Testing my "Moon shooter"

OlyFlyer · 5th April 2007

A few months ago I bought a Tokina 400mm OM. I had no time to test it yet, but a few days ago I saw the Moon and decided to test for nightshots of the Moon. I took many images and all turned out very good. I even added a Tokina 2xTC. It is said that it is not good to use any OM 2xTC on E-system cameras, but I have to disagree. It may not give as good results as a real lens with the right focal length, but if you don't have one I would say it is better than nothing. Images are cropped to the same proportions, so #1 and #3 can be compared in size. #2 is magnified 2x to be able to compare the quality difference between the #3 which is 2x magnified with a TC.

#1 is just a pure Tokina 400mm lens.

#2 is Tokina 400mm 2x magnified to get the same size as #3

#3 is taken with Tokina 400mm + 2xTC

What do you think?

BTW, if you would not know, location is South Sweden, so the SG Moon may be the same one but looks different.

cjtune · 5th April 2007

The moon shot with the 2x TC seems a bit soft compared to the one just upscaled/magnified?

zcf · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by cjtune

The moon shot with the 2x TC seems a bit soft compared to the one just upscaled/magnified?

agree.

Like to know also, did you stop down on the 400mm + 2x TC, it make some differences by stopping down more.

sulhan · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by cjtune

The moon shot with the 2x TC seems a bit soft compared to the one just upscaled/magnified?

Uaing the TC is just like cropping the original light rays cominginto your main lens. Surely there will be a degradation of the original image.

OlyFlyer · 5th April 2007

Yes, the 2xTC is a tiny bit more soft than the upscaled in my opinion also. Still, if I had not done the upscaling and if a person needs 800mm but only has a 400mm I think it is good enough. I still have to do some daylight tests also before I can say it is a good lens or not, the TC was just used to see if it is something to have or not. Same TC and non TC test will be done under daylight also.

Actually the #2 is not scaled up at all. All the images are 8MP RAW and then converted to jpeg. The result is just too large for CS, so I cropped the #1 and #3 images to 1800x1350 pixels without more compression. Than downsized to 800x600 for CS. #2 is 900x675 crop of the #1 which is then also downsized to 800x600. The result is an image with the same Moon size as #3. If I had actually magnified #1 I think the image would have become much worse than #3. I think optical magnification with TC is better than any digital, but that may be all wrong and based only on my lack of Photoshop knowledge.

All images are stopped down to f11 or f16. I don't remember which. Actually, maybe I should not have gone past f8 since chroma (mostly visible at the top part) and softness may increase after that. Only DOF increases but that is not important from this distance. What may increase sharpness is the shutter speed. I had 1/80s for #3 and 1/100 for #1. I think that is too slow. I still have to calculate the Earth's centripetal speed in relation to the Moon and the distance to the Moon to avoid moving out of or try to be within one or two pixel. Again, I think that will be difficult with the TC image, TC is taking 2 steps light which is too much.

Actually, compressing the images to satisfy the CS limit of 100k is not doing any good for the images. My original ones look much better.

djork · 5th April 2007

did you do any USM on it?

OlyFlyer · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by djork

did you do any USM on it?

USM as in Unsharp Mask, yes. It was set on both to Amount 50% , Radius 8,4 pixels, Threshold 0 levels. Maybe if I had spent more time on #3 it could have been made better.

vendeta · 5th April 2007

how much this day is an OM 400mm cost? looking for one also.

OlyFlyer · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by vendeta

how much this day is an OM 400mm cost? looking for one also.

I paid about US$30 including shipping. It looks badly beaten from the outside (scratches, no dents) and it had a bad description. Lenses are in excellent condition. Seller had no idea which camera it was for and what it was. He sold it as a "72mm lens". The only 72mm on this lens is the filter thread, which I recognized from the bad picture he used. So I call that a good buy.

vendeta · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer

I paid about US$30 including shipping. It looks badly beaten from the outside (scratches, no dents) and it had a bad description. Lenses are in excellent condition. Seller had no idea which camera it was for and what it was. He sold it as a "72mm lens". The only 72mm on this lens is the filter thread, which I recognized from the bad picture he used. So I call that a good buy.

yep good buy! i'm looking for one myself.

jjtml · 5th April 2007

That's pretty good shots!

