Quote:
Originally Posted by JA
OK based on all the above - a manual focus Nikkor 400mm f2.8 (or Canon equivalent, if you're that way inclined). Sure it's one telescope ( lens), yes, but used with various bodies and accessories (Teleconverters & focal reducers, etc -you didn't specify a limit there) it can give a wide range of focal lengths / performance and still maintain its speed, even relative to its telescopic brethren and is it's very sharp and portable.
1. On a FF body - 400mm f2.8
2. On a DX body - 600mm f4
3. On a FF body + a quality 2x TC- 800mm f5.6
4. On a DX body + a quality 2x TC - 1200mm f8
5. Or Adapted to a Mirrorless or Astrocam / CCD with focal reducer for even possibly faster / improved results
It takes 52mm filters which screw in to a holder that drops in to the lens body.The new AFs VR (you hardly need that!) versions are expensive with the most current at nearly $16,000 in Australia. The manual focus lens ranges from about $3000 - $5,000 used. Obviously the suggestion is focused on imaging, but you could always add a Nikon Lens Scope Converter or similiar gizmo for visual observation.
Best
JA
|
JA, not wishing to offend, but perhaps there should be another thread survey on camera lenses. The question raised was about telescopes, which have historically had optical advantages over camera lenses. I realise lenses have made great advances but i think many here would argue they are not telescopes.