Lens advice for moon photography

[Chefgage]

Hello all. I will paint the scene. I was looking out the window the other night and between the house and tree across the road was the biggest orange moon i have seen for quite a while. I was low down in the horizon positioned nicely between the house and tree. I thought to myself this would make a loverly picture ?. Only problem is that i have only got a EF-S 18-55mm f3.5 - 5.6 lens, which is fitted to a Canon200d.

Obviously taking this photo opertunity with this lens would present just a small disc and not what i was actually seeing. So my question is what type/size lens would i need so that what i see with my eyes i would see in the photograph i would take. 

Thanks.

[jgs001]

That's a difficult one to answer... Typically, around the 50mm mark on a full frame (35mm on a crop sensor) is considered to be about the same as you're eye sees. I presume though you wanted to get closed than that. You could look at the EFS55-250, that would give you a closed view, and you would be able to get some detail on the moons surface.

[Cornelius Varley]

As a rough guide 100mm of focal length equates to 1mm diameter disc on the sensor.

[Chefgage]

31 minutes ago, jgs001 said:

That's a difficult one to answer... Typically, around the 50mm mark on a full frame (35mm on a crop sensor) is considered to be about the same as you're eye sees. I presume though you wanted to get closed than that. You could look at the EFS55-250, that would give you a closed view, and you would be able to get some detail on the moons surface.

I thought about the same with regards the 50mm mark being what your eyes see. I did take a quick photo but that did not represent what i could see with regards the moon size. It was a lot smaller.

I am not after getting closer (i have my 200p newtonian telescope if i want to do that, and have done). Its just that when i take a photo of the moon it appears a lot smaller than what i can see with my eye.

[jgs001]

The 55-250 isn't going to get you that close... as you say, for close up use the newt. But, the 55-250 may allow you to capture a better framing of the moon with the scenario, and given the larger size on the sensor that the higher zoom will give you, will produce some detail.

[Chefgage]

I have been having a read and from what i can gather the 'large moon' i am seeing is more of an optical illusion and not something that will be photographed at the same apparent size. Is this the correct understading. I suppose i could take two photos, one of the moon through a larger lens (200mm?) and one of the forground through a 55mm lense and then photoshop them together. Or is there a better way?

[Chefgage]

5 minutes ago, jgs001 said:

The 55-250 isn't going to get you that close... as you say, for close up use the newt. But, the 55-250 may allow you to capture a better framing of the moon with the scenario, and given the larger size on the sensor that the higher zoom will give you, will produce some detail.

Thanks. It all goes back to trying to take a picture of that nice looking full moon through a smart phone. That nice sized moon ends up being a tiny dot in a smart phone camera picture. It is slightly better when i try with my 18-55mm dslr lens on a canon 200d set at 55mm but still not the same? It appears very small. Is it a case of take the picture with the 55mm lens then crop to the size i want?

[jgs001]

that is indeed an option, but you won't really have the detail doing that, if you're trying to get any surface detail... best I can offer, try it, and see what it looks like.

As for the illusion that the moon appears larger, that is true, and it's a deception, that if I recall correctly, your brain plays as putting the moon near the horizon allows you to get a sense of scale with the surroundings... I'm not aware of a method of being able to do what you're looking for any other way, I'd suggest trying to ensure you keep the same exposure settings, and do a gentle photoshoppery... If you really wanted a very detailed moon, you could grab a shot with the newt, and use that with the landscape... with some moon resizing.

[Chefgage]

7 minutes ago, jgs001 said:

that is indeed an option, but you won't really have the detail doing that, if you're trying to get any surface detail... best I can offer, try it, and see what it looks like.

As for the illusion that the moon appears larger, that is true, and it's a deception, that if I recall correctly, your brain plays as putting the moon near the horizon allows you to get a sense of scale with the surroundings... I'm not aware of a method of being able to do what you're looking for any other way, I'd suggest trying to ensure you keep the same exposure settings, and do a gentle photoshoppery... If you really wanted a very detailed moon, you could grab a shot with the newt, and use that with the landscape... with some moon resizing.

Thanks for that. I am not so much after lots of detail but more to understand how to get the sizing correct. I will give you an example. This is a photo that looks similar to what i was seeing from my back garden (moon not as orange). Whan i tried to take a similar shot using my 18-55mm set at 55mm the resulting moon size appeared a lot smaller against the forground than it looked with my naked eye against the forground. Unfortunitly i do not have my photo any more as i deleted it.