I just purchased a 600mm f6.5 zuiko... waiting for it to come, will send some shots for comparison.

vendeta · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by jjtml

That's pretty good shots!

I just purchased a 600mm f6.5 zuiko... waiting for it to come, will send some shots for comparison.

where did u got it? and if you don't mind asking how much was it?

OlyFlyer · 6th April 2007

Originally Posted by jjtml

That's pretty good shots!

I just purchased a 600mm f6.5 zuiko... waiting for it to come, will send some shots for comparison.

I am sure it is a very good lens but as it weights 2.8kg you need a very good tripod too. I am sure you are aware of that. I hope you got the case with it too. The case was included when originally sold as far as I know.

jjtml · 6th April 2007

Yeah, I just popped by the local camera shop TK to get a sturdier tripod. Just came back from the zoo for testing of the 85mm-250mm and it was reasonably light to carry the cam+lens+tripod on a sling without breaking my back!

Yup, it's coming with the case but it's near impossible to find the 100mm uv filter unless i special order... but that will cost at least SGD$150!! =(

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer

I am sure it is a very good lens but as it weights 2.8kg you need a very good tripod too. I am sure you are aware of that. I hope you got the case with it too. The case was included when originally sold as far as I know.

jjtml · 6th April 2007

I managed to get it off ebay. I've heard the prices range from 850USD - 1200USD for 2nd hand, depending on the condition and if you manage to find one

Originally Posted by vendeta

where did u got it? and if you don't mind asking how much was it?

Clockunder · 8th April 2007

The cropped picture of the moon using 400mm looks to not only have slightly more details (partly due to better contrast) but also sharper than the one taken with the same 400mm with 2x teleconverter.

Even though focal length is doubled, it's not always that using a 2x teleoconverter will be better.

OlyFlyer · 1st June 2007

I was shooting today and decided to take a few more testshots with my Tokina 400mm. To test, I decided to compare with a lens I no longer have, a Tokina 70-210 f3.5 zoom with a 2x Tokina TC added, making a 420mm lens. Here are some pics.

#1

This is a resized image, no crop.

#2

100% crop of part of the above image.

#3

Taken from almost the same spot last year. The weather was a bit more sunny.

#4

100% crop of almost the same part as the above crop.

#5

Referens image, taken with the 14-45mm lens at 14mm to give you an idea of the distance.

All images are taken from a tripod except the last one. #4 has ISO400, so it is more noisy. No secret that the TC introduced a lot of chroma and loss of detail. I would have been surprised otherwise. Anyway, I am happy I sold the 70-210mm. Not much to have if one has the ZD 40-150mm, the extra 60mm is not enough for going through the trouble of manual focus, expecially considering it was a heavy and large lens.

Conclusion? Not very revolutionary, the prime is better than a zoom, in fact, considering it's age and price (I paid about US$30 including delivery) it is a really good lens if you need some reach and have no $$$ for anything better.

But... ... ...

I will tell you about the "but" next time I will sit here and post pictures. Not today.

5th April 2007	#6
djork Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hong Kong, Pokfulam Posts: 1,195	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" did you do any USM on it? __________________ Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

5th April 2007	#8
vendeta Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 251	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" how much this day is an OM 400mm cost? looking for one also.

5th April 2007	#11
jjtml Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 311	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" That's pretty good shots! I just purchased a 600mm f6.5 zuiko... waiting for it to come, will send some shots for comparison.

8th April 2007	#16
Clockunder Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,767	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" The cropped picture of the moon using 400mm looks to not only have slightly more details (partly due to better contrast) but also sharper than the one taken with the same 400mm with 2x teleconverter. Even though focal length is doubled, it's not always that using a 2x teleoconverter will be better. Last edited by Clockunder; 8th April 2007 at 09:44 AM.

