Would anyone care to suggest some old glass for calendar moonshots?

[JBW]

There have been multiple threads about old glass on new cameras. Would anyone care to suggest some old glass for my Sony Alpha a68 that would do well for calendar type moonshots and critters found within our garden?

Brian

[Shadowman]

Brian,

Have you seen images using old glass that peaked your interest and believe you can't achieve with new glass?

[inkista]

Just me, but vintage probably isn't best-suited for what you're describing. You probably want 300mm at least, if not 400mm for moon shots, and wildlife lenses without AF are sometimes frustrating. You'll note most of the 'best bargain' type recommendations for vintage lenses tend to be 35mm and 50mm primes, and sort of tend to stay between 28mm to 135mm, if you aren't going to be spending crazy money.

A new Tamron 70-300 or Sigma super-telephoto zoom (120-400, 150-500) is likely to be better bang for the buck.

That said, I think there's a discontinued A-mount Sigma 400/5.6 prime that might be worth looking at. Also, apparently later APO versions. Looks like it'll autofocus on an a65, according to the reviews.

[JBW]

Brian,

Have you seen images using old glass that peaked your interest and believe you can't achieve with new glass?

Not yet but the conversation got me curious

[Shadowman]

Not yet but the conversation got me curious

Kathy's recommendations in post #3 seem like the best choice especially if you want big moon shots with minimal cropping.

[Manfred M]

For the moon shots, any old lens with hard stops would do, as the hard stop would be set at infinity at the factory (which nicely describes the distance to the moon), so I suspect that a lot of old Minolta glass could be considered.

For shooting around the yard, this would not be the best choice as critters (especially the smaller ones) can move quite quickly and playing around with focus peaking to manually focus the lens would be impractical for most photographers. There a modern autofocus lens would be your best bet, with two caveats.

1. Even with long lenses most small creatures will still be quite small unless you can get close to them. The downy woodpecker shots I posted last week were taken in the 10' - 12' ft / 3m - 4m distance with a 500mm focal length.



2. Long lenses tend to be quite heavy (which is not necessarily an advantage). The Sigma 150-500mm lens I used for these shots weighs around 1.8 kg / 4 lbs).

3. These lenses are quite challenging to handhold especially at the long focal lengths as one tends to bounce all over the place. All the serious birders I know use a gimbal head on their tripods, The field of view is just a few degrees.

[JBW]

For the moon shots, any old lens with hard stops would do, as the hard stop would be set at infinity at the factory (which nicely describes the distance to the moon), so I suspect that a lot of old Minolta glass could be considered.

For shooting around the yard, this would not be the best choice as critters (especially the smaller ones) can move quite quickly and playing around with focus peaking to manually focus the lens would be impractical for most photographers. There a modern autofocus lens would be your best bet, with two caveats.

1. Even with long lenses most small creatures will still be quite small unless you can get close to them. The downy woodpecker shots I posted last week were taken in the 10' - 12' ft / 3m - 4m distance with a 500mm focal length.



2. Long lenses tend to be quite heavy (which is not necessarily an advantage). The Sigma 150-500mm lens I used for these shots weighs around 1.8 kg / 4 lbs).

3. These lenses are quite challenging to handhold especially at the long focal lengths as one tends to bounce all over the place. All the serious birders I know use a gimbal head on their tripods, The field of view is just a few degrees.

I'm purely a tripod photographer. I'm not sure i could track the moon at 500 let alone a bird or critter. I will need at least 5 degrees to get the trees in with the moon.

Maybe a smaller moon with more trees say about 300mm?

[Manfred M]

I'm purely a tripod photographer. I'm not sure i could track the moon at 500 let alone a bird or critter. I will need at least 5 degrees to get the trees in with the moon.

Maybe a smaller moon with more trees say about 300mm?

Your camera with a 300mm would be close to mine with a 500mm (1.5x crop factor).

[rpcrowe]

Several equipment generations ago, I purchased a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX lens for my Canon DSLR cameras. I only paid $100 (USD) for that lens, used on eBay, and it was quite good. In fact, the image quality was excellent, the lens was lightweight, and it had a relatively close MFD.

