Astro lens question

I've been toying with astrophotography lately. Not the drive 3hrs to the middle of nowhere, break out the tracking mount, stack shots on the laptop for hours kind of astrophotography, the PPP the tripod in the back yard, brew a cup of coffee, and just shoot kind. Most of my better shots come from a 24mm 2.8 nai on a 3200. I do shoot with a 10-24 on a 7000 as well though I'm still working on the settings for that combo.

My question is in regards to a 2.8 wide prime, say a Rokinon 14mm, (which would give me wide enough for longer exposure without trailing but no way to mount a Hoya Intensifier) vs a Nikon 24mm AF-D which would be the same FOV as I have now and be able to fit a 52mm intensifier (which I have). Which would be sharper on the edges, less coma, less CA, etc. the reason I ask is that I may sell the 3200 and the NAI lenses I have (which can only work on the 3200) to partially fund a 7100. I think the 7100s 24mp would benefit my star shots, as well as other types of photography, if paired with a lens that's as sharp and hassle free as my 24mm NAI. The price range I'm trying to stay in is less then $500 (closer to $300 if possible) so if there's a better lens please let me know! I did have a Rokinon 8mm 3.5 fisheye for a short time and the one star shot I did came out surprisingly well but I sold that to fund the 10-24. I do like the feel of the Rokinon lenses. I have never shot with a d lens and my only fear would be turning the focus ring with the camera body still in auto and messing up my body.

another option would be to keep the 3200 and convert it to IR. That opens up a whole other range of questions though.

. You will get better high ISO and wider images with an FX sensor.
. Some of the MF lenses are as good and at times better optically than the newer lenses, so keep them.
. If you shoot RAW, then you can apply distortion control in PP. Most wide primes have a minor distortion. If you want less distortion then search for lenses that were used in Enlargers, or macro lenses used for copying (but they are normally 50mm+). Most zooms have a lot more distortion and that is not easily corrected.
. If you are normally shooting in your backyard, then consider acquiring an astronomical telescope with necessary hardware to mount Nikon Body. You get both High Magnification as well as Wide Field telescopes.

aroy said:

. You will get better high ISO and wider images with an FX sensor.
. Some of the MF lenses are as good and at times better optically than the newer lenses, so keep them.
. If you shoot RAW, then you can apply distortion control in PP. Most wide primes have a minor distortion. If you want less distortion then search for lenses that were used in Enlargers, or macro lenses used for copying (but they are normally 50mm+). Most zooms have a lot more distortion and that is not easily corrected.
. If you are normally shooting in your backyard, then consider acquiring an astronomical telescope with necessary hardware to mount Nikon Body. You get both High Magnification as well as Wide Field telescopes.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I did think about just getting a 800 instead of a 7100 at one point. I know that would be the greater camera body and I know of one locally I could get for $1700. Only thing would be my NAI lenses won't work on that either, maybe if they were AIS.

Thanks for for confirmig my thoughts that the 24mm NAI could potentially be a better astro lens then the 10-24. Could explain why I'm having better shots from it. I think I'll keep my 3200/NAI set up for astro for now. I will most likely upgrade my 7000 to a 7100 so my other style shots will benefit. Unless I can find great deals on some FX glass, the switch is not in the books for another couple years.

If you were thinking of D800, then consider the D810a, ideal camera for astronomy. I would suggest that you keep the D3200 and upgrade the D7000 to D810a.