|
NDonahoe
super member
Reged: 12/16/03
Posts: 155
Loc: Knoxville, TN
|
|
Hello all,
I just got back my shots from my 210mm lens. And, they are horible! It is a Vivitar lens if that tells you anything. So, I am going to Ebay both my Vivitar lenses and buy a Zuiko. First question: Are Sigma lenses any good? Next question, asuming I only have a 50mm which one would you buy, 1) 24mm f/2.8 2) 35mm f/2.8, 3) a Zuiko 35 to 70mm f/3.5 zoom or 4) in all most the same range as the 210mm a 100mm 2.8?
-Clear Skies,
Nate
--------------------
"The heavens call to you, and circle around you, displaying to you their eternal splendors."
-Dante
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4315
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
Nate:
Before you sell, what f-stop did you shoot at? Astrophotography is an incredibly tough test for lenses, most need to be stopped down a bit to get sharp stars.
What were the specific problems?
Don't know about Sigma lenses for astrophotography, stay away from Zooms, too much glass in the way, leading to internal reflections/loss of contrast.
Given just a 50mm, I'd buy the 100mm, or a 180mm if Zuiko's come in that length. That way you have a lens for framing constellations, and a medium telephoto for multiple DSO's (i.e. 180mm is really nice on Orion). If your mount can swing it (!) a 300mm is a really nice length.
Suk
--------------------
http://www.siliconvalleyskies.com
|
NDonahoe
super member
Reged: 12/16/03
Posts: 155
Loc: Knoxville, TN
|
|
Suk:
I was shooting at f/11 shots of the moon (I now know I should have been using f/16). At f/11 I was getting light fall off like in my star trail shoots of f/1.8. I would scan the picture and show you but I dropped and broke my scanner moving back into my dorm  (maybe I should get a scanner first  .)
Okay, I see your point about the lenses. I can't financially swing a 180mm (cheapest I found was $389), but what about a 100mm Vs. a 135mm? Which would you go with? I agree that a 300mm would be great but at that point I would have to have someway of guiding it. Which brings me to my last question. Should I forget this business of a new lens and go buy a orion short tube 80mm refractor? I could use it as a f/5 telephoto lens or as a guide scope for my 4" mak-newt (and it would be cheaper than buying a zuiko lens).
-clear skies
Nate
--------------------
"The heavens call to you, and circle around you, displaying to you their eternal splendors."
-Dante
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4315
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
I'd personally go with the 135 to get a bit tighter framing, assuming both lenses are of equal speed.
I've never used a short-tube 80, but I think you'd be better off with the lens. The lens' color correction is probably better, and focusing will be much easier.
Suk
--------------------
http://www.siliconvalleyskies.com
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
If you can use manual focus lenses on your camera (Zuiko, so I'm assuming Olympus?), don't forget to look for used fixed focal length lenses. Tamron and Tokina made some very fine manual focus lenses in the 135mm range, most about f-2.8. Tamrons, of course, have interchangeable mounts and can be used on many bodies. Try KEH Camera, http://www.keh.com or Charlotte Camera, http://www.charlottecamera.com, for prices. KEH has one of the biggest collections of used gear around, but Charlotte sometimes has better deals. I've ordered from both, and feel comfortable recommending them. I've even had Charlotte hunt down lenses for me when I couldn't find them on my own. Tamron used to make a 180mm f-2.5 ED tele, so that might work well. I'm with Suk, though, get at least a 135mm.
|
wilash
Fairy Godmother
Reged: 09/30/03
Posts: 5746
|
|
Nate,
There is not a big difference between a 100mm and 135mm lens. Here is some work taken with a 105mm lens:
http://www.robertreeves.com/105mm.htm
A particular focal length is not really important. Like eyepieces, three carefully chosen lenses can go a long way - a wide angle, normal, and telephoto. The usual pick is 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm, but I know people who prefer a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm group. It is really a personal choice.
The more important factor would be the quality of the lens. It is an investment that will last longer and cost less than going from one cheap lens to another. If you take time you can get good deals on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2979974852&category=3344
Stay away from Soligor and Vivitar. But even the best optics are no silver bullet. You need to know how to get good images by mastering the photographic processes and materials. That is more difficult than just getting density on a piece of film. It is not difficult, but it does take time.
|
NDonahoe
super member
Reged: 12/16/03
Posts: 155
Loc: Knoxville, TN
|
|
Hello all,
Thanks for your help in selecting a new lens. My 135mm f/2.8 Zuiko silver nose arrived today. I purchased it from ebay for $140. It is in MINT condition. the focuser and f stop feel as though they have never been used before, and the optics are above reproach. It also came with the original Olympus case and caps!
I can't what to get out and use it. If it is clear tonight I am going to grab some moon shots with it. First chance I get I am going to aim it at M45, M31, and orion's belt. I realize that they will still be small on the film, but I am looking forward to doing so. Do you think that it would be possible to get M31, M33 and comet Linear T7 in the same FOV with this lens? Would they even show up?
Thanks and Clear Skies,
Nate
--------------------
"The heavens call to you, and circle around you, displaying to you their eternal splendors."
-Dante
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4315
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
Nate:
You can JUST get M31 and M33 in the same frame with a 135mm lens. I also superimposed an 85mm lens for comparison. M31 and M33 will definitely show up with a half hour exposure at f4 on E200.
At 135mm, you can use an IDAS LPR filter (color shifts at edges when you go wide with those filters), so you could easily shoot 40minutes at f4 with that filter.
Cheers,
Suk
--------------------
http://www.siliconvalleyskies.com
|
litespeed
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/31/03
Posts: 953
Loc: Treasure Coast, FL
|
|
I have recently aquired an OM-1 and have another question to throw into the mix.
Is there a huge difference between the 135mm 2.8 and the 135mm 3.5?
I found a real nice 135mm 3.5. Or should I hold out for the 2.8?
Thanks,
AJ
--------------------
AJ
Orion 127 SVP
TouCam
Canon 20D
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4315
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
AJ:
There isn't a lot of speed difference, it really depends on whether they're both sharp.
For example, the Nikon 300mm f2.8 is sharp wide open but has a little bit of light falloff and so is better for astrophotography stopped down to f4. The Nikon 300mm f4 gives virtually identical results wide open, but at around 1/5th the cost.
If you find a nice 3.5 you're probably OK. If you can try it out before you have to buy even better.
Suk
--------------------
http://www.siliconvalleyskies.com
|
litespeed
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/31/03
Posts: 953
Loc: Treasure Coast, FL
|
|
Thanks Suk.....
I have been reading and found that even though the 135mm 2.8 can stop down a little farther..... It doesnt handle it very well. I'll just have to leave it open a little longer?...
I got my eyes on a 200mm f/4 too. But I am thinking that if I go that large, I should be using a scope anyway.. 
Oh...... And a 28mm as well......LOL..... 
So I can get those moon "halo" shots when they happen! I really like that shot!
AJ
--------------------
AJ
Orion 127 SVP
TouCam
Canon 20D
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