The downside of the lens was its relatively slow autofocus. However, the AF was quite accurate, better than the previous Tokina 400mm f/5.6 SD. I sold the lens after acquiring Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens. I got $150 (USD) for this lens. No loss there

I would consider getting one of these (they came in Nikon and Canon mounts and might have been available in other camera mounts) if you could find one cheap enough.

Tokina replaced the 400mm f/5.6 ATX Pro in their lineup with an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and limited out with the 80-400mm ATX 840. This lens seems to run about $150-250 (USD) used on eBay. I have only seen these with Canon or Nikon mounts but, Tokina produced the 11-16mm ATX-116 in a Sony-Alpha mount so, they may have produced the 840 in that mount.

Like all Tokina lenses I have had experience with (besides having previously owned the 400mm f/5.6 ATX; I now have a 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro and a 12-24mm f/4 ATX Pro) the 400mm is built like a tank...

The most available older lens that is budget priced seems to be the Sigma 300 mm F/4 APO Tele Macro AF which goes for well under $300 USD on eBay.

There is a Minolta 100-400mm f.4.5-6.7 zoom lens available in a Sony mount which appears to sell for $200-300 (USD) on eBay. I know nothing about the quality this lens. However, it does get fairly decent reviews for a lens at this price point...

https://www.ebay.com/p/Minolta-AF-10...12836?thm=3000

See this YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUCEOwTTBso

[xpatUSA]

I'm purely a tripod photographer. I'm not sure i could track the moon at 500 let alone a bird or critter. I will need at least 5 degrees to get the trees in with the moon.

Maybe a smaller moon with more trees say about 300mm?

At 300mm infinite focus, the moon would subtend about 300mmx0.0045 radians = 1.35mm on the sensor.

https://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov/ed...pdfs/Deep3.pdf

With the A65 ExMor 6000x4000px sensor, that would be only about 347 px wide. Not sure that's what you're looking for ...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/2

With trees included as part of the picture, we get into sensor exposure considerations pretty quick, depending on the phase of the moon ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposu...xposure_values

[JBW]

At 300mm infinite focus, the moon would subtend about 300mmx0.0045 radians = 1.35mm on the sensor.

https://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov/ed...pdfs/Deep3.pdf

With the A65 ExMor 6000x4000px sensor, that would be only about 347 px wide. Not sure that's what you're looking for ...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/2

With trees included as part of the picture, we get into sensor exposure considerations pretty quick, depending on the phase of the moon ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposu...xposure_values

I'm guessing the a65 numbers will be similar to the a68 which is the camera I own?

[lesno1]

Brian all the old Minolta Dynax lenses will fit your camera look on ebay there are plenty of good AF classic lenses

[xpatUSA]

I'm guessing the a65 numbers will be similar to the a68 which is the camera I own?

Point taken.

Is the a68 6000x4000px, APSC-C? If so, the numbers will be similar, if not identical.

[JBW]

Point taken.

Is the a68 6000x4000px, APSC-C? If so, the numbers will be similar, if not identical.

yes to both

[odds]

At 300mm infinite focus, the moon would subtend about 300mmx0.0045 radians

Seems like you are referring to the radius of the moon, not the diameter?

--
Odd S.

[xpatUSA]

Seems like you are referring to the radius of the moon, not the diameter?

--
Odd S.

Oops, well spotted!

Which makes Brian's moon about 700px wide.

Sorry, Brian ... question remains as to whether that would suit your purpose or not?

As to inclusion of trees, this moon-rise shot might be of interest:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4287335

600mm lens, APS-C, moon is about 1020px wide.

[JBW]

Oops, well spotted!

Which makes Brian's moon about 700px wide.

Sorry, Brian ... question remains as to whether that would suit your purpose or not?

As to inclusion of trees, this moon-rise shot might be of interest:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4287335

600mm lens, APS-C, moon is about 1020px wide.

I certainly don't need more than 600mm If size and mm change proportionally I could easily get along nicely with 300mm

[xpatUSA]

I certainly don't need more than 600mm If size and mm change proportionally I could easily get along nicely with 300mm

So, for framing at 300mm FL, the moon would be 700/6000 = 11.7% wide and 700/4000 = 17.5% tall on the A68 sensor, if I managed to get my sums right this time.

I recently bought a cheap 70-300mm Sigma lens for long shots (rarely used) and I also keep a 2X teleconverter. With my wobbly tripod, I doubt that a good moonshot is possible for me with either one ...