chris gunn

Really nice! I don't remember it, it should be more popular here.

The 85 is a giant at 82mm diameter. The equivalent for 135 would be huge at ~102mm! It's easier as you go longer though. Maybe the same size of 82mm instead of the A*'s 75mm would be fine.

Thanks, but an impressive composite I'd like to try is this one: https://twitter.com/AJamesMcCarthy/status/1590099869066493953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E15900998690664939 ...

I had to search this issue.  Only wide open. Yup, still very useful!

Just the first half, as I managed to fill my 128gb card.

Great detail, that's a sharp lens!

Better than the Pioneer probes! How long before you reach Voyager levels?

Using a A*600/5.6 Just the first half, I managed to run out of SD card.

Looks professional!

1/1000s This is sharpened, though it didn't need it. Processed with Rawtherapee. Defringed for Green, and I forget what else. Impressive lens, and better for bird photography than I had assumed. Th ...

That's extreme quality in fine detail! Congrats

Of course the 135 is downsized a lot? I don't understand "4.8mju scale"

Popular question! I wanted to see the biggest difference side by side.

The A*135/1.8 pic was also in the best conditions. What I notice is the number of stars you can see. I suppose the 24mm shows the brightest stars.

That's a whole lot of detail!

Spectacular!

I have this comparison handy: 24 : 135 : 35 : 50 Not exactly what you asked for.

I hear ya!

Thanks, I've been using 85mm recently. Nice dog and portrait!