So who is out in their back yards trying to focus those long MF lenses on the eclipse right now?
I've given up on the MF 600mm f/4 - it is so hard to focus on a bright moon, I don't think I'd get anything in focus when we have that full eclipse in 90 minutes. Having it down to -5F here doesn't help with the motivation to swap out lenses on a tripod that's ice covered the moment I bring it into the house. Crips clear skies, though. Also a good opportunity to wear my big base camp puffer down jacket again. Too warm pretty much for anything other than standing around in -10F weather looking at a steamed up live view screen....Show more →
Walked outside, saw a partial shadow like an eclipse, not much redness, decided nope, going back inside. It was pretty crisp last night.
pburke wrote:
So who is out in their back yards trying to focus those long MF lenses on the eclipse right now?
I've given up on the MF 600mm f/4 - it is so hard to focus on a bright moon, I don't think I'd get anything in focus when we have that full eclipse in 90 minutes. Having it down to -5F here doesn't help with the motivation to swap out lenses on a tripod that's ice covered the moment I bring it into the house. Crips clear skies, though. Also a good opportunity to wear my big base camp puffer down jacket again. Too warm pretty much for anything other than standing around in -10F weather looking at a steamed up live view screen....Show more →
Looked at my pictures from a previous blood moon, determined any pictures were not going to look much different than those (I don't have any foregrounds close by that would excite me enough to make significant efforts). Looked at the outside temps (3F) and instantly confirmed that determination :-)
Happy to see the pace pick up. Welcome to the newer contributors to this conversation.
saph wrote:
Captain, welcome! The Noct is one of the holy grails on this thread
Thank you! The holy grail is the exact reason I am afraid to handle it! I am on the lookout for 50 and 55 f1.2 to compliment my 58. From what I have read there is hardly anything to distinguish between the three unless you are shooting stars/light sources then the 58 is simply better than anything else.
Slowcaptain wrote:
Thank you! The holy grail is the exact reason I am afraid to handle it! I am on the lookout for 50 and 55 f1.2 to compliment my 58. From what I have read there is hardly anything to distinguish between the three unless you are shooting stars/light sources then the 58 is simply better than anything else.
Unless you're dead set in getting the 50 or 55 1.2s, and since you already own the Noct, I'd take a serious look at the 55mm f2.8 AIS. I know it's slower, but the versatility and performance of this lens is nothing to sneeze at.
I had the 50mm f1.2 AIS, but I always went back to the 55/2.8 when shooting that FL.
leighton w wrote:
Unless you're dead set in getting the 50 or 55 1.2s, and since you already own the Noct, I'd take a serious look at the 55mm f2.8 AIS. I know it's slower, but the versatility and performance of this lens is nothing to sneeze at.
I had the 50mm f1.2 AIS, but I always went back to the 55/2.8 when shooting that FL.
Beautiful shots. I had 55mm 2.8 and also 3.5 which I sold in favor of a longer macro lens. I didn't really look at them as a general purpose lenses even though they were. I found the 3.5 to be even sharper than 2.8 - but that could be sample variation.
Slowcaptain wrote:
Beautiful shots. I had 55mm 2.8 and also 3.5 which I sold in favor of a longer macro lens. I didn't really look at them as a general purpose lenses even though they were. I found the 3.5 to be even sharper than 2.8 - but that could be sample variation.
Thanks.
Yea, a lot of folks think the 3.5 is sharper, but the 2.8 is better at affinity and a tad better bokeh.
FM2N, NK 10.5cm f2.5 P, Ilford XP2 400. Wonder if the guy is still standing today in the cold at the Inner Harbor, talking away and pointing at people.
I think it should be called Malfunction building.
