Super Telephoto lenses and long exposure (technique discussion)

[cirwin2010]

Hopefully I am posting this in the right forum.

I mainly focus on landscape and architecture photography using black and white film, but sometimes you just want reach and old analog equipment sometimes just doesn't cut it. I decided to purchase a long lens for my digital camera and I decided to double down on getting a looooong lens. So I bought the Fuji 150-600mm 5.6-8.0 lens for my Fuji XT-5 camera about 18 months ago... and holy molly this thing can easily help me get those pictures of lighthouses a mile of the coast.

It's a beautiful lens, but as I've come to discover, it is not easy to use for landscape. First of all image quality can really take a nose dive when punching through a lot of atmosphere, especially over water. Ao yeah the f/8 maximum aperture is technically diffraction limited, but I get atmosphere limited far sooner. But not too much you can do about without shooting in exclusively in the red wavelength. Achieving adequate dof can also be an issue. I can focus on something a mile away and the moon behind it could still be slightly out of focus. Another thing you just gotta make the best of.


My biggest pain point is actually with long exposures and vibration. I have two tripods, a Benro Mammoth carbon fiber tripod and a massive Induro CT505. Even with the rock solid Induro CT505 (which can probably hold up a house), vibration is still an issue. The shortest exposure I've been able to get a sharp shot on is probably about 1/4" after several attempts. I like to shoot during dawn and dusk hours for the lighting I like for hence why this is a problem for me. I know the dark maximum aperture of this lens isn't doing me any favors of course, but I was wondering if anyone had any secret techniques I'm missing out on? My "solution" so far is to raise the iso of the camera to a level where my minimum exposure is 1/4" and just take a lot of shots and hope one is pretty sharp. This is great and all, but sometimes working at iso 1600+ in low lighting can leave some course grit. I also leave the IS on per the instruction manual and this does seem to help vs turning it off. And of course I use the 2" timer so my hand isn't actively moving the camera.

I know there is a lot of nice de-noise software out there such as DXO Pure Raw, but when I tried that on an image with a lot of flat texture it turned the image into a watercolor painting so I'm trying to fix the issue in camera first if possible.

 

[xkaes]

I've used much longer lenses with film cameras for years, so digital cameras are no panacea. The options to try vary depending on what you have. You've got the tripod, but when I've used a 800mm f8 Yashica "beast", I used one tripod for the camera body, and another for the lens (which has a tripod socket as well). I also use a cable release, and mirror lock-up. With digitals that have anti-shake -- turn it off -- as you mentioned. If the setup is stable the shutter speed should not be a big deal. Try using the B setting and a piece of black paper in front of the lens as a shutter to remove the camera as a suspect.

Are you sure that the "motion" you are seeing is not "atmospheric blur". Try some test shots in bright conditions of a contrasty subject (Ex. Street sign) at the end of a "football field". Start with a FAST shutter speed and slow it down and see when the motion shows up!

FYI, analog "cuts it" fine.

 

[F4U]

When you go past "the extreme", then there's nothing you can do but take what you get and be happy enough. How many lighthouses do you have around whee you live?

 

[cirwin2010]

I've used much longer lenses with film cameras for years, so digital cameras are no panacea. The options to try vary depending on what you have. You've got the tripod, but when I've used a 800mm f8 Yashica "beast", I used one tripod for the camera body, and another for the lens (which has a tripod socket as well). I also use a cable release, and mirror lock-up. With digitals that have anti-shake -- turn it off -- as you mentioned. If the setup is stable the shutter speed should not be a big deal. Try using the B setting and a piece of black paper in front of the lens as a shutter to remove the camera as a suspect.

Are you sure that the "motion" you are seeing is not "atmospheric blur". Try some test shots in bright conditions of a contrasty subject (Ex. Street sign) at the end of a "football field". Start with a FAST shutter speed and slow it down and see when the motion shows up!

FYI, analog "cuts it" fineI

I'm certain that the blur I'm seeing is not atmospheric blur. I've tested the lens at shorter distances to rule that out. I also shoot in electronic shutter mode so shutter slap should be a non factor. The vibration is mostly from wind I think.

 

[xkaes]

Do you get SHARP images in bright conditions with the same f-stop but shorter speeds?

 

[MattKing]

I'm certain that the blur I'm seeing is not atmospheric blur. I've tested the lens at shorter distances to rule that out.

This doesn't make sense to me. Atmospheric blur arises because of the longer distances - the stuff that is in the intervening air, plus all the movement in it as well.

 

[loccdor]

To rule out the impact of the tripod you could try shooting the camera at something around infinity while placing it on top of something very sturdy like a stone wall.

1/4 second is really pushing it for such a long lens unless you have an extremely stable setup.

Have you tried using the 10 second timer or a remote switch? Does the Fuji have something like a 16X center zoom in live view so you can observe the vibration directly? That's handy on my Pentax K-1 when I'm digitizing film with a copystand, I can actually see my heartbeat pulsing the image if my foot is on the wrong part of the floor and transmitting up through the desk.

