File: IMG-20250731-WA0004.jpg (466.7 KB)

466.7 KB JPG

Shot with Canon 1300D and Tair 3s 300/4.5. The setup is cooler than the photo, the extra weight makes it a bit more stable in my opinion

File: IMG_6691.jpg (66.8 KB)

66.8 KB JPG

>>4461077
uploading from phone because i am not at my pc
recently got a new lense so it's very likely im gonna take more moon pics in the future

File: 000085370008.jpg (744.6 KB)

744.6 KB JPG

crappy eclipse shot I got on film still kinda like it
I think it was on a Zeiss 150 with the Rollei 6008

>>4461107
what happen to your camera!!?

>>4461123
I think if you used a less ISO the image wouldnt have noise? or give it some edit

>>4461132
wait for you to post it!

>>4461136
ON FILM!!!
I like this photo desu

>>4461140
Can't remember the ISO really, but part of those are prolly hot pixels due to me being a retard and snapping quite a few long exposure shots before this one. Will try again soon.

>>4461148
I usually dont do hot pixel removal and then i pixel peaked at one of my recent photos and immediately saw one.
Literally unseeable once it gets noticed

can you take photos of the moon with 50mm? i mean good photos. i know nothing bout this

>>4461199
fast shutter speed on manual which will lower the exposure, boost all that in post on like dark table and then crop it.
see how that comes out

File: Moon.jpg (157.1 KB)

157.1 KB JPG

Moon!

File: comp.jpg (824.8 KB)

824.8 KB JPG

>>4461077
on the night of the july 27 2018 eclipse

File: IMG_0478.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

from the lunar eclipse in march this year. 5dmkii with sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm

File: DSC_1894 copy.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

Not sure if thats just noise or stars in the back (I'm guessing noise)
ISO 2000
@700mm
f/11
1/4000th

File: 1755734145573656.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4461262

yikes let me fix those dust spots lmao

File: cvbg6.jpg (854.4 KB)

854.4 KB JPG

>>4461263
What I'm getting here

>>4461258
got damn burt, also yeah looks like stars

>>4461261

>>4461263
kino

>>4461209
I like this one! how did you capture this I mean there is a part in the dark but the details is still exists

>>4461199
for me it is the kitlens the camera was a gift from a kind person and I tried to shot it using a narrow aperture and high shutter speed also lowest iso then I edited it with lightroom crop and fix the color the moon was like enabled night shift XD

>>4461258
dont worry about it when I saw the photo I thought this is stars so anyone will think that ig

>>4461290
BROOO BAHAHAHAHAHA

>>4461290

Toppest fucking kek

File: IMG_0543.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4461077
From work, iPhone.

>>4461263
>>4461262
These are insanely good ty

>>4461290
Haha, wtf

>>4461343
it's ai anon. there's an ai troon in every thread thinking rainbow shits are edible.

File: 780_3548.jpg (744.1 KB)

744.1 KB JPG

>>4461343
Not that Anon, but...
The darkened part of the Moon is illuminated by the Earth. The bright part is lit by the Sun. As seen from the Moon, the Earth would look gibbous (more than half-lit). The thinner the crescent, the closer to the line from the Sun to the Earth, the fuller the Earth, the more "earthshine" lights up the Moon. Sailors used to guess coming weather - the brighter the earthshine, the cloudier the weather to the west, from where the prevailing winds come. Yeah, not very accurate, but you know.
Here's a hot I took of the crescent Moon on April 10, 2024. That's Jupiter next to the tree. If you zoom in you can see some of its moons!
The file is not quite original. Right off the camera, the file size exceeds /p/'s limit, so I shrunk it to quarter the size (half the original side dimensions of 6048 x 4024) but was able to keep the exif from the original.
This is the exif: Nikon D780, Nikon 18-120mm lens at 55mm, f/7.1, 10 seconds, ISO-100

Also, this guy is an idiot:
>>4461684

>>4461290
A tripfag posted the first actually good photo on pee. I kneel.

>>4462195
burt's cool

>>4462195

I see you weren't here for the Bassackwards days of photoshop, shit was fucking glorious.

File: _MG_0241.jpg (208 KB)

208 KB JPG

>>4461077

>>4462195
>best photo on a photography board is heavily shopped
Not surprised, really

>>4461138
leafs

>>4462261
>shooped
come on now nigga

File: IMG_7411.jpg (170.2 KB)

170.2 KB JPG

>>4461132
>>4461141
Here is it with the new lens
sorry for the wait

File: IMG_8577_August_Moon_Resize.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

Here is the best one I have taken so far. I still have room for improvement.
Rebel T6i, 100-400 II and the 2X III teleconverter.