1st June 2007	#17
OlyFlyer Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe, Sweden, outside Lund Posts: 2,038	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" I was shooting today and decided to take a few more testshots with my Tokina 400mm. To test, I decided to compare with a lens I no longer have, a Tokina 70-210 f3.5 zoom with a 2x Tokina TC added, making a 420mm lens. Here are some pics. #1 This is a resized image, no crop. #2 100% crop of part of the above image. #3 Taken from almost the same spot last year. The weather was a bit more sunny. #4 100% crop of almost the same part as the above crop. #5 Referens image, taken with the 14-45mm lens at 14mm to give you an idea of the distance. All images are taken from a tripod except the last one. #4 has ISO400, so it is more noisy. No secret that the TC introduced a lot of chroma and loss of detail. I would have been surprised otherwise. Anyway, I am happy I sold the 70-210mm. Not much to have if one has the ZD 40-150mm, the extra 60mm is not enough for going through the trouble of manual focus, expecially considering it was a heavy and large lens. Conclusion? Not very revolutionary, the prime is better than a zoom, in fact, considering it's age and price (I paid about US$30 including delivery) it is a really good lens if you need some reach and have no $$$ for anything better. But... ... ... I will tell you about the "but" next time I will sit here and post pictures. Not today.

5th April 2007	#1
OlyFlyer Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe, Sweden, outside Lund Posts: 2,038	Testing my "Moon shooter" A few months ago I bought a Tokina 400mm OM. I had no time to test it yet, but a few days ago I saw the Moon and decided to test for nightshots of the Moon. I took many images and all turned out very good. I even added a Tokina 2xTC. It is said that it is not good to use any OM 2xTC on E-system cameras, but I have to disagree. It may not give as good results as a real lens with the right focal length, but if you don't have one I would say it is better than nothing. Images are cropped to the same proportions, so #1 and #3 can be compared in size. #2 is magnified 2x to be able to compare the quality difference between the #3 which is 2x magnified with a TC. #1 is just a pure Tokina 400mm lens. #2 is Tokina 400mm 2x magnified to get the same size as #3 #3 is taken with Tokina 400mm + 2xTC What do you think? BTW, if you would not know, location is South Sweden, so the SG Moon may be the same one but looks different.

5th April 2007	#2
cjtune Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,516	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" The moon shot with the 2x TC seems a bit soft compared to the one just upscaled/magnified?

5th April 2007	#5
OlyFlyer Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe, Sweden, outside Lund Posts: 2,038	Re: Testing my "Moon shooter" Yes, the 2xTC is a tiny bit more soft than the upscaled in my opinion also. Still, if I had not done the upscaling and if a person needs 800mm but only has a 400mm I think it is good enough. I still have to do some daylight tests also before I can say it is a good lens or not, the TC was just used to see if it is something to have or not. Same TC and non TC test will be done under daylight also. Actually the #2 is not scaled up at all. All the images are 8MP RAW and then converted to jpeg. The result is just too large for CS, so I cropped the #1 and #3 images to 1800x1350 pixels without more compression. Than downsized to 800x600 for CS. #2 is 900x675 crop of the #1 which is then also downsized to 800x600. The result is an image with the same Moon size as #3. If I had actually magnified #1 I think the image would have become much worse than #3. I think optical magnification with TC is better than any digital, but that may be all wrong and based only on my lack of Photoshop knowledge. All images are stopped down to f11 or f16. I don't remember which. Actually, maybe I should not have gone past f8 since chroma (mostly visible at the top part) and softness may increase after that. Only DOF increases but that is not important from this distance. What may increase sharpness is the shutter speed. I had 1/80s for #3 and 1/100 for #1. I think that is too slow. I still have to calculate the Earth's centripetal speed in relation to the Moon and the distance to the Moon to avoid moving out of or try to be within one or two pixel. Again, I think that will be difficult with the TC image, TC is taking 2 steps light which is too much. Actually, compressing the images to satisfy the CS limit of 100k is not doing any good for the images. My original ones look much better. Last edited by OlyFlyer; 5th April 2007 at 06:39 PM.