# Cheap 400mm advice



## Zv (Jul 2, 2014)

Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.

Option 1 - use my existing 70-200 f/4L IS and buy the Kenko 1.4x plus the EF adapter. Should be less than $200. Or Canon 1.4x II (used) for a little more.

Option 2 - buy the EF-S 55-250 STM plus EF adatptor. Total cost around $400.

Just wondering which option would yield the best results. L lens plus extender vs EF-S? Anyone have experience with either of these combos? 

I like option 1 as it means I can also use the 1.4x with my 135L and it's FF compatible (plus cheaper).


----------



## rs (Jul 2, 2014)

I'd suggest a Canon TC. As you rightfully pointed out, this means your new purchase is also good to go with your other Canon kit.

There doesn't appear to be much in it between the two when it comes to resolving detail:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=856&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

But of course the 70-200 and 1.4 combo has more reach, and it gives you options with your 5D2 - 70-200/TC and 135/TC, whereas for you, buying the EF-S lens is a one horse trick.

The 2x TC will potentially resolve more detail than the 1.4x and cropping, but the lack of AF on either of your bodies with the 70-200 and the images the 135 would produce make it largely worth ignoring for any purposes other than shooting distance objects using the M with manual focusing.


----------



## Zv (Jul 2, 2014)

rs said:


> I'd suggest a Canon TC. As you rightfully pointed out, this means your new purchase is also good to go with your other Canon kit.
> 
> There doesn't appear to be much in it between the two when it comes to resolving detail:
> 
> ...



Thanks! I never knew you could use teleconvertors for TDPs lens image quality comparison tool! Yeah theres not much difference, though the EF-S seemed to be slightly better in the centre. A little PP sharpening should sort that out. Yeah I think I already answered my own question but still good to hear it from someone else!

So you don't recommend the Kenko adaptor? Any reason for that? I feel like the Canon is over priced a bit. And for my purposes v2 should suffice right?


----------



## rs (Jul 2, 2014)

Zv said:


> So you don't recommend the Kenko adaptor? Any reason for that? I feel like the Canon is over priced a bit. And for my purposes v2 should suffice right?



I have no experience with the Kenco adaptor, but from what I understand, the Canon is optically better and likely to carry on working well with all future (TC compatible) lenses, bodies and firmware updates that you might find yourself using in the future. That certainly can't be said of third party products, although due to the Kencos compromised optical design it doesn't have an element which pokes inside the rear of the lens, allowing it to physically mount to many Canon lenses which aren't designed to work with TC's.

Here's a comparison of the mk II and the mk III 1.4x TC with a 70-200/4 IS on FF:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

The corners are improved with the mk III, everything else looks quite similar to me. As for the performance on the EOS M, unfortunately this tool doesn't have the mk II TC samples on crop. The extreme FF corners are a non-issue with the crop sensor, but the higher pixel density might reveal some differences not visible in this comparison.


----------



## Zv (Jul 2, 2014)

rs said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't recommend the Kenko adaptor? Any reason for that? I feel like the Canon is over priced a bit. And for my purposes v2 should suffice right?
> ...



Corner performance isn't a priority I'll be using the center more than likely. I guess the extra cost for the Canon extender over the Kenko is worth it if it is optically better.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jul 2, 2014)

Maybe not the direct answer to your question, but:

- For best moon pics, you would need much more focal lenght than 400mm eqiv
- you need best athmospheric consitions possibe
- you should do stacking to minimize athmospheric blur
- The moon stays the same, means you need one good opportunity, and you wont get it better anymore

So my suggestion:

- Rent the longest lens you can afford for some days, ad a 2x converter, add a matching tripod and head
- go to a better athmospheric place than your town
- inform how to do the stacking of the biggest amount of pics y can take,and how you have to take them (i dont know)

means for total 1000$ you should get breathtaking pictures of the moon, depending on where you live and what lens you can afford to rent

I would not buy any equipment for shootig the moon only.....