>>4464392
that looks great, hell yeah

File: 2G5A7228.jpg (484.6 KB)

484.6 KB JPG

>>4461077

File: 2G5A7225.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

>>4464763

>>4464763
specs?

>>4464768
2x + 100-400 RF + R6MII
I'll pick up 200-800 for double the reach eventually.

>>4464770
>>4464763
this first one looks excellent
how much would the 200-800 cost?

>>4464771
nevermind i just looked it up.
I hope you somehow come across a suitcase full of cash

>>4464773
Its not that bad, I am talking about:
https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf200-800mm-f6-3-9-is-usm

>>4464776
NTA but I am dreaming of one of these on an R7 with the teleconverter.

Why yes this is my telescope that happens to take pictures.

>>4464925
Basically the top-tier birding setup of our time. If you can be fucked carrying it, it's honestly a feat of engineering.

>>4464930
I was thinking more for street photography.

File: IMG_9592.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

Canon 90D with Tamron 150-600

>>4465207
Hell yeah, i have the sigma 150-600

File: IMG_7841.jpg (224.7 KB)

224.7 KB JPG

>>4464142(me)
>>4461132(me)
here's one of the full moon

>>4465207
Nice

reee I missed the moon

>>4466266
good thing too, tomorrow is the last night of a big moon and it's gonna be next to neptune and saturn
you have the opportunity to put us all to shame
hope you find this information useful friend

>>4466266
It was the one to not miss, goddammit anon. I even indulged in doing some ICM during totality. Penumbral eclipse ended 26 mins ago here.

>>4466319
>I even indulged in doing some ICM during totality
Sure you did, nophoto

File: basketball moon.jpg (198.8 KB)

198.8 KB JPG

>>4466323
Here's the basketball Moon for the basketball pindos))

>>4461290
kek, yeah /p/ee is back

File: soyjaks moonpoint.jpg (17.4 KB)

17.4 KB JPG

Oh god look at it!
It is so RED
HOW DID IT GET SO MAGNIFICENTLY CRINSOM!
Moon coom!

File: image.jpg (630.8 KB)

630.8 KB JPG

>>4466426
>his moon is monochromatic
baka desu senpai

>>4466476
>not having a mono chromatic moon

File: 1739474808837075.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4466426
It really do be like that

File: P1020146.jpg (477.5 KB)

477.5 KB JPG

Lumix FZ82D

File: 20240315_210455-01.jpg (124 KB)

124 KB JPG

Sony a6000 and a massive lens adapted to it that is probably like 4000mm

File: DSC04131_1.jpg (401.5 KB)

401.5 KB JPG

>>4466388
I wasn't prepared for that day

File: 1726682635072796.jpg (714.9 KB)

714.9 KB JPG

>>4468257
>had a total lunar eclipse just a week ago
>I was busy the entire time
>Only came home when it ended and was able to snap this
Feels blyad man.

>>4468255
Looks more like 1000mm

>>4468292
It's 15-60x whatever that means, I guess I should have specified that uh. Zooming all the way in just looks like ass though

>>4468255
Awesome pic, man

File: DSC06269.jpg (421.1 KB)

421.1 KB JPG

a6000 w/ Vivitar 90-230mm

>>4467827
Is this Moscow?

>>4461258
I guarantee that's noise, not stars

Today was a full moon. The biggest I've seen in a while. I wanted to take a photo but my phone sucks.

File: Eclipse.jpg (770.8 KB)

770.8 KB JPG

>>4473198
But here's a photo of an eclipse that happened a while ago. In person it was more blue. I glimpsed it for a fraction of a second because I was scared of going blind or frying my eyes; though I heard it was safe to stare during totality.

File: DSC08882.jpg (718.8 KB)

718.8 KB JPG

a7rii with sigma 150-600mm @ 600mm + apsc crop ~900mm. + image crop

File: IMG_3044.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

Eos 600D wiv Sigma 70-300mm, Still learning how to use this camera.

