| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: Moderate fast and cheap tele lens for astro photography? |
 |
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Hello!
I'm looking for a fast tele lens for astro-photography with a focal length between 100-200mm.
It has to be sharp wide open and needs to have at least F2.8
Price limit should be around 50€, maybe a lot more if it's a really great lens.
I thought about Porst 135/2.8 - which seems to be promising and is generally very cheap.
Do you have any other recommendations?
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester 
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Well, I don't have any recommendation for astrophotography, never have done that. But if you are looking for a good 135/f2.8 under 50 Euros, I have 4/4 Minolta MD 135/f2.8 exactly for 50 Euros. I would be extremely surprised if it's not better than Porst.
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/
Last edited by fermy on Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
An apo version should be very useful to you. And pay a lot of bucks can be right. By the way, Apo lieca R 180/3,4.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sammo
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 223
Location: CH and SI
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sammo wrote:
Cheap and astrophotography just doesn't fit together. Cheap lenses at f2.8 are commonly just plain awful. Astrophotography is the ultimate lens test for sharpness at infinity focus.
Very rarely a lens will give very good results at f2.8...Even famous lenses like Canon 300mm and 400mm f2.8L fail wide open for astrophotography on a full frame....Based on tests I read one of the best should be Nikkor ED 180mm f2.8 (should be sharp on a full frame with acceptable chromatic abberation - on a test it outperformed Leica APOs!).
If you are not very picky about chromatic abberation I know a cheap and useful lens in this range could be pentacon 200mm f4. Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f3.5 is a very good one, on APS-C sharp wide open from edge to edge, with quite controlled chromatic abberation.
But still, if you are a beginner, you can have a lot of fun with a cheap lens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
looks to me a bit short focal length. Carl Zeiss Sonnar zebra 135mm f3.5 can fit into budget and beat most 135mm cheap lens.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Thanks!
The 135/3.5 Sonnar sound's good, even if slow. Does anyone know how much better it is compared to the Minolta MD 135/2.8?
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| ForenSeil wrote: |
Thanks!
The 135/3.5 Sonnar sound's good, even if slow. Does anyone know how much better it is compared to the Minolta MD 135/2.8? |
IMHO they have similar rendering. Perhaps the CZJ gives more saturated colors, but in sharpness both are OK. I prefer the 4/4 MD Rokkor. But it's only a personal preference, not objective and greats diferences.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
s58y
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 131
Location: Eastern NY
Expire: 2013-09-10
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
s58y wrote:
I've been looking for good manual focus astroimaging lenses for years, especially in the 85-200mm range. The best I've found so far for each focal length are:
85mm -- Contax (Carl Zeiss) 85mm f/2.8 (too short for you, but perhaps the best lens among all these) --
300% crop at f/2.8 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6252516710/sizes/o/in/photostream/
105mm -- Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS --
300% crop at f/2.8 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6252514376/sizes/o/in/photostream/
135mm -- Contax (Carl Zeiss) 135mm f/2.8 --
300% crop at f/2.8 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6252515128/sizes/o/in/photostream/
180mm -- Leica APO-Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4 (too slow for you) --
Old test at 100% full frame:http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/4792309546/sizes/o/in/photostream/
180mm -- Nikkor 180mm f/2.5 AIS (ED) (not as good as the Leica, but does f/2.8 ) -
300% crop at f/2.8 :http://www.flickr.com/photos/s58y/6252515920/sizes/o/in/photostream/
_________________
flickr photostream
Last edited by s58y on Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 235
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
For 50 euros, It's the Canon 135/2.8 FDn.
There's better if you wanna triple or quadruple your budget tho. But not by much, the FDn 135/2.8 is one crisp customer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
s58y
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 131
Location: Eastern NY
Expire: 2013-09-10
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
s58y wrote:
| sammo wrote: |
....Based on tests I read one of the best should be Nikkor ED 180mm f2.8 (should be sharp on a full frame with acceptable chromatic abberation - on a test it outperformed Leica APOs!).
... |
The Nikkor 180/2.8 AIS ED is decent, but when I tested it at f/3.4 against the 180mm/3.4 Leica Apo-Telyt-R, I thought hte Leica was better. The Nikkor I tested had better star shapes out at the corners, but had "horrible" chromatic aberration (red focus was out). The Leica I tested was great for chromatic aberration, but had blueish flare around bright stars, especially away from the center. The Nikkor also had loose focus that would not stay put when pointed straight up -- I had to add friction using flexible rough plastic strips and rubber bands.
Note: If you are doing narrowband H-alpha imaging, chromatic aberration is not always bad, as long as the deep red can be brought into sharp focus by adjusting the focus ring. This is sometimes easier said than done, with a DSLR.
I don't think you can pick up either of these lenses for 50 Euros, though. IIRC , the Nikkor was about $300 and the Leica was about $600, quite a while ago. These two may be more expensive now, especially the Leica.
