Moon photography aperture opinions

[FlyingSquirrel]

I was recently writing on my website about photographing the moon, and out of curiosity, I decided to do a web search to see what aperture other people recommend when using a telephoto lens. What I found came as quite a surprise to me.

Almost every website that had a tutorial on shooting the moon recommended an aperture around f/9 to f/11 (with telephoto lenses)

I have always personally believed that the moon should be photographed wide open, or perhaps one stop down if your lens is not professional high quality (so, most of the time, f/4 or f/5.6). My reasoning is that when focusing on the moon, the depth of field is essentially infinite. So why would you stop down several stops to f/9 or f/11? You don't need that depth of field. It seems far more appropriate to shoot wide and then use a faster shutter speed to avoid blur from the movement of the moon (which is noticeable when using telephoto lenses, especially with crop sensor cameras) and also to mitigate any vibrations that might inadvertently occur.

That is my personal opinion and thinking, and I've always shot wide open with my 500mm f/4 + 1.4x (f/5.6) and got excellent results.

I am interested to hear anyone elses opinions and reasoning that might explain why f/9 or f/11 would be a better choice. I am genuinely unsure and would like to learn if maybe my thinking or knowledge is off.

Thanks for any input

[Stagecoach]

Just having a quick search of 'photographing the moon' on Google what is noticeable is that the majority of articles are pretty basic and say around mid aperture.

I expected to come across one pretty quickly that said 'select your sharpest aperture for the FL of the lens that you are using' ensuring you use a speed equal to or above that necessary to freeze its movement calculated by ????

Interesting

[Black Pearl]

It's likely that the general advice websites you found aren't aimed at people with nine thousand dollar super-primes.

[William W]

. . . Almost every website that had a tutorial on shooting the moon recommended an aperture around f/9 to f/11 (with telephoto lenses) . . .
I have always personally believed that the moon should be photographed wide open, or perhaps one stop down if your lens is not professional high quality (so, most of the time, f/4 or f/5.6). . .
That is my personal opinion and thinking, and I've always shot wide open with my 500mm f/4 + 1.4x (f/5.6) and got excellent results. . .
I am interested to hear anyone elses opinions and reasoning that might explain why f/9 or f/11 would be a better choice. I am genuinely unsure and would like to learn if maybe my thinking or knowledge is off . . .

I think you’ve found an example of “internet regurgitation”.

If we wander back to film-daze and books (they're those things what live in a library), we see that there is/was a “Rule of Thumb” for making images of the Moon - ‘The F/11 Rule’ – typically F/11 @ 1/100 @ ASA100.

That rule worked because, for example in 1970/80, a ‘good’ 500mm lens would be "fast" at F/7.1 or F/8 – and at F/11 there would be substantial image improvement: and it was nice to use ASA100 or ASA125 "fine grain" film to get really nice texture of the moon's surface and 1/100s was sort of "ok" as a shutter speed albeit the limit of the slower speed to use (that's my opinion on the shutter speed comment).

Of course back then there were those affordable ‘mirror’ 500mm fixed F/8 Lenses – so F/8 it was hence F/8 @ 1/200 @ ASA100 (again using ASA 100 film for quality).

Move forward to 2016 and we have monumental advancement in lens design and also in many cases affordability of very fine optics which are not limited to a few long telephotos which are locked away in “pool equipment” reserved for only pro/staff photographers: your OP is an example.

Let’s say for the sake of this conversation, you are referencing the EF 500F/4 L IS MkII USM. That lens (and its predecessor) was designed to be used ‘wide open’. Both the 500/4L and the MkII version provide high image quality when a MkII or MkIII Extender EF is plonked onto them.

I think that much of the internet is simply a cut and paste rewrite stolen from elsewhere and rarely referenced to primary sources. So I think much of what you are reading is just that.

Of course there is a place for suggesting the use of F/9 to F/11 with modern lenses – even high quality modern lenses – for example let’s take the EF 100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6 L IS USM and plonk a x1.4 MkII Extender EF on it. We’re already at F/8 when zoomed to the equivalent of 560mm and with that combination there will be an image quality improvement if we use F/11.