File: cheese.jpg (88 KB)

88 KB JPG

D3400 & 55-200mm
>>4473198
it's the harvest moon

File: IMG_3838.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

from a couple years ago

File: IMG_3990.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

Canon PowerShot SX710HS

File: IMG_3955.jpg (879.7 KB)

879.7 KB JPG

>>4473487
Same

File: cob.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4466425

File: 1743658190145475.jpg (766.8 KB)

766.8 KB JPG

>>4472571
yeah

File: 1736900903015610.jpg (785.6 KB)

785.6 KB JPG

>>4473939
I also has this moon.

File: 1739250188531444.jpg (521.6 KB)

521.6 KB JPG

>>4473940
>is of having*
also this moon?

File: 1748848693367766.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

Also, you might be of thinking this is speck of shit on lens.
But no. Is luna.
Small luna also luna, da?
Is qualifies?
Is okay if no qualifies.
Love from Moscow.

File: DSC_4597.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

Next to zero effort crop of 300mm at recent eclipse

File: IMG_8201.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

Canon 90d
Tamron 100-400

>>4474408
Impressive. Very nice.

>>4473943
Damn, that's lowk beautiful

>>4474435
The power of reach, once again proving pixel pitch matters when it comes to reach. You couldn't take that image with an a7RIV and a 100-400...

>>4474938
Mind elaborating? Why would the image be less appealing on a higher red sensor?

>>4475055
Because of pixel density. The same size crop on the Sony is actually lower resolution. The Sony sensor is lower resolution in fact, if you look at it like it's film (line pairs per mm). You'd need a 470mm lens to produce the same resolution image on an a7RIV.

File: 193316573.jpg (6.7 KB)

6.7 KB JPG

I guess the moon is nice tonight

File: IMG-20250908-WA0184.jpg (82.3 KB)

82.3 KB JPG

A6700
Tamron 16 300
Handheld
Can t remeber the settings
But using lumy11 most prob
So iso 100
Ss 1/100
F11
No editing, sooc jpeg cropped

Tamron 18 300, sorry

>>4461290
lol 2007 4Chan is in the house

File: file.png (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB PNG

Waning crescent in its final stage shortly before sunrise from my balcony.

File: _DSC1133_3.jpg (218.2 KB)

218.2 KB JPG

>>4476344
>Tamron 18 300
Here's my take, but with α6000

File: _DSC1150.jpg (229.5 KB)

229.5 KB JPG

>>4480663
/2

File: moon 11-5-25.jpg (520.7 KB)

520.7 KB JPG

Hot off the presses; tonight's big hairy beaver supermoon or whatever.

File: stacked.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

Nikon Z7ii Nikkor 180-600mm 1.4x TC
840mm f/11 iso 64 ss 1/60 about 130 images stacked using 50% lucky imaging. First try at autostakkert. Overdid it on the slider tweaking in lightroom. I should have used a higher ss and taken off the UV filter to get it sharper.

File: IMG15597.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4480835

File: moonrise.jpg (702.1 KB)

702.1 KB JPG

cheesy moon tonight

File: IMG_8585_SuperMoon.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

yet another shot of the beaver moon. I am
>>4464392
this anon. same setup.

File: DSC_0019.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

Was gonna shoot this bastard rising over the lake but couldn't make it out of the office in time, fuck me.

File: _DSF6413.jpg (282.8 KB)

282.8 KB JPG

Fuji X-T4 // 500mm TTArtisan f6.3
1/60s
~f9 (it isn't registered in the EXIF, el cheapo very manual Chinese lens)
ISO160

File: 3F6A1846.jpg (763.9 KB)

763.9 KB JPG

Canon R6m2 100-400mm F5.6-8
1/600 200ISO f8

File: IMG_1636.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

Guess the body and the lens. I'm not doing this to be cleaver I'm just curious what people would guess.

>>4486212
an old point and shoot with 12x zoom, 600mm -720mm at the tele end

File: 000171690029.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

The one time Phoenix II looked ok

>>4486463
You have the focal length right, like 640 adjusted for the crop factor. it was a T6i with a 70's rebranded Tokina 400mm.

>>4477184
k i n o

File: MarsMoon(overLumen)Venus.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

Mars (left), waning crescent Moon (over Lumen Field, Seattle), Venus (up, right of Moon) rising Sept. 11, 2015.
Nikon D5200, kit 18-55mm at 55mm, f/8, 2sec, ISO-1000

>>4488213
Oops. Sept. 10, 2015.