----------



## rs (Jul 2, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> - For best moon pics, you would need much more focal lenght than 400mm eqiv



Yes, in all fairness, the longest lens you can get is the best for the moon - unless it's just going to be part of the frame. I've shot the moon with the 40D and a 1000mm telescope. The telescope came with an M42 mount which replaces the eyepiece, so a simple M42 to EOS adapter was the final piece of the jigsaw.

However, even with a 1600mm equivalent focal length, it still took a bit of cropping to get it tight. A 1.4x TC might have done the job. There were no end of issues though - street lights, the moon racing across the frame (a fast shutter speed is a must), and the equatorial mount wobbling all over the place when walking nearby. I found tethered shooting through the USB cable from the laptop with EOS utility to be about the best - it allowed me to avoid shaking the setup and get the focus right at 100% on a big screen. And then I was left with horrendous CA, but it was nothing that only using the green channel and turning it into a B&W image can't fix.

Either stick with the TC option as while it's compromised for shooting the moon, it gives you plenty of other genuine shooting options, use a telescope (if you know someone with one, even better), or to get the best optical quality, simply buy that 1200/5.6 that's appeared on ebay.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 2, 2014)

Why do you want to take photos of the moon, especially low resolution ones? If all you want is the moon,
here are some images from when I was comparing lenses on the 5DIII and the SX50. You would do much better with the SX50 than a moderate 400mm on the 5DIII. The 600 (300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC) was the best for me. From top to bottom 100-400mm, SX50 at nominal 1200mm, 600mm, and Tamron 150-600 at 600mm. (The Tamron was taken, obviously, at a different time, and under more hazy conditions and at a poorer phase for seeing detail).


----------



## Zv (Jul 2, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> Maybe not the direct answer to your question, but:
> 
> - For best moon pics, you would need much more focal lenght than 400mm eqiv
> - you need best athmospheric consitions possibe
> ...



Thanks. You are right I need to improve technique as well as getting the right gear. I don't plan on doing much of this, was really just for the casual moon shot. I was just trying to see the absolute cheapest way would be. The TC would serve dual purpose thus making it the ideal choice. 

I am intrigued by this stacking thing. Can you point me in the right direction for that? Never done it before.


----------



## Zv (Jul 2, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Why do you want to take photos of the moon, especially low resolution ones? If all you want is the moon,
> here are some images from when I was comparing lenses on the 5DIII and the SX50. You would do much better with the SX50 than a moderate 400mm on the 5DIII. The 600 (300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC) was the best for me. From top to bottom 100-400mm, SX50 at nominal 1200mm, 600mm, and Tamron 150-600 at 600mm. (The Tamron was taken, obviously, at a different time, and under more hazy conditions and at a poorer phase for seeing detail).



Thanks for posting the images for comparison. Yeah I see your point but I just want to give it a bash. Not entering any competition or anything. Just practicing for the sake of it. I do want to try capturing the moon in different phases like you've demonstrated here. Like I said I don't want to spend a ton of cash on a 300 f/2.8 but rather wanted to just use what I have. Guess 400mm ish is not enough then. So you think the 2x extender then?


----------



## rs (Jul 2, 2014)

Zv said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you want to take photos of the moon, especially low resolution ones? If all you want is the moon,
> ...



If you're going to get a TC, only the 1.4x will have a genuine use with your lenses and bodies for day to day use. And the 2x won't be everything you need for the moon - to fill the frame you need somewhere in the region of 2000mm (FF). The 2x with a 70-200 on crop is only 640mm equivalent.

Here's what a cheap (even including the mount it's cheaper than a mk III TC) one metre telescope can do with a 40D, some cropping and PP:


----------



## AlanF (Jul 2, 2014)

The best cheap way of getting 400mm is the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 apo tele macro. Some work only at f/5.6, others work stopped down. I had a good one which worked at all apertures cost me about £130 on eBay, but I recently sold it for about £375 on eBay, and someone got a really good lens. They are sharper than the 400. You can compare this shot with my previous - it's beaten only by my 600mm combo.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 2, 2014)

How do you get the TC function to come up. I didn't know that was possible... and even now that I see it... I don't know how to replicate it.



Zv said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I'd suggest a Canon TC. As you rightfully pointed out, this means your new purchase is also good to go with your other Canon kit.
> ...


