if you go to lenstips.com and look at their reviews you'll see that it's one of the better performers where coma is concerned. . . certainly useable at 2.8
Whereas the canon 24 1.4 is a mess with coma on FF. Of course by the time you stop down to 2.8 it's much better... but you're really paying for those results.
apsphoto wrote:
I will typically use the Zeiss with a Polarie or the Astrotrac but then you get blurry backgrounds so it is all a compromise. Some of the 14mm shots:
Alan
AstroDave recently posted a blended photo. One with the polarie for the sky, then a second for the land. Assuming you take several long exposures and combine then in something like deepskystacker, you can paste over the land near the end of processing. Yes, you can have it both ways! https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1132019
moonpeep wrote:
Since we're on the topic... how do you guys think Wally at http://astropics.com/ does it?
I know he shot Canon 5d or 5d II for many of those pics.
Want to say he used to have the old 24 1.4.
Current thinking is that he just goes really high iso to get it done...
Really love his foregrounds. (the non obviously illuminated ones)
I know Wally, he uses prime lenses all Canon except now he has the Samyang 14mm as well. All are 30 second shots at high iso, he uses a modified camera, the ir block is replaced with a pass through astronomy filter that lets in light from the Ha range, it is modifed by Hutech. He has someone else doing the processing, for panos they use Ptgui. He uses just a tripod and the camera and a release.
voltaire wrote:
I have long lenses like the 500 f4 IS, 300 f2.8 IS but haven't really applied this for night phitography or astrophotography except when I shoot the moon with a landmark combined with TPE software. My mentor is a seasoned astro photographer and the longest focal length he used was a 15mm fisheye for the Milky Way.
I would think your 300 f2.8 would work well for astrophotography. I used a 200mm f1.8 at f2.8 for this shot of the Andromeda galaxy. It was taken with a 50D at ISO 800. About 25 stacked frames at 30 seconds if I remember correctly. I probably needed to capture more frames and some dark and flat frames too but I was a total amateur at astrophotography (I still am actually). http://ic2.pbase.com/g4/75/865275/2/141751819.dz5B5K4f.jpg
A 100% crop of that shot is available here (original size is the 100% crop): http://www.pbase.com/bigflat/image/141751819
The coma is actually not bad at the edges of the 50D frame.
I bought a Zeiss 25 f1.2 on friday and am working on posting some shots observations soon, related to it.
So far my observations are:
1) infinity has a hard stop that is very close to right (smidge back for 20 km away mountain based on liveview). This is worth it in itself because otherwise you have to tape the lens down in the day time before heading out.
2) Some vignetting
3) In the day time, I still much prefer my TS17 or TS17with 1.4x, to not having leaning trees. Straight trees/mountains (by shifting) is much more important than high quality (that I still have to figure out which is better 25 f2 or Ts17with1.4x)
4) Zeiss 25/1.2Images are better than f2 than my canon 85 f1.2 but at obviously longer shutter.
5) focus in live view is much easier than TS, because the gearing of the focus ring is much lower.
Thanks all for the input. It was much appreciated. Scott
arky wrote:
I would think your 300 f2.8 would work well for astrophotography. I used a 200mm f1.8 at f2.8 for this shot of the Andromeda galaxy. It was taken with a 50D at ISO 800. About 25 stacked frames at 30 seconds if I remember correctly. I probably needed to capture more frames and some dark and flat frames too but I was a total amateur at astrophotography (I still am actually). http://ic2.pbase.com/g4/75/865275/2/141751819.dz5B5K4f.jpg
A 100% crop of that shot is available here (original size is the 100% crop): http://www.pbase.com/bigflat/image/141751819
The coma is actually not bad at the edges of the 50D frame.
what was your tracking solution on that? (this is where you get your great images)
moonpeep wrote:
what was your tracking solution on that? (this is where you get your great images)
I have an older celestron C8 with an equatorial mount and drive. The 200mm lens was attached to it's piggyback mount. I was surprised it tracked as accurately as it did, without any hand guiding. With any wind at all this setup doesn't work at all.
I would like to try my hand at more astrophotography, but I need a more stable platform. Any suggestions on an accurate, cost effective tracking mount that can handle the weight of the 200mm f/1.8 and camera would be appreciated.
-Jerry
dgdg wrote:
great galaxy shot.
how are you pointing your camera to it? I have done some wide angle 5minute subs but would like to hone in on this galaxy.
I can locate where it should be in the sky, but finding it on a 200mm lens seems like trial and error unless you have a goto tracker.
Thanks for the encouraging comment.
The heart of andromeda galaxy is bright enough to be visible in the viewfinder, at least wide open with the 200mm f/1.8. Of course this is assuming you have a dark sky and you give your eyes time to adjust to the dark. I have heard it is the farthest object visible to the naked eye.
