What is your imaging aperture?

citivolus (Ric) · #1 17-03-2008, 02:34 AM

A quick note before we begin: Any scope listed in the poll is an example of that size. Other optics of the same class still qualify.

There is another poll asking what people have as their largest scope; what I would like to know is what sizes people are using, or intend to use, for imaging. I searched the archives and couldn't find a related poll, so I do hope that a few people are willing to provide their comments.

Please tick all that are relevant. If your size isn't listed, please round up/down to the nearest option or up if they are even. If you have a scope which is not your primary imaging scope, feel free to exclude it form your answer. For example, if you've hooked a camera up to it once just to see if it could handle it, but don't think you would seriously consider using it for imaging, feel free to not include it.

I'd also be curious for those willing to provide it to know the model of scope/lens being used. I'm after all types of imaging here - anything that you point at the stars and have a camera on the back end of, camera obscuras omitted

The other aperture poll shows there are a lot of 8, 10, and 12" dobs out there, but one thing I would like to know is how many people are, for example, imaging through an 80mm and saving their light bucket for visual use. I'd love to work f/ratio in here, but it would be ungainly to implement through a combined poll.

If you have camera lenses that you use or intend to use at least semi regularly, please include them as well. For example, a 200mm f/2.8 is ~72mm aperture.

The options include a sampling of scopes in that aperture range for ease of conversion by those who may not be so conversant in SI measure.

I've set the poll to four weeks so that it is a snapshot of current equipment and not a running tally, and also because polls float back to the top every time someone submits an entry.

Regards,
Eric

citivolus (Ric) · #2 17-03-2008, 02:46 AM

Comments on my answers:

Canon 50mm f/1.8 (28mm ø), 100mm f/2.8 (35mm ø), 70-200mm f/2.8 (72mm ø)
WO Megrez 90 f/6.9, 90mm ø
Celestron C9.25 f/10, 235mm ø

GazzMeister · #3 17-03-2008, 05:35 AM

Skywatcher Pro ED100,
Sometimes a 90-300mm,
(both with a Canon 400D)

I'm looking at getting a webcam to use with my 10" Dob as I'm not confident modifying the tube length at the moment.

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #4 17-03-2008, 07:27 AM

32mm (Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 - 32mm ø)
35mm (Nikkor 35mm f/2 - 35mm ø)
35mm (Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 - 35mm ø)
42mm (Nikkor 55-200mm f/4 -5.6 - 42mm ø)
42mm (Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 - 42mm ø)
60mm (Takahashi FS60-C - 60mm ø)
72mm (Nikkor 300ED f4.5 - 72mm ø)
80mm (Megrez 80SD - 80mm ø)
200mm (Celestron C8 @f/6.3 - 200mm ø)
305mm (12" LX200GPS @ f/6.3 - 305mm ø)

Geoff45 (Geoff) · #5 17-03-2008, 11:51 AM

I put down WO FLT 110, but I have the ZS110, which has the same optics, but a 2" focuser, rather than a 4" focuser.
Geoff

citivolus (Ric) · #6 17-03-2008, 03:03 PM

Thanks everyone who as taken the time to answer this. I'm really curious to see the breakdown of small vs large aperture imaging.

rogerg (Roger) · #7 17-03-2008, 04:24 PM

I have chosen items relating to their aperture, but they don't match up in brand. For example I chose 80mm as one option but I use an 80mm Megrez, not an ED80. I think it's a shame you put brands along size aperture, it makes the results a little ambiguous. Similarly when zooms are involved, perhaps it would've been better bracketting the camera lens end of the range (10 up to 40mm, 40 up to 60mm, 70 up to 200mm, etc).

Roger.

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #8 17-03-2008, 04:31 PM

Maybe he was just giving an example of each aperture split? I certainly don't use Canon gear so I used the same format to mention Nikon instead.

citivolus (Ric) · #9 17-03-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogerg

I have chosen items relating to their aperture, but they don't match up in brand. For example I chose 80mm as one option but I use an 80mm Megrez, not an ED80. I think it's a shame you put brands along size aperture, it makes the results a little ambiguous.

