Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo
Canon Optics are better  Takahashi uses Canon's Fluorite Elements
Used 400 F2.8 IS's are very much under the new price, and can be sold for the same price again when you bought it used. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny L
I have the 400 f2.8L IS USM, bought it new for 12K you can pick up ex-press ones for 5-6 K or you can hire from some places for 150-200 bucks a day
|
Firstly, I think this thread's wondered off topic because the OP (Andrew) specifically stated a budget of around $1500 not $5-6K and is looking at a relatively widefield lens.
My reply to Ingo was meant more as a
subtle hint to this fact than anything else but since the point is brought up - here is my point of view.
There are specific pieces of equipment for specific jobs, in this thread we are solely talking about astro imaging and since we're putting cost to one side let's compare the two glasses and let's say both the Canon 400mm F/2.8 IS and FSQ 106 can be bought for around $6K (AU).
Which would be better suited for
astro imaging ???
The FSQ 106 has a
4" Rotatable Focuser, has an imaging circle of
88mm, comes with a
10 to 1 focuser and is an
astrograph.
The Canon 400mm IS f/2.8 L is a super sharp wildlife/action/sports lens with one
Fluorite element that is designed for these purposes. The fact that it has IS means nothing since IS serves no purpose for astro imaging and since astro imaging places a huge demand on the optics we run the risk of CA showing up due to the IS mechanism not always being perfectly placed in the park position when turned off.
This of course doesn't really show up in terrestrial shots but in astro imaging it has an effect.
Now as you know I'm a big fan of the Canon super primes but if I was to specifically buy glass for astro imaging, my choice would be to get the right tool for the job.
If I wanted to use it for daytime shots as well then I'd consider the Canon lens only because I can use it for other purposes.
