having just recently bought my first canon - why is the most useful lens for taking astro shots at the medium end..i am thinking between 50mm(which is a common size for widefields) & 500mm - where most refractors start to kick in
i find it strange the 200mm canon prime goes for apparently less than the 70-200mm..is the zoom that good?
having just recently bought my first canon - why is the most useful lens for taking astro shots at the medium end..i am thinking between 50mm(which is a common size for widefields) & 500mm - where most refractors start to kick in
i find it strange the 200mm canon prime goes for apparently less than the 70-200mm..is the zoom that good?
I can see you're on a slippery slope Daniel!
You are going to need to start looking at MTF charts and lens comparisons soon.
So I'll start you off!
This is a great site to compare lens performance side by side, in this case the 200mm prime v's the 70-200 IS zoom... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=4&APIComp=0
L-R mouse over the image to compare the 2 lenses.
The nifty 50 (Canon 50mm f1.8) stopped down is a great budget prime but my 70-200mm f4L IS is my widefield weapon of choice (The non-IS version is equally as good and way cheaper)
I've got a 24-70 f2.8L which I've yet to really give a good go under the stars.
Doug
Its all down hill here for you dannat,one you get on the canon lens train you will need another and another!
One of my most favourite and useful canon lenses is a 17-55 F 2.8 IS lens.Not to be confused with the 18-55 kit lens.This lens is 77mm wide,amazing IQ,can focus on a black cat on a new moon night.the way it captures colour is amazing.Very handy for everyday use and the more demanding applications people have on these type of pages,You can buy a new one for around $1000 from DWI-well worth it.
Here is a astro image,This was taken about 5 months ago,been cloudy ever since
Yes,a canon 70-200 F4 would be a lovely choice,I'd keep away from non camera brand lenses.If you wanted F2.8 the canon non IS version is a very fine lens.approx $1200 from DWI
Not sure about using the f2.8 version for astro work would go,I tried a few times with mine,got lots of reflections in images,there must be a lot of glass inside,More likely I did not know how to use it for astro work.
If you want a really good long canon lens,the 400 L F5.6 is amazing!,I have used it a few times piggy back and one could really get some great images with that glass,if you could afford it now,its quite a reasonable price,compared to when I bought mine.Really great for wildlife too.
No no no you've all got it wrong.
The best lens is a Richey Chretien 1800 f4 on an EQ6 pro.
Pop your Canon on the end of that and you can have a lot of fun.
That was a nice night Chris - one of the last times I've had my gear out I think
DT
Yes,David-was the last time I had the roof of observatory for than half a hour.(I only roll it off and on once a month these days-for a quick check to see if still works)
That was 5 minute exp,just a basic image to see how the new lens went,Should be good with 5 or 6 images like that stacked.I hope it clears up in 6 months,so we can use the 10-22 on the milky way.
I have the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS and it is a superlative lens. Truly awesome. It is well noted as being sharper than the 2.8, one of the sharpest lenses ever, from any company.
However, if you are after the lens for purely astro work, the 70-200's don't have a zoom lock. I'd probably be picking a prime like the 300mm f/4 and whacking on the IDAS LPS filter. As you probably know, Doug has been there, and his results speak for themselves!
Jason,I am unfamiliar with the IDAS LPS filters for camera lenses for astro work,What does it do ?? I am interested in using my 400 L prime F 5.6 for more astro work (one year-when the clouds clear).
I think I saw Doug selling his 300 F4,I will have to get in touch with him to get some pointers.
The 300 L prime,is a very good lens,It was a hard choice for me,when I had to choose between it and the 400.
To the OP,just stick with canon,do not buy those non camera brand lenses,in the end they cost more than a L,the amount of frustration I have had with them,cost me a lot of money,wasted time,and missed out on opportunities I can never get back.
A canon non IS F4 70-200 are very reasonably priced at present,for what you want it does sound like a 300 L would be more suitable.
i've got the canon 200mm f2.8 and love it! have never used the 70-200mm so can't comment. i think it's rare to find a tamron etc that can cut it for astrophotography - i was very disappointed with a couple of wide sigma primes i owned a long time ago.
Better late than never.
The 135 f2 would be my weapon of choice. Stopped down to between f4 and f8.
Second and not far behind would be the Sigma 150 or 180 Macros. These are totally underrated lenses, and while their AF is very slow compared to Canon's they lack nothing in sharpness or clarity. In fact Sigma's 180 is arguabley sharper than the Canon 180 at twice the price. They never hang around long on the B&S forums.
In joint second would be the 200 2.8 Canon L along with the preposterously awesome and unequalled Canon 300mm 2.8L. Well maybe the f4 version also.
Nothing like primes for AP IMHO.