The Oly 100-400 is a pretty big investment, but its actually very good overall. And if you already have the 1.4 T/C it works on that too.
I've always wanted to do some serious astro/ planetary stuff with a decent telescope but I've never had the funds/knowledge to take the plunge. I think it'd be lots of fun to get shots of Mars, or Saturns rings, or close detail of the moon etc. But its quite an investment by all accounts.
The issue some of us have is "light pollution." The reflection of the city lights by the particles in the air.
That can really degrade the ability to "see" astronomical stuff. And it reduces the contrast of whatever you are looking at.
The research is enlightening.
But like many things in the internet world, there is a LOT more info than there was in the past, so you can make better decisions when planning what to get.
And that helps to make the compromise decisions you have to make.
The issue some of us have is "light pollution." The reflection of the city lights by the particles in the air.
That can really degrade the ability to "see" astronomical stuff. And it reduces the contrast of whatever you are looking at.
The research is enlightening.
But like many things in the internet world, there is a LOT more info than there was in the past, so you can make better decisions when planning what to get.
And that helps to make the compromise decisions you have to make.
For my part, I have tried with the P45-200, with an adapted Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, and the same with a 2X converter. I have used different Canon and Pana cameras. And I have never succeeded to get a sharp picture of the moon...
Getting the right exposition is also a challenge...
Those who have success, please share your tricks!
For my part, I have tried with the P45-200, with an adapted Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, and the same with a 2X converter. I have used different Canon and Pana cameras. And I have never succeeded to get a sharp picture of the moon...
Getting the right exposition is also a challenge...
Those who have success, please share your tricks!
I’ve been enjoying taking pictures of the moon at night as well as more nature walks lately. And it turns out I’m at 300mm more often than I had expected with my 75-300/4.8-6. Except now I’m starting to see that there is room for improvement at that focal length. So what is the best way to amp up 300mm for me? You have my current Olympus 75-300, the Olympus 40-150/2.8 with a 2x convertor, and the newer Olympus 100-400/5-6.3 lens. I’m eliminating the 150-400 based on the price and also the 300/4 prime due to it’s limited focal length. Any other options out there worth exploring? Maybe the Panasonic 100-400/4-6.3?
I’ve been using the Imaging-resource website to look at their lab test results to compare sharpness but can’t seem to find a way to take into account a teleconverter. Of course my mind quickly travels to the Olympus 100-400 since I can then just zoom into 400mm instead and get better results and then maybe even use a teleconverter to really bring it in. Is this the best route to go? I’d most likely sell the 75-300 to help pay for a new lens but see that they aren’t selling like hotcakes as of late. Let me know your thoughts and feel free to share any moon shots with the above combinations to maybe help me come to a decision.
My recommendation is to try to reach that range without the use of teleconverters. The 40-150 Pro with MC-20 is probably better than the 75-300, but at least with regard to the 40-150+MC-20 (which I have), the 100-400 is better by itself. That's my feeling. And, if you have it on a tripod, the weight doesn't matter. Just use a sturdy tripod and a remote release or self-timer to reduce vibration.
I prefer to shoot a moon that is 3/4 or less. The side lighting brings out the topography and dimensionality. A full moon shot is uninteresting because it looks flat.
For my part, I have tried with the P45-200, with an adapted Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, and the same with a 2X converter. I have used different Canon and Pana cameras. And I have never succeeded to get a sharp picture of the moon...
Getting the right exposition is also a challenge...
Those who have success, please share your tricks!
I had a 45-200 and wasn't satisfied with it. Plus, it had bad zoom creep, so when I pointed it up at the moon, the zoom kept sliding toward 45 mm, which meant I had to hold it in place. Not conducive to a sharp photo. I was thinking I'd have to tape the barrel at max zoom.
Maybe I have to get that 1.25" telescope adapter for my camera, and put it on my wife's telescope, and see just what it can do.
The problem is light pollution in the city.
I have to drive at least an hour out to get to some place away from city lights, which today isn't a safe thing to do.
I once took a cracking moon shot. I remember I had so many telecom errors on a 400mm I needed to use the mirror lockup function.
Maybe electronic shutter would be advisable with our gear?
The Olympus OM Zuiko 500mm ƒ/8 Reflex is among the best. I've had three of them. Each time I get rid of one, I have regrets and go find another!