File: IMG_20251208_012918.jpg (184.6 KB)

184.6 KB JPG

ZV-E10 + SEL55210 taken last week iirc, obviously cropped

File: moon.jpg (2.2 KB)

2.2 KB JPG

Best I can do with a Ricoh GR

File: 1741372481648809.jpg (40.1 KB)

40.1 KB JPG

I forgot this thread exists.
>>4472561
>a6000 w/ Vivitar 90-230mm
Same setup, found another pic I took a week or two before that previous one. Not as happy with this, feel like a lot of detail was lost and it's overexposed. I like the general vibe of it though.

>>4472561

Is that the Series 1 90-230 Flat-field?

There is a LOT of detail to be had in that lens if you stop it down, insane detail, I have one for my F3HP, it's basically a macro lens that zooms and it's made for ridiculous subject detail.

Play with it a little more, stop it down and use a tripod if you have to. That lens is a well-kept secret.

File: 1754581118914148.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4499285
Yeah, I use a tripod. It's unusable if freehanded.
>flat-field
How would I check? Serial number give any clues?

File: IMG_0857.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

Hey guys, retard here!

I'm using a Canon Rebel T7 and all my shots end up looking like this.

How do I fix?

>>4499383
Bracketing with manual shutter speed settings.

>>4499284
sweet, a c-17

>>4499384
Overexposed. With moon shots just keep the ISO at a minimum and shutter speed relatively high.
Camera is trying to expose 18% middle grey for the whole scene which includes the inky black sky = it's trying to find detail in the sky and overblowing the very bright moon.

File: IMGP0208.jpg (827.3 KB)

827.3 KB JPG

>>4499383
Illuminated part of Moon is a dark grey subject in bright sunlight. Full Moon is considerably brighter than half.
I don't recall what I used when last snapped moon years ago but I'd start from ISO100 1/400 f 5.6.

(Oct 4 2004, 16:33 at 68 N. Pentax Optio 43WR, ISO 50, f3.9 1/160, digital zoom 4)

>perfectly clear all night
>suddenly clouds 10 minutes before lunar eclipse

>>4499442
I haven't been able to see the moon all night.

>>4499442
Very patchy cloudcover here in Hawkes Bay NZ, but got a good 30 minutes of photography in totality, more clouds rolled through just now. Though with my 2010 DSLR's stock lens I barely got 40 pixels of moon width, and without a fancy mount I was only getting 5 second exposures before motion blur started kicking in. Was still fun, I'll sift through the photos in the morning.

File: 1752892276924192.jpg (174.1 KB)

174.1 KB JPG

I'm the poster with the Vivitar 90-230mm. I'm actually kinda happy with this pic, especially when you consider that it's an ancient consumer-grade telezoom lens built in the same year as the first Moon landing.

File: 1763025108219787.jpg (99.9 KB)

99.9 KB JPG

Pentax 50mm 1.4
My 270 zoom was way too soft

>>4499447
It was clear but windy in auckland. Hands are cold from being outside

>>4499382

That's not the flat-field model, it would say Series 1 on the front.

Vivtar made a tele-macro lens in the 90-230 range, or maybe 90-180 I can't remember, just search "flat-field Series 1"

They're pretty cheap and yield excellent results.

>>4499542
I hadn't heard about the Series 1 range prior to your posts so I did a bit of research and I don't think they ever did a Series 1 variant of the 90-230. It's definitely the 90-180 you must be thinking of.

Thanks for making me aware of the existence of the Series 1 lenses, I'll have to keep an eye out for them in future. There's always a few people each month selling their dead boomer grandpa's old photography gear on Marketplace for the equivalent of a slab of beer, most of it's trash but there's a few diamonds to be found and I imagine sooner or later I'll spot one of these lenses in a listing.

File: A1DA01D0-8FBC-480B-A684-D6C134175F73.jpg (70.7 KB)

70.7 KB JPG

>>4499447
Yeah not brilliant. Kinda want to make a sidereal mount using an arduino and stepper motor now, seems like it’s not too difficult of a project, but getting it positioned properly seems like it could be a hassle.
I’d also want some sort of exposure meter that works in very low light levels, though maybe a simple guide/calculator tool would be sufficient. Years ago I attempted to disassemble my cheap remote flash button and add a digitally controllable timer for long exposures, but at some point I gave up and assembled it again.

>>4499453
Chilly here, 10C days when it was over 20C just a few days ago. But I had my long johns on.