 

[Paul Howell]

The longest lens I shoot with on my Digital Sony A mounts is 600, sometimes with a 1.4 tele converter. Sony A mount has VR built in, I use a Quick Grip Husky tripod and the longest exposure I can go without some level of vibration is 1/15. If shooting film with the same lens and tripod with a Minolta 9, not slower than 1/60th. With digital I bump the ISO up to 1600 or set the shutter to the lowest I dare, the aperture I want and let the ISO go on auto and hope for the best. With a long lens at any distance atomsperhic distortion, heated air, dust, pollution all take a toll on shaprness. I consdier the 600 to a lens of last resort, more often then not its a 300 or 400.

 

[Frank53]

With the Olympus version of the same lens on my om-1 I can shoot hand hold thanks to the image stabilization in lens and body working together. Atmospheric blur can be a problem even with this combination. Not much to do about that.

 

[xkaes]

Here's what Gart Friedman has to say regarding the Sony SteadyShot in his Sony 900/850 book:

 

[Paul Howell]

Here's what Gart Friedman has to say regarding the Sony SteadyShot in his Sony 900/850 book:


View attachment 397837

Thanks, I must have read that but just forgot. Need to see if remain true for the A77II and A99II. My Quick Set Husky is pretty solid. but when using a monopod I will keep steady shot on.

 

[Arthurwg]

I've read that VR is best in the lens, not in the camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

That is what I understand and why Sony dropped VR from the body and put in the lens with E mount, but as I understand it Nikon uses in the body VR with their Z mount.

 

[xkaes]

I've also read that if IS in ON in the body and ON in the lens at the same time, bad things can happen. Not a problem for me -- even if there is some truth to it

 

[Petrochemist]

I've also read that if IS in ON in the body and ON in the lens at the same time, bad things can happen. Not a problem for me -- even if there is some truth to it

That depends on the system. My Pentax has in body shake reduction & I have one lens for it the has OS, but neither is aware of the other, so both on is much the same as neither on. Any movement is canceled by one & then introduced in the opposite direction by the other.
More modern systems can have the two systems working together to give better stabilization than either along. I think Olympus was the first to offer a dual stabilization system, though others have since followed.

 

[Petrochemist]

I have several lens that are longer than 500mm, yes atmospheric turbulence tends to spoil distant shots, but it's not too bad over moderate distance
This was taken years ago with a 1000-4000mm manual focus zoom (only practical at 1000mm where it's only f/16) on an APSC body
OCR Powerboats by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

Another 1000mm shot with a fast f/8.7 lens handheld, this time on MFT
Helios 1000 f/8.7 scope handheld 3 adj usm by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

I know neither are truely sharp, but they're not totally unusable

This last one uses AF, my 150-500 at the long end (handheld)
IMGP5678small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

 

[Frank53]

I've also read that if IS in ON in the body and ON in the lens at the same time, bad things can happen. Not a problem for me -- even if there is some truth to it

It’s not with Olympus, it’s one of their strong points. When you switch on IS on the lens, it automatically switches on IS in the body.
on the other hand, using IS while the camera is on a tripod, seems to be a bad idea.

 

[Petrochemist]

I have several lens that are longer than 500mm, yes atmospheric turbulence tends to spoil distant shots, but it's not too bad over moderate distance

Dinner's made it too late to edit - I was going to add :
I don't think I've done much in the way of long exposures with my long lenses, The longest I could find quickly was the moon at 0.8s with a 900mm equivalent at the end of a lunar eclipse. It's definitely not sharp but the moons movement is significant at such focal lengths...

 

[xkaes]

That depends on the system. My Pentax has in body shake reduction & I have one lens for it the has OS, but neither is aware of the other, so both on is much the same as neither on. Any movement is canceled by one & then introduced in the opposite direction by the other.
More modern systems can have the two systems working together to give better stabilization than either along. I think Olympus was the first to offer a dual stabilization system, though others have since followed.

Thanks for clarifying that -- even though it's irrelevant to me, it's probably useful to others. I'm glad that my cameras have IS in the body since I use a lot of manual focus lenses -- no IS in sight. This is especially true for my LONG lenses. My longest telephoto lens is a NON-IS 600mm, and passed that they are all CATS.

 

[Petrochemist]

Thanks for clarifying that -- even though it's irrelevant to me, it's probably useful to others. I'm glad that my cameras have IS in the body since I use a lot of manual focus lenses -- no IS in sight. This is especially true for my LONG lenses. My longest telephoto lens is a NON-IS 600mm, and passed that they are all CATS.

No problem
None of my lenses beyond 500mm have IS & less than 1% of my lenses in total have it, but then only 6 of my cameras have in body stabilization. My 150-500 is my only lens with IS that mounts naively on one of my bodies with IS
None of my cameras (or AFAIK lenses) support dual stabilization, but all my cameras were released at least 10 years ago now, predating the introduction of dual stabilization (which wikipedia lists as July 2015, in the Panasonic GX8. Olympus didn't have their version till 2016, though I gather the OM version is better)

I certainly find body stab preferable in general. It's nice to be able to have 100 year old lenses stabilized
Lens based IS can have a benefit with long lenses on a DSLR, the viewfinder image can jump around considerably otherwise.

No doubt I'd find dual IS useful occasionally but not enough to but yet another body...