----------



## BobG (Jul 2, 2014)

I would suggest that you try your local astronomy club. There will definitely be some Astro-photgrapher members and they will probably be able to provide access to a telescope so that you can try eyepiece projection. You will probably have to buy a suitable 1.25" mount adaptor, but these can be had for $10.

http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Canon_EOS_T_Ring.html


----------



## rs (Jul 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> How do you get the TC function to come up. I didn't know that was possible... and even now that I see it... I don't know how to replicate it.


Only some lenses have it. It's hidden away in the focal length drop down box. For almost every zoom lens tested with TC's, they're only tested at the long end of the zoom with a TC, so for example the 70-200 II is tested at various native lengths from 70 to 200, and then again at 280 and 400, which are the the lens at 200 and a 1.4x mk II and then 2x mk II. And then again at 280 and 400 for the mk III extenders.

Things get odd with the 200-400 due to its built in extender. Full explanation here, and when you get your head around it, you'll see there's no other way of presenting it with this tool without adding additional drop downs for TC's:

[quote author="The Digital Picture"]
There are some things you need to know about the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens image quality test results. The built-in extender with external extender compatibility complicates complete image quality presentation of this lens in our tool. So, here is what I am showing:

The first tested copy of this lens is presented as two lens samples – sample "1" and "2". Sample "1" is tested at all focal lengths (including those with extenders) with the built-in extender switch set to 1.0x (not being used) with the only exception being the first of the two 560mm focal length tests – the one that indicates "1.4x Extender Int". Sample "2" results were all captured with the built-in extender in place – the switch was set to 1.4x with no exceptions. Sample "2" results showing one of the "III" extenders in use also had the built-in 1.4x in use. You will notice the ultra-high focal lengths in these results.

The second tested lens is presented identically as sample "3" and "4".
[/quote]
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Zv (Jul 2, 2014)

BobG said:


> I would suggest that you try your local astronomy club. There will definitely be some Astro-photgrapher members and they will probably be able to provide access to a telescope so that you can try eyepiece projection. You will probably have to buy a suitable 1.25" mount adaptor, but these can be had for $10.
> 
> http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Canon_EOS_T_Ring.html



Thanks that's really useful to know.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 2, 2014)

Back when I had a point and shoot, I put the eyepiece right next to the lens and I was surprised by the result. It was a crappy photo of a cheerleader at the redskins game, but still.


----------



## fotofool (Jul 6, 2014)

Zv said:


> Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.



This question made me wonder how the EOS-M + Rokinon 300mm would do for moon pics. It's design is more like that of a common astronomical telescope than a conventional photography lens. So I went outside and took a quick test shot. ISO 100, on a tripod, cropped (of course) and some adjustments (levels, curves, clarity, saturation and sharpness) in LR.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 6, 2014)

If all you want is some moon pictures....

http://www.astronominsk.org/Moon/Moon2012_en.htm


----------



## jrista (Jul 6, 2014)

Zv said:


> Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.



You want a LOT more focal length than 400mm to image the moon. I used an 840mm lens (EF 600mm f/4 L II w/ 1.4x TC) to produce this image:





I used the 7D and 600mm bare to produce this image:





The moon doesn't even fill the frame at 840mm on the 7D. It would be even smaller in a full frame camera. If your really interested in imaging the moon, you want AS MUCH focal length as you can get your hands on. I haven't tried it yet (well, I tried it, but I couldn't get the darn thing stable enough to actually take any images...I now have better gear, so maybe time to try), but I would be willing to bet that 1200mm and the 7D would STILL not result in the moon filling the frame entirely.


----------



## Zv (Jul 6, 2014)

Thanks for all the info at least now I have a better understanding of what's required. Think I'll leave this endeavor for now, don't have any money to spare for gear for at least another 6 month. Damn residence tax came in this month, gonna be poor for a while. 