Were you anywhere close to the city centre? I tried some long exposure star photography in the Auckland Domain 7 years ago when I was at uni there, but I never really got any worthwhile results. Too impatient, too cold, and definitely a lot of light pollution. Havelock North is definitely less bad, but it would be much better 5km out or more.

>>4499561
Wait since when is my camera configured to save as .jpeg??? I bet it reset, it kept wanting me to set the time so the clock battery must have died and taken other settings with it.

File: 1766058070995862.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4499561
Nowhere near the center, I'm south but not as far as Pukekohe, I wonder if you can get some decent dark skies in the rural areas around there. I always see a hell of alot of light pollution coming from the north when I look out the window at night. If you have an opportunity to go to the dark sky reserve near Lake Tekapo, it's well worth it. Pic related from 2022; even though I had even less of an idea of what I was doing then than I do now, it's quite stunning.
25s f/4 +1 EV can't remember ISO, no other edits

File: WhatsApp Image 2026-03-01 at 19.14.40.jpg (141.8 KB)

141.8 KB JPG

sony a6700
tamron 18 300
ss1/100
f11
iso 100
handheld
sooc jpeg cropped only the moon
a little sharpness edit in win 10 photo editor

File: WhatsApp Image 2026-01-27 at 19.15.49.jpg (893.6 KB)

893.6 KB JPG

>>4499567
a6700
sigma 16mm
ss10s
f1.8
iso 2000
10 images stacked in sequator+1 dark frame
sony offical preset for milkyway in lrc

>>4499567
Yeah the south side of Te Mata Peak should be pretty dark. My co-worker got some good star shots at Waimarama beach. But none as good as what you’ve taken there, wow that’s nice. 25s is getting long, but I guess zoomed out like that it doesn’t make much of a difference. I should get into the camera math and calculate what exposure times result in 1 pixel of star blur at different zooms.

File: bearing.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>4499613
>Nikon D3100, DX sensor with F-mount
>4608 x 3072 pixel sensor for 14.2MP
>has stock 18-55mm lens
>lunar day = 89,428.3 seconds
>at 55mm, moon takes up 49 pixels across
>at 18mm, moon takes up 17 pixels across
>moon size = 31 arcminutes = 31/(60*360) = 0.00143519 of a full rotation
>if the moon = 49 pixels, then 1 pixel is 29.2895E-6 rotations, then it takes 2.62 seconds to blur through a single pixel
>if the moon = 17 pixels, then 1 pixel is 84.4227E-6 rotations, then it takes 7.55 seconds to blur through a single pixel
Interesting, guess I was baking it a bit long with 5s. Which implies that with any decent telephoto lens, and with any halfway modern image sensor, your exposures are going to be decently short if you want to avoid blurring pixels, and so getting enough light becomes an issue. So the extra-wide aperture lenses would start to make sense, and it also explains all the image stacking I'm seeing here because nobody was autistic enough to make a motorised sidereal mount.

If I want to make a motorised sidereal mount capable of even my current lens, it would need to remain stable to within 38 arc-seconds. A common 1.8 degree stepper motor with a 256-microstepping driver gets me to 25 arc-seconds direct-drive, it could be lower using a belt reduction or a 0.9 degree stepper. Though using some magnets and a magnetic encoder like Diffraction Limited does in his XYZ micro-manipulator seems like it would be a cheap way to make it far finer, enough for even hundreds of mega-pixels. It's the motors that are the expensive part. I wouldn't normally bother with this sort of side-project, but it is a nice intermediary step in my existing precision motor driving journey, so it might be worth $100USD. I hope a lazy susan bearing is good enough.

File: DSCF0777.jpg (793 KB)

793 KB JPG

The most recent eclipse a few days ago. Fuji XH2
XF100-400mm lens with a teleconverter

>>4461265
Kino!

>>4499451
one of the best ITT, thanks anon.

>>4499654
>worms on the moon
>all that posterization and softness
>color shifts
>apparent focus miss (green border = OOF CA)
Worms on the moon aside $2k camera and you couldnt even turn the jpeg compression down and zoom in to manually focus bruv?