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Attach a focal reducer, and you have a 350mm ƒ/5.6.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Another lens to consider is the OM Zuiko 300mm ƒ/4.5. I have one, but I don't use it much, because it is so much longer and heavier than the delightful Reflex. But it should do well for astro.
Maybe I have to get that 1.25" telescope adapter for my camera, and put it on my wife's telescope, and see just what it can do.
The problem is light pollution in the city.
I have to drive at least an hour out to get to some place away from city lights, which today isn't a safe thing to do.
This YouTube video has been posted several times on this forum. It explains the surprising use of HHHR on the moving moon from a tripod. The thread on shooting the moon has some examples of using the technique:
This YouTube video has been posted several times on this forum. It explains the surprising use of HHHR on the moving moon from a tripod. The thread on shooting the moon has some examples of using the technique:
Well, I can only speak to the M1.3, as that's my first Olympus. But it certainly pairs well with the 100-400. And very surprisingly to me, you can do HHHR shots at 400mm and get good results. Not only that, but the Olympus AF works well on the moon. See photo attached, taken with no tripod, not even braced. Color me impressed.
I'm sure one could do better with a tracking mount and telescope(or high-end spotting scope). But that's a lot more stuff and weight. And not really an option for much terrestrial photography.
I find it difficult to focus manually. When focusing on the moon with the magnifier active, the tiniest shift of the focus ring has a significant effect on the focussing.
I'm no expert on shooting the moon, but I do wonder why you are using manual focus. I would think that the moon would fill enough of the viewfinder to give excellent AF results, even with a 300mm lens. I mean, actually what you will get is infinity and that should be pretty easy for any AF system, right?
I'm no expert on shooting the moon, but I do wonder why you are using manual focus. I would think that the moon would fill enough of the viewfinder to give excellent AF results, even with a 300mm lens. I mean, actually what you will get is infinity and that should be pretty easy for any AF system, right?
You would think it would be easy, yet I have seen the autofocus on my cameras hunt like crazy to figure out the focus for the moon. I am sure I was not doing everything perfectly when that happened.
We are spoiled for options. I, too, started with a 75-300mm Olympus lens, but at some point realized images at 300mm were too soft even when manually focusing with assists. (AF proved to be inaccurate unless contrast was very high.) When the Panasonic 100-300 II became available, I bought it and tried it on a GX-85 and several Olympus bodies. The AF is dead-accurate, stabilization is wonderful whether you use OIS or IBIS or dual, and images at 300mm are sharp even at f/5.6. And it's built very well for smooth operation and protection. I love this lens. I have a selection of sample images here.
When I got interested in even longer reach, I settled on the Olympus 100-400. It's sharp wide-open at every focal length and loses only a little of that with the teleconverters. Even with the MC20 (which I just bought refurbished), sharpness is good. AF is pretty accurate, too. There are plenty of sample images, including moon shots with the TCs, here.
I used available reviews to compare max aperture and expected image quality of the 100-400 with other options using teleconverters: the 40-150/2.8, the 200/2.8, the 50-200/2.8-4, the 300/4, and so on. For the price, quality, and portability, I'm very happy with my two zoom choices.
Here's the only moon image I've taken with the 100-400 + 2.0 teleconverter: hand-held, 800mm at f/13. Accounting for considerable atmospheric distortion, I'd say this is at least adequately sharp. Processed from RAW using DxO PhotoLab with default optical corrections and some added contrast.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Yes, they do work very well. They are made of didymium glass and have been sold as the Hoya Intensifier, the B+W Redhancer, and Tiffen Enhancing Filter. It just happens that the narrow band of yellow light they cut out also contains the dull orangish yellow which muddies foliage shots. With the rise of astrophotography, these filters are now branded as Night Sky filters, but they are identical. In fact, now that night photography is popular, Hoya changed the name on theirs from Intensifier to Skyscape Light Pollution filter.
Most people think these are among the filters that you don't need anymore for digital, so you can pick them up cheap. I found a couple for $5-10 in bargain bins.
I know you eliminated it, but the Olympus 300 pro is awesome! With the exception of the Olympus 150-400mm pro, the 300mm is the cleanest way to get to 300mm in my opinion.
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
