night photograpy

[jira]

<p>Days are really short and the only chance to do photography for me are night

cityscape. This is of course a technical challenge and I wonder what lense(s)

from the FD lineup do the best job at handling those ugly street lights?</p>

<p>Recently I did a small test. I shot the same scene using the 35/2 and the 28-85/4

zoom. You can see the results attached. Both were taken at 5,6.</p>

 

Regards,

Jiri

[jira]

the other photo

[w.smith]

Another lens will cost you a lot, but gain you very little, Jiri. Since your problem is contrast,

you may want to consider HDRI, High Dynamic Range Imaging. You will need a tripod,

though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI

[awahlster]

Or simply capture photo's that do not have the street lights in them. you might also try a polarizer of course that would also lenghten your time. but it would help.

[trw]

I like the 50/1.4 for night photography.

[markus maurer]

I would try to underexposure for 2 stops

[gregory_nicholson]

Try shooting wide-open to minimize the star shaped highlights caused by the lens's diaphragm blades. Your 35 f/2 is very good at f/2. Other lower priced FD lenses (new mount) that I personally know of and are very good wide open include; 24 f/2, 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 50 f/3.5, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8, 100 f/4, 135 f/2, 135 f/2.5, 200 f/4. Of course the L series lenses are designed to be excellent wide open such as the 24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L and 300 f/2.8L.

[pvp]

If it's the stars around the lights that are the problem, Gregory is right: the only solution to that is to shoot wide open. The stars are caused by diffraction where the aperture blades meet at an angle; as you stop down the aperture goes from round (usually) to a polygon determined by the number of blades in the aperture. The resulting stars will have twice as many rays as the blade count.

[jira]

<p>Thanks for all the answers. I'll experiment with shooting wide open.</p>

 

<p>One think that particularly stroke me was how pronounced the star effect of 35/2 was when compared to the zoom lens. Not only has it more rays but they are also _much_ longer. Is it because the prime lens has more blades?</p>

[gregory_nicholson]

My guess is; at f/5.6 the zoom is stopped down one f/stop, while the prime 35 is stopped down three stops. Stopped down one stop shows only a small fraction of the aperture blades. Stopped down three stops shows half the aperture blade. This may be more obvious and cause the highlights to be larger. Maybe?

[jira]

It makes sense, Gregory.