How is this >>4499654
Only as detailed as this >>4499450

>>4499707
>>4499709
It's a good example of gear only being as good as the person using it

>>4499729
To be fair, even with a talented photographer, a 40mp fuji is only about as good as a canon 5dIII (but with worms instead of shadow banding)

Worms on the moon lol

File: DSC00825.jpg (90.3 KB)

90.3 KB JPG

>>4499800
what are this worms you are talking about?
trying to figure them out in the pic

>>4499654
>Fuji XH2 $2,299.00
>XF100-400mm lens $2,249.00
>teleconverter $499.00


to take this photo?
the fuck?

maybe the teleconverter is shit and ruining your photos, try without it and see. you must have a defective unit. camera lens or teleconverter
even with autofocus on the moon i get sharper images than yours and all my 3 lenses combined cost les then yours (all new)

>>4499959
The noise pattern of xtrans sensors looks like a bunch of little worms. Very apparent in >>4499654. If you can't see it then you should see an optomertrist.

File: Screenshot 2026-03-07 124829.png (860 KB)

860 KB PNG

>>4499967
you mean this?

>>4499552

The older Series 1 manual focus stuff is better, after a while they threw Series 1 on everything they had like what BMW did with the M brand.

I have a few, the 90-180, 35-85, 70-210/3.5, and 90 macro. They are very well made and the optics are superb.

The exception is the 100-400 AF they made that was Series 1, with a small red ring on the end, that was actually pretty good. I had one if you bring it down to f/8 you would never know, it can hang with my Canon L lenses and Nikon ED. Almost no color fringing if any at all, very sharp, good detail and contrast.

File: IMG_8192 c.jpg (298.5 KB)

298.5 KB JPG

A Dec 4 2014 snap, edited today
EOS 600D + 400mm vintage potato masher. This one ISO400 and less blurry than ISO 100 ones which were less grainy...

I have a 300mm on aspc lens. 450mm equivalent on ff
Any vintage cheap lenses with more reach and good sharpness for moon shots?
I m not totally happy with 450mm, i need more

>>4500132
As far as I know cheap telephotos tend to be either 50's-60's tech potato mashers, mirror lenses or ludicrous toy zooms. If you want cheap and a bit sharper than a $30 vintage potato masher, modern Samgyang (or rebrands) 500mm f6.3 mirror lens should be better than any vintage of same or less price. It's quite fiddly to use and not as sharp or contrasty as a $1000+ tele of course. (There's a 800mm f8 version too. I've not seen any convincingly good photos taken with it.)
Mount and seeing matters a lot. Even the best lens will no give a good moon snap through blurry turbulence with camera on a wobbly tripod.

>>4500138
The thing is i want a lens only to get goon moon shots. Most probably all the cheap ones are manual focus so not usable for anything moving. Other than moon shots with or without foreground will not use so i don t want to throw a lot of money at something i ll barley use
Tt artisans 500 6.3 cames up but is 450€ new compared to 360$ in us. Lol

>>4500140
I m trying to get something in the 100€ range

>>4500141
TC, provided your 300mm has sharpness to spare.

>>4500173
It doesn t unfortunately
>>4499959
>>4499585
>>4476344
These are mine

>>4500141
Reach, sharp, cheap, pick two.

>>4500191
Those look like you could still get more details out of it. I'm not sure there's a cheap TC that can work with that though.

>>4500141
>>4500195
at that point he would get a used smol maksutov

>>4500214
Camera lenses based on Maksutov design do exist too. Dunno if any better or cheaper than the usual mirror lens.

>>4500140
>goon moon shots
Anon pls, this is a blue board

File: IMG-20260401-WA0007.jpg (128.4 KB)

128.4 KB JPG

>>4503155
The crop from the full res picture

File: IMG_2591.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

Supermoon on a cold setember night in 2024. I remember the eerie halloween vibe walking up a forest hill to take this picture

File: 1000030938.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4464142
I think that's me 200 days ago, I can't remember. Idk why the photo looks so bad though, this one is better.

>>450333
What lens nigger?

>>4503417

You forgot the 0 retard

It's a Vivitar 420-800mm f/8.3 lens, got it for like 70 bucks and had to buy a ~10 dollar adapter cause it's a T mount.

Lens is what you pay for,
no auto focus, which is actually cancer to use when zoomed in at 800mm cause the zoom dial is on the end of the lens.
You get green/purple chromatic aberration but taking moon pics I can just grayscale it.

Pretty cheap way to take nice pictures of the moon imo

File: Pre-comp_1_0-16-49-11.jpg (230 KB)

230 KB JPG

still frame from a Panasonic HVX 200

File: 20260409_123240.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

Sony zve10. 55-210 4.5-6.3 OSS zoomed in all the way.

>durr how come you can't see the stars too durr

>>4504215
The softening from the morning light is underrated IMO. Good pic.