:'(


----------



## traingineer (Jul 6, 2014)

You could always try this website:

http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm

It's a pretty accurate FOV calculator and should give you an idea of how large the moon would like in the final image, with your setup. (or any setup)


----------



## Canon1 (Jul 6, 2014)

Zv said:


> Thanks for all the info at least now I have a better understanding of what's required. Think I'll leave this endeavor for now, don't have any money to spare for gear for at least another 6 month. Damn residence tax came in this month, gonna be poor for a while.
> 
> :'(



How do you intend to share your images, or view them? Online? If so... there is nothing wrong with cropping. Don't worry about it and enjoy a nice clear night when you get one.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.
> ...



Look Jon, stop playing these amateur games and get real. This is what you need.


----------



## jrista (Jul 6, 2014)

AlanF said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Haha! Now THAT...is a MOON LENS!  And apparently, one hell of a giant EOS as well...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Jon
You explained once that to get really good moon shots you need to pp. So I upped the vibrance, microcontrast and saturation to 100% in DxO PRIME, and then gave 1.9p at 100% in PS to a the SX50 and 300mm+2xTC on 5DIII. It brought out the detail on the latter in particular.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 6, 2014)

Filling the frame with the moon takes around 4000mm equivalent in the horizontal direction or about 2600mm in the vertical direction.


----------



## Zv (Jul 6, 2014)

How about one of these stuck on an EOS M? That should give me 1280mm. 

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00KXMHBXY/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=36YFE91EPADLO&coliid=I3UGJ5SGRPAHD9&psc=1


----------



## Zv (Jul 6, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all the info at least now I have a better understanding of what's required. Think I'll leave this endeavor for now, don't have any money to spare for gear for at least another 6 month. Damn residence tax came in this month, gonna be poor for a while.
> ...



I wouldn't share them if they're heavily cropped. If I did get a half decent one it would prob end up on flickr or 500px.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 6, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with cropping. This was taken with a 100-400L and 2x TC on a T2i. Still needed heavy cropping.


----------



## surapon (Jul 6, 2014)

Zv said:


> Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.
> 
> Option 1 - use my existing 70-200 f/4L IS and buy the Kenko 1.4x plus the EF adapter. Should be less than $200. Or Canon 1.4x II (used) for a little more.
> 
> ...




Dear Zy.
May be this cheapo $ 250 US Dollars mirror Lens might do the job for you, With EF to EF-M adapter

http://www.adorama.com/KNKML400C.html

Enjoy
Surapon


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 6, 2014)

Instead of a cheap mirror lens, you could go manual focus only and get much larger optics for a similar price.

1250mm f/13.9: 

http://www.telescope.com/mobileProduct/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Orion-Apex-90mm-Maksutov-Cassegrain-Telescope/pc/1/c/14/9820.uts?sortByColumnName=SortByPriceAscending

1300mm f/12.7:

http://www.telescope.com/mobileProduct/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Orion-Apex-102mm-Maksutov-Cassegrain-Telescope/pc/1/c/14/9823.uts?sortByColumnName=SortByPriceAscending

1540mm f/12.1:

http://www.telescope.com/mobileProduct/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Orion-Apex-127mm-Maksutov-Cassegrain-Telescope/pc/1/c/14/9825.uts?sortByColumnName=SortByPriceAscending


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2014)

You really need a longer lens than 400mm. Adding TC's is not the best way, but it gets reasonable shots.

You do not need a expensive lens, I had a old Tokina 400mm that took reasonably sharp images.
A really stable tripod is pretty critical, even the best lens takes crappy images when it is vibrating. Use a weight on the under hook, sandbag the legs, do not raise the center column, and hold your breath. Also use a time delay to let the camera settle down after the mirror raises, or, use live view. Bracket your exposures too.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jul 6, 2014)

I had good luck with a Canon FD 400mm f4.5 and Vivitar 2x TC. These were taken with a Sony Nex 6 though.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosbyharold/14353680291/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosbyharold/14157111724/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosbyharold/13948320339/

I actually am selling it now to fund purchasing an EF-M 11-22mm.


----------



## jrista (Jul 6, 2014)

Zv said:


> How about one of these stuck on an EOS M? That should give me 1280mm.
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00KXMHBXY/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=36YFE91EPADLO&coliid=I3UGJ5SGRPAHD9&psc=1



It ultimately depends on what your goals are. Long focal length is certainly important, and I think around 800mm is a good place to start for shooting the moon with APS-C.