_________________
flickr photostream
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sammo
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 223
Location: CH and SI
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sammo wrote:
s58y, thans for some great input.
| s58y wrote: |
| The Leica I tested was great for chromatic aberration, but had blueish flare around bright stars, especially away from the center. |
That was exactly the reason why the nikkor was considered better that 10x expensiver leica. As I remember it was a lot worse at 2.8 that on your photos with Telyt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsigone
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Posts: 30
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jsigone wrote:
I'd be happy w/ a 180mm/2.8 nikkor ED AIS if I can get my hands on one but the prices have gone up again this yr. It would pair up nice w/ my canon or even my mono CCD.
Here's an image I processed w/ Erik Larsen's data last yr....
Erik Larsen NGC 7000 hubble pallet by jsigone, on Flickr
Erik Larsen NGC 7000: green from RGB, OIII as blue, Ha as red by jsigone, on Flickr
Here's some more of his work he's done w/ the 180 wide open on a Canon 500D
M8/M20 HaRGB by Erik N Larsen, on Flickr
Sadr-Deneb-NA False RGB by Erik N Larsen, on Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Wooooooow, that's more than you should ever expect from me
21x10min exposure is I think much more than what I wan't to try with my setup. There I would need some better mechanics and maybe a motor etc.
I have an offer for Takumar 200/4 for 49€
I heard it's sharp wide open and has very good CA control. Can somebody confirm that?
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
s58y
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 131
Location: Eastern NY
Expire: 2013-09-10
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
s58y wrote:
| ForenSeil wrote: |
Wooooooow, that's more than you should ever expect from me
21x10min exposure is I think much more than what I wan't to try with my setup. There I would need some better mechanics and maybe a motor etc.
I have an offer for Takumar 200/4 for 49€
I heard it's sharp wide open and has very good CA control. Can somebody confirm that? |
Over at the Cloudy Nights forum (also called "Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews"), there's a guy that uses Takumar Telephotos for DSLR astroimaging. You might join and ask this question over there.
I've tested a few Takumars using artificial stars, and the 135/2.5 (2nd type) under real stars, but none of them were very good for astro. I don't know about the 200/4, though.
For 10 minute exposures, your best bet is probably a tracking mount that supports autoguiding. With autoguiding, you can be a little sloppier on polar alignment, and get away with it, without trailing.
For most camera lenses (including the 200mm), an inexpensive mount (less than a few thousand dollars) will do.
_________________
flickr photostream
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsigone
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Posts: 30
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
jsigone wrote:
IMO anything over 50mm on a crop sensor will need a tracking mount. Longer you go on the focal length the more demanding the tracking has to be.
I have a super tak 200/4...not a good AP lens. Wide open it has bloated stars, corner looked pretty bad. Even stopped down to 5.6 the corners get better and no more bloating. F6.2 would be better but at point its pretty darn slow to gather data and I didn't get much color even w/ 5-6min subs. Daytime pics w/ it are pretty awesome though. Some guys on cloudynights are using the faster taks 105/2.5 lens but they are using them under narrowband filters so the stars won't bloat at all. Look around on Flickr for some images as well.
Narrowband imaging will require longer subs like 10min range to gather enough data to soak the sensor. You'll be battling noise and camera heat. I used a lunch box cooler to get cleaner 10min subs at iso1600 w/ my canon.
Camera cooler_01 by jsigone, on Flickr
Camera cooler_03 by jsigone, on Flickr
first image results from 35-40*F cooler raw image, chip temps went from low 90's 10min subs to mid 50's under same hot summer night conditions. About 3 hours worth pf data, 731mm F4.8 mak-newt lens and modded 1000D w/ LP and Ha filters, 5min color subs and 10min Ha subs both at iso1600. Shot from my backyard in San Diego's light pollution.
HaRGB M8 Lagoon Nebula 185min Final by jsigone, on Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martyn_bannister
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 1151
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
martyn_bannister wrote:
at anything approaching 100mm you are going to need a driven equatorial mount of some description, otherwise lens quality will be irrelevant..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
| martyn_bannister wrote: |
| at anything approaching 100mm you are going to need a driven equatorial mount of some description, otherwise lens quality will be irrelevant..... |
I have acces to a tripod with such a thing but without any motor or fine adjustment screws (30-60s exposures are doable with that by hand, but 21x10min tracking by hand would hurt a lot in the arms and the brain  )
I did a very first deep sky try some nights ago, and found my Minolta Macro Rokkor 100/4 to be a bit limiting for my technique http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1253180.html#1253180 (next I would do it much better anyway)
And you can make also make great pics with short exposures by stacking.
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsigone
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Posts: 30
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jsigone wrote:
there are some really nice stuff that just came out this past yr for AP lens users w/o having to drop big coin to get started into the hobby. Losmandy has a version out for about $6-800 then iOptron came out w/ this lil gem at only $400
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=278-17967 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