I expect using one of those Tamron or Sigma (500mm/600mm) zooms, which peg out at F/6.3, that there is image quality improvement if we use F/9~F/11.

Apropos your website essay - I suggest that you be brave and independent: write from your first hand experience and be sure to articulate the gear that you use and supply sample images.

Additionally it’s always good to encourage others to experiment with their own gear and to that end you might like to give guidelines for those who do not have a 500/4 prime and extender of the optical quality you mention.

WW

[William W]

PS - Robin was writing at the same time as I and Robin's thought is one of my thoughts, too: but I still think there's a lot of re-hashing on the WWW, without much explanation or reference.

WW

[IzzieK]

In my opinion only, the aperture choice is because shooting the moon is like comparable to shooting in the daylight F-16 rule and somewhere in the F11 rule. Pretty much how you shoot inside the house but aiming where the window is in the subtle sunlight. I had shot the moon once and I was using a D300s at the time, fast shutter speed to compensate for the earth movement. I did very well with it too. Try and experiment in different apertures will be my advise...

[xpatUSA]

Just having a quick search of 'photographing the moon' on Google what is noticeable is that the majority of articles are pretty basic and say around mid aperture.

I expected to come across one pretty quickly that said 'select your sharpest aperture for the FL of the lens that you are using' ensuring you use a speed equal to or above that necessary to freeze its movement calculated by ????

Interesting

That would have been my expectation, too, Grahame.

As in: go to a couple of reviews for your lens, find the sharpness 'sweet spot' (often f/5.6) for the focal length to be used, and voila!

One thing I don't know is the angular velocity in pixels/sec (!) of the moon as viewed through my 300mm Sigma DG lens and as it impinges upon my Sigma Merrill sensor.

So: ". . . the angular velocity of the Moon's orbit around the Earth is . . .

Source: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath366/kmath366.htm

. . . which is about 2.66urad/sec. 1 Merrill pixel pitch is 5um which is about 16.67urad/px at 300mm.

That would be (2.66urad/sec)/(16.67urad/px) = about 0.16px/sec

I now wonder at what shutter speed would 'moon-blur' set in?

[Dave Humphries]

I think you are an exception Matthew,

Not many of us have an f/2.8, or even f/4 prime telephoto lens of long enough focal length to consider shooting the moon.

If I use my Nikon 70-300mm, it will be f/5.6 at 300mm wide open, as will the vast majority of people's telephoto zoom lenses (or f/6.3 even).

I also know that IQ is much better at f/8 and f/11 on my lens (i.e. 1 to 2 stops closed from wide open), which kinda correlates with the advice you read, even if wasn't well written; i.e. with reasoning, so you could 'adjust' your practice to suit your unusual (and no doubt high quality) lens.

Cheers, Dave

[ccphoto]

Always an interesting thread on any forum. As a general rule, either shooting with my Nikkor 80-400 or 200-500 I will shoot f/11 @ 1/250 ISO 400. The majority I shoot handheld as a spur of the moment shot.

If I am shooting for something more serious, like this eclipse, I use a tripod because in this instance I needed consistency in the exposure range of a full eclipse - though I didn't get the full blood moon because the fog rolled in. This sequence was shot with a D800, 80-400 4/5.6 @ f/11, 1/500 ISO 400, Manual exposure, Manual focus.

However, I can almost always walk out my back door in a full moon sky, an shoot the 200-500 (now on a D810) at f/8 1/250 ISO 400 and shoot handheld all the night through.

All this shows is that you can shoot in a variety of shutter/aperture/ISO ranges without a huge amount of image degradation.

[xpatUSA]

Always an interesting thread on any forum.

All this shows is that you can shoot in a variety of shutter/aperture/ISO ranges without a huge amount of image degradation.

Stunning image, very well executed.

In a thread elsewhere, I've seen f/16 mentioned and even f/22 on another site.

I would have thought that, with those apertures, diffraction would have well an truly "set in" (as they say) giving rise to less than sharp images?

[ccphoto]

I rarely shoot 16 or 22 for much of anything unless I need a longer exposure then as high as I can go works because detail is not so important as is the blurring effect.