Hi Roger. I guess I could have skipped listing specific brands, but I just wanted to include one or two examples of scopes in that size range. Kind of redundant, I guess, as most models of OTA over about $200 in price include the size in the name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by citivolus

The options include a sampling of scopes in that aperture range for ease of conversion by those who may not be so conversant in SI measure.

Regards,
Eric

citivolus (Ric) · #10 17-03-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Maybe he was just giving an example of each aperture split? I certainly don't use Canon gear so I used the same format to mention Nikon instead.

Correct. I wanted to provide examples for two reasons, the second being so that if there were, for example, a large number of people responding they had a 106mm scope, others would have a quick reference point to start at when looking up scopes in that range. I didn't always pick the best or worst scope in each class, so I suppose it is still a bit ambiguous.

Regards,
Eric

rogerg (Roger) · #11 17-03-2008, 06:54 PM

fair enough

[1ponders] (Paul) · #12 17-03-2008, 10:50 PM

50mm f/1.8 (28mm)
135mm f/2 (67mm)

ED80 f/7.5 (80mm)

with WO II FR
120 achro f/10 (102mm)
LX200 8" f/10 (200mm)
C11 f/10 (280mm)

Ric · #13 17-03-2008, 11:24 PM

LX200R 12" f/10 (305mm)

Kal (Andrew) · #14 18-03-2008, 02:36 PM

I've imaged before though my ETX90 and Meade 10", but have now bought and 11" that will replace the 10". The large aperture imaging ranges from F3.3 through to F25 depending on wether it is for deep space through a focal reducer, or planetary through a powermate.

citivolus (Ric) · #15 18-03-2008, 09:58 PM

These are very interesting results so far. Thanks to everyone for taking the time. I'm guessing the strong 200mm results are primarily a mix of 8" SCTs, the Vixen VC200L, and f/4 newts.

Benny L (Ben) · #16 20-03-2008, 05:01 PM

all the glass in my sig gets used at one stage or another

Meade 10" LX200 Classic
Meade 14" Advanced "RC" OTA
Takahashi TSA-102
15mm f2.8 fisheye,
24mm f3.5L T-SE,
24mm f1.4L,
35mm f1.4L,
50mm f1.2L,
85mm f1.2L II,
135mm f2L,
400mm f2.8L IS
Nikkor 50mm f1.2
Micro-Nikkor 105mm f4
Nikkor 180mm f2.8
Komura 150mm f2.8
Schneider 240mm f5.6

citivolus (Ric) · #17 20-03-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny L

all the glass in my sig gets used at one stage or another

Wow, impressive glass.

citivolus (Ric) · #18 01-04-2008, 04:40 AM

Thanks to everyone who took the time to do this

omnivorr · #19 02-04-2008, 11:39 PM

...next question "what focal length- and for which target, planetry/DSO ?"

....and what exposure time? how does F/ratio fit in determining your choice of equipment for a particular target?
...just curious

Cheers citivolus, lots to learn here, thanks..
Russ

Ian Robinson · #20 12-04-2008, 03:34 PM

I use my 250mm newt for prime focus imaging.

I also have a nice Minolta XD5 SLR that has a range of lenses :
ie
a 200mm f1.4
a 200mm f3.5
a 75-150mm f3.5
a 28-75mm f3.5
a 50mm f1.2

I still have my original old 60mm refractor (1960s vintage that serves as a guidescope) that I have been known to image though too.

I had a Vixen FL104 until last year.

I made some bids on that Enhanced Celestron 8" f1.5 schmidt camera that was on Ebay not so long ago but missed out). Guess I wont see another one of them for a long time.

I've even messed about with film hypersensitisation , still have the Lumicon kit but have mislayed the gas bottle , guess I need to get a new gas bottle and more forming gas sometime.

I haven't yet migrated to the digital astrophotography.