Appologies to the person who took this for me using as an example here. 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I generally use my 100-400 L zoom for the moon on my crop-sensor cameras, but often crop the results as well. For real detail I end up using my C8, but that is a different ball game altogether.

 

[Scooot]

3 hours ago, Chefgage said:

Thanks for that. I am not so much after lots of detail but more to understand how to get the sizing correct. I will give you an example. This is a photo that looks similar to what i was seeing from my back garden (moon not as orange). Whan i tried to take a similar shot using my 18-55mm set at 55mm the resulting moon size appeared a lot smaller against the forground than it looked with my naked eye against the forground. Unfortunitly i do not have my photo any more as i deleted it.

Appologies to the person who took this for me using as an example here. 

I think that’d be about 250mm with a crop sensor. In order to expose both the moon and foreground correctly you might need to take separate images and combine them, depending on how bright the moon is.

This is a 350mm shot of the full moon rising, but I had to use gradient merge to show both the moon and foreground.

[Chefgage]

3 hours ago, Scooot said:

I think that’d be about 250mm with a crop sensor. In order to expose both the moon and foreground correctly you might need to take separate images and combine them, depending on how bright the moon is.

This is a 350mm shot of the full moon rising, but I had to use gradient merge to show both the moon and foreground.

Thanks for sharing that. It certainly gives me more to go on. Time for a bit of reading to learn what gradient merging means ?

[Scooot]

1 hour ago, Chefgage said:

Thanks for sharing that. It certainly gives me more to go on. Time for a bit of reading to learn what gradient merging means ?

The Gradient tool in photoshop elements - If one image is layed on top of the other the tool allows you to gradually reveal the bottom layer. I’m not very experienced with photoshop there are probably other ways to achieve it.  

[Chefgage]

15 hours ago, Scooot said:

The Gradient tool in photoshop elements - If one image is layed on top of the other the tool allows you to gradually reveal the bottom layer. I’m not very experienced with photoshop there are probably other ways to achieve it.  

Thanks for explaining that. 

[Chefgage]

I have a 70mm - 300mm lens second hand coming in the post soon. So i can have a play and see how iy compares.

[tooth_dr]

I took a handheld shot of the moon the other day with a 180mm lens.  It's has some nice detail but it's pretty small even at that FL.  300mm should be a nice size.  Please post your results, it will be nice to see.

[Davey-T]

Just for reference this the whole frame 60Da / 300mm.

Dave

[Chefgage]

2 hours ago, Davey-T said:

Just for reference this the whole frame 60Da / 300mm.

Dave

Thanks for that.  

[Davey-T]

Same thing cropped.

Dave

[Chefgage]

Again, thanks. Just need this thunder/lightning/heavy rain to dissapear so i can get out. Typical, you buy some astro gear and the clouds roll in ?

[Chefgage]

1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

Same thing cropped.

Dave

Again, thanks. Just need this thunder/lightning/heavy rain to dissapear so i can get out. Typical, you buy some astro gear and the clouds roll in 

[tooth_dr]

Here is the 180mm shot, handheld the other evening, Nikon D800E

 

 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

My Moon lens cost me £10 from a Charity shop, an old Prinzgalaxy 400mm f6.3.

Exposure and stacking details here.

[Alien 13]

I would say that around 200 mm focal length gets you reasonable details with the advantage of capturing interesting foreground/clouds too.

This cropped image was shot with my Canon 70-200 f/4.

Alan

P.S. Another advantage for me is that Lunar shots like the one above can be done hand held..

 

[Chefgage]

22 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I would say that around 200 mm focal length gets you reasonable details with the advantage of capturing interesting foreground/clouds too.

This cropped image was shot with my Canon 70-200 f/4.

Alan

P.S. Another advantage for me is that Lunar shots like the one above can be done hand held..

 

Thank you for that. I am looking forward to picking my new lens up today (70-300mm). But as usual to cloud situation for tonight does not look favourable.

On 25/04/2019 at 16:54, Davey-T said:

Same thing cropped.

Dave

Again, thanks. Just need this thunder/lightning/heavy rain to dissapear so i can get out. Typical, you buy some astro gear and the clouds roll in