[xpatUSA]

I rarely shoot 16 or 22 for much of anything unless I need a longer exposure then as high as I can go works because detail is not so important as is the blurring effect.

Sorry Chris, I was only talking about moonshots, shoulda said, I suppose.

[DickyOZ]

I've always found atmospherics determine the IQ of my moon shots. In our climate the opportunities for clear still air are few and far between.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thanks a lot for all of the replies. Really appreciate everyone's input from experience, opinions, reasoning, etc. Good stuff.

I was also thinking, similar to what some here have said, that there was a bit of online 'regurgitation' where people just copied what others recommended.

I do agree as well that the aperture settings are due to equipment differences. Stopping down due to smaller max apertures and lower quality lenses make sense.

For the sake of demonstration and sharing, here are some photos of the moon that I have taken at f/5.6 using my recommendations / reasoning (and my top quality gear, why by the way was purchased back in the day when it cost $10,500, not $9K ) Be sure to view at 100% size

[Tringa]

As suggested above I go for the aperture that gives the best resolution, provided I can get a high enough shutter speed. As the moon, in many of its phases, is very bright getting a high enough shutter speed is rarely a problem.

Dave

[loosecanon]

A lot of lenses can focus past infinity - something which allows filters to be added and shifts from temperature changes, so you need to focus. I suspect the f11 advice is for those who just turn the lens to the infinity mark and think it will be in focus.

[James G]

I've always found atmospherics determine the IQ of my moon shots. In our climate the opportunities for clear still air are few and far between.

In general, I've found the same issue dictates the quality of captures. I have never gone to the web for any information on 'standard' settings, rather I have experimented over time with a whole range of settings and setups.
I've kind of settled on the following general process which gives me reasonably consistent results as long as the basic viewing conditions are stable . I use a Canon 7Dmk2 and a 50-500 Sigma telephoto, latterly with a Sigma x2 doubler. The whole rig is tripod mounted and I use a geared Manfrotto head for fine control.
Always manual focus with Mirror lock and remote control and usually 5-10 seconds to damp out vibration between shots.

Depending on the phase of the moon I stick to F11/F8 and vary exposure to get the best image at the fastest exposure. (I aim for anything above 1/250th.) But, more importantly, I usually try to get between 10 and 20 'good' images. These I stack and align from bottom up based on best detail and then reduce noise to a minimum by changing the opacity moving up the stack on the % 100, 50, 33, 25, 20, 18,....... (not usually worth going further than 10-15 captures).

I post process the final result to sharpen using a wavelet sharpening action used for astrophotography.

[ccphoto]

Just for grins and giggles I shot at f/5.6, 1/1000, ISO 400 (setup for something else, so it was a spur of the moment thing), Auto WB, Auto Focus, Nikon D810 200-500 @500mm

[george013]

A lot of lenses can focus past infinity - something which allows filters to be added and shifts from temperature changes, so you need to focus. I suspect the f11 advice is for those who just turn the lens to the infinity mark and think it will be in focus.

The so called f-rules are exposure values, expressed in simple to remember numbers: ISO 100, ss 1/100. It's up to you which f-number you want to use.

Don't forget that lenses absorb light. Big lenses as the one being used might absorb 50%, that's 1 stop.
Matthews setting are the "F11-rule" minus 1 stop.

George

[James G]

Further to my earlier post (#17)
I should have really posted an image to support my technique. Not quite 'seeing is believing' but ....

Moon 20/012016.. 15 exposures stacked and Opacity blended to remove noise, with final sharpening, using wavelet Deconvolution, applied as last stage of PP.

F11 1/180ths ISO 100


Canon EOS 7D Mk2 with Sigma 50-500mm + Sigma 2xDoubler. Tripod Mounded, Mirror Lockup, Electronic Shutter release and 10 secs between exposures to damp vibration. Focus set manually before start of a sequence. ( I use a crater which has clear outline, and is away from the terminator, for focus, and stand back from the eyepiece to fine tune.

Moon was 'high' approx 60deg, weather calm with low to no breeze.