There is another factor, however. Fundamentally, resolving power is linked to the physical size of the aperture. This usually isn't as apparent in normal photography as it is in astrophotography, but when you start resolving the very fine detail that exists in objects in space, this fact begins to become very important.

Assuming you had an 800mm f/4 lens, 800mm f/5.6 lens, and 800mm f/8 lens. Most people's inclination would be to think, they are the same focal length, so they should be the same so long as I expose for longer with the f/5.6 and f/8 lenses. In terms of brightness of the object, that will be true...however the f/5.6 and f/8 lenses won't be resolving as fine a level of detail as the f/4 lens, and the f/8 won't resolve as fine a level as the f/5.6.

It isn't simply a matter of magnifying detail....it's maintaining your resolving power as you magnify it more. With the EF 600mm f/4 L II and a 1.4x TC, I have an f/5.6 lens. The reason my moon photos are so sharp and detailed is due to the fact that my combo maintains a high resolving power, thanks to a large aperture (remember, the entire surface area of the lens is gathering light for every single mathematical point on your subject...the more light gathered for each point, the more complete and refined those points will be when focused on your sensor).

If you just go with a 1250mm f/13.9 lens, the moon will be very large, but you won't actually be resolving more detail than say an 800mm f/8 lens. The 1540mm f/12.1 lens is actually going to be a better option than the 1250mm f/13.9 lens...it has a much larger physical aperture: 127mm vs. 89mm...a 127mm aperture is actually very nice...close to the 600mm f/4, and it would be my top recommendation from the list of telescopes offered by Lee Jay. A 1600mm f/12 optic is going to be a powerhouse for resolving moon detail....not to mention you could do some amazing planetary imaging with that and a barlow lens as well (at 4800mm with a 3x barlow, a simple web cam or something like the QHY5L-II color planetary camera, some video imaging software (I think the QHY5L-II comes with some software) and a tool like RegiStax, you could create AMAZING planetary images, as well as some awesome close-ups of the moon itself.)


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 6, 2014)

Just because a lens is faster for a given focal length doesn't mean it has more resolving power. It does mean it has more potential resolving power due to larger aperture but aberrations do matter, and small fast mirror lenses are often much poorer optically than larger slower telescopes.


----------



## jrista (Jul 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Just because a lens is faster for a given focal length doesn't mean it has more resolving power. It does mean it has more potential resolving power due to larger aperture but aberrations do matter, and small fast mirror lenses are often much poorer optically than larger slower telescopes.



It's not necessarily that it's faster, really. Resolving power is related to the total surface area of the objective (i.e. primary mirror in a relector), which in turn ultimately determines the aperture (physical aperture, not relative aperture), which is ultimately responsible for gathering light. It's a simple test that can be done with stars. Point any two lenses at the same place in the night sky. Ultimately, regardless of which one is actually "faster", the one with the largest *physical *aperture will resolve more and smaller stars. F-ratio is simply that, a ratio...all it really does is describe in common terms how large the physical aperture of a lens will be for a given focal length. I wasn't trying to say that a "faster" 800mm lens is going to resolve more in my example with 800mm lenses...I was saying that the larger physical aperture is going to be gathering more information per point on any given subject, and thus it will have a higher resolving power.

This is almost exclusively true with telescopes, which are almost always diffraction limited. It is true that cheaper optics in a lens have the potential to introduce aberrations. However in the case of astrophotography, all that really means is instead of resolving a single crisp, bright point of light for a star, you resolve a bright point of light that has some kind of halo around it. Optical aberrations don't necessarily reduce resolution, they just muck with the quality of the image.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 6, 2014)

Okay...I'll say it again. Just because a lens has more aperture doesn't mean it has more resolving power because aberrations do matter.A large but poor device may resolve less than a smaller, better one. Obviously, if quality is comparable, aperture rules. That's why I sold my 127mm MCT for a 280mm aplantic SCT.


----------

