ok camera gurus, not having done any camera and lens astrophotography l need some advice on lenses. l have done some research and come up with a couple of early front runners and would appreciate comments on either of these, good or bad.
1. 135mm EF f/2L USM
2. EF70-200 f/2.8L USM both of these are the same price so money isn't an issue. thanks.
ok camera gurus, not having done any camera and lens astrophotography l need some advice on lenses. l have done some research and come up with a couple of early front runners and would appreciate comments on either of these, good or bad.
1. 135mm EF f/2L USM
2. EF70-200 f/2.8L USM both of these are the same price so money isn't an issue. thanks.
I'd go for, and will be going for, when the AUD is back at a respectable level cf the USD , the EF 70-200 f/2.8L (IS model) .... I will be using it for more than just astrophotography.
Only gaining one stop to get the EF 135mm f/2L . It's also a bit smaller 72mm diam cf 77mm diam for the EF 70-200 f/2.8L so you'll loose some the advantage of going from f2.8 to f2 in the light gathering stakes.
Only gaining one stop to get the EF 135mm f/2L . It's also a bit smaller 72mm diam cf 77mm diam for the EF 70-200 f/2.8L so you'll loose some the advantage of going from f2.8 to f2 in the light gathering stakes.
The diff in diameter is negligible.
The 135mm is a superb lens, sharp as a tack and has beautiful bokeh for terrestrial.
It's a top performer for both terrestrial and astro.
The biggest advantage of the 70-200 f/2.8 over the 135mm is obviously the zoom range.
It's a hard choice, I'd buy the 135mm but if you want the versatility go for the 70-200mm f/2.8.
I don't have the 70-200 but I do have the 135 and it is a fantastic lense. Here's a shot from Duckadang last year that RB processed for me, and a shot of Eta Carina and the Southern Pleiades from earlier this year.
I'd go for, and will be going for, when the AUD is back at a respectable level cf the USD , the EF 70-200 f/2.8L (IS model) .... I will be using it for more than just astrophotography.
Only gaining one stop to get the EF 135mm f/2L . It's also a bit smaller 72mm diam cf 77mm diam for the EF 70-200 f/2.8L so you'll loose some the advantage of going from f2.8 to f2 in the light gathering stakes.
You gain more than one stop. The 135 kicks the hell out of the 70-200.
The 70-200 only really gets sharp from f/4'ish. It's ok at 2.8 but the 135 makes a mockery of it there. In addition the 135 has nicer bokeh and much better colour/saturation/sharpness/contrast at wide apertures.
I do own both lenses and the 70-200 is certainly more convenient but it's not a match for the 135 optically.
You gain more than one stop. The 135 kicks the hell out of the 70-200.
The 70-200 only really gets sharp from f/4'ish. It's ok at 2.8 but the 135 makes a mockery of it there. In addition the 135 has nicer bokeh and much better colour/saturation/sharpness/contrast at wide apertures.
I do own both lenses and the 70-200 is certainly more convenient but it's not a match for the 135 optically.
If the lens is ONLY for astro imaging, the 135mm F/2L is brilliant (as is clearly shown by Paul's images) the next option from that in my opinion is the 200mm F/2.8L, and Im sure the 200mm F/2L would be Awesome!!
of the 70-200mm family of lenses from canon all have varying quality. As far as I've seen (and I've owned them all at one stage or another)
In order of sharpness at their wide open apertures, F/4L IS, F/4L, F/2.8L, F/2.8L IS.
If its primarily for astro imaging, IS is really really not needed or used...
If I were in the market for a widefield lens at the moment, I'd be looking at the 135mm F/2L... I use my 70-200 F/4L @ 135mm all the time, as I love the incredible wide field.. you can just fit sooo much in..
If the lens is ONLY for astro imaging, the 135mm F/2L is brilliant (as is clearly shown by Paul's images) the next option from that in my opinion is the 200mm F/2.8L, and Im sure the 200mm F/2L would be Awesome!!
of the 70-200mm family of lenses from canon all have varying quality. As far as I've seen (and I've owned them all at one stage or another)
In order of sharpness at their wide open apertures, F/4L IS, F/4L, F/2.8L, F/2.8L IS.
If its primarily for astro imaging, IS is really really not needed or used...
If I were in the market for a widefield lens at the moment, I'd be looking at the 135mm F/2L... I use my 70-200 F/4L @ 135mm all the time, as I love the incredible wide field.. you can just fit sooo much in..
My 15c.
Yep , but for a lens that will be used more often in "normal" photography , the IS version is a definite + .
And the flexibility of 70-200mm f/2.8 is fabulous.