Astrophotography gear?

[Yan Lauzon]

I am wanting to explore astrophotography. I am interested in shots of the moon, large planets, milky way, and would like to get ready for the next eclipse coming here in about 6 yrs.

Reading up the internet seems to go in all directions.

I have a D3200, and currently the kit 18-55 and 55-200 along a 50mm yongnuo.

For the moon (and the sun, with filter) I understand about 600mm to 800mm would be great (correct me if I am wrong)

For milky-way a wider lens would help as long as it can easily focus to infinity.

Should I look into getting geared up to a telescope, or focus on camera lens?
I see many non-brand 400-600mm manual focus lens, or very pricey af-s nikon ones...

Opinions would be greatly welcomed, or any guidance.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Dawg Pics]

If you want to image planets and deep space objects, you need a telescope. I don't know if you can get much detail even on Saturn or Jupiter with just a 600mm lens.

You can start with a good wide-angle lens and steady tripod. Astrophotography is better at a dark-site on a night of "good seeing."

Take a look at the Cloudy Nights website. It is a message board for amateur astronomers, and there is a section on astrophotography and a beginner section as well.

https://www.cloudynights.com/index

 

[Dawg Pics]

[MENTION=11881]Moab Man[/MENTION] took some awsome solar eclipse images. I am sure he can point you in the right direction.

I was looking back at the Cloudy Nights site. I haven't been on that site in years. It is probably going to be overwhelming, but if you decide to really get into astrophotography, it would be a good place for you.
Good luck.

 

[Yan Lauzon]

Thanks for the pointers

 

[Moab Man]

Is this the kind of stuff you're looking to shoot? If it is I will be happy to help. Let me know.

 

[Yan Lauzon]

Is this the kind of stuff you're looking to shoot? If it is I will be happy to help. Let me know.


View attachment 280860

View attachment 280861

View attachment 280862

View attachment 280863

Yes! that would be exactly what I'd like to achieve.

Reading online is a bit overwhelming, and it seems nobody has similar opinions.

If you'd have any guidance to offer, I'd really appreciate.

 

[hark]

Is this the kind of stuff you're looking to shoot? If it is I will be happy to help. Let me know.


View attachment 280860

What focal length did you use for the Milky Way shot? The EXIF isn't showing up for some reason.

 

[Moab Man]

@hark

14mm Rokinon

 

[Moab Man]

@Yan Lauzon

Milkyway photography first.

Milkyway photography comes down to two things. First, finding dark night sky without light pollution. This can be incredibly difficult because what appears to be dark sky to you may not be to the camera. I see you're in Montreal. Lots of city lights.

Here is a link that is roughly accurate to where you can find dark sky: DarkSiteFinder.com - Light Pollution Map

Second, Milkyway photos look good because of the edit. Truth be told, they look like crap until you work the magic. Here is a straight out of camera jpg of the Milkyway. If you want to post or private message me an email address and I will send you this raw file to work with to learn because the edit is the hardest part to learn.

I will come back to cover a different one of the photos later.

 

[Yan Lauzon]

@Yan Lauzon

Milkyway photography first.

Milkyway photography comes down to two things. First, finding dark night sky without light pollution. This can be incredibly difficult because what appears to be dark sky to you may not be to the camera. I see you're in Montreal. Lots of city lights.

Here is a link that is roughly accurate to where you can find dark sky: DarkSiteFinder.com - Light Pollution Map

Second, Milkyway photos look good because of the edit. Truth be told, they look like crap until you work the magic. Here is a straight out of camera jpg of the Milkyway. If you want to post or private message me an email address and I will send you this raw file to work with to learn because the edit is the hardest part to learn.

I will come back to cover a different one of the photos later.

View attachment 280870

Yeah, Montréal sucks for light pollution. It's worst than New York despite lower population. I live in the suburbs and see it's light pollution bleeding here. There are spots farther away we're it's a lesser problem. I won't be able to take those shots every day for sure, but I'd like to be prepared for when I get out there.

I should have thought the post process had a lot to do... I'll exercise that before the summer, then!

I'll pm you me email, thanks a lot!


To get these, can I use my kit 18-55 (at 18mm) or would the aperture be in the way? Would a 50mm 1.8 be any better? Or should I start trying to find a 14mm? Or another wide angle at large aperture? (Im thinking an older one, since it's going to be used manual anyway)

Thanks a lot!

 

[Yan Lauzon]

Up north in my province isn't so bad!

Last year I went to Australia (the trip that triggered me getting geared up)
One of the things I wanted a good camera for, was taking the night sky. They rarely have clouds, and don't have the same stars as us in the northern hemisphere. I am sad I didn't manage to shoot the Southern cross while I was there... I'll have to go back when I know how to!

But for now, up north and during travels will be it!

 

[hark]

@hark

14mm Rokinon

Thanks! Here I was guessing a 16mm. Glad to hear it was a 14mm since I have that focal length.

Here is a link that is roughly accurate to where you can find dark sky: DarkSiteFinder.com - Light Pollution Map

I had to laugh when I looked at the map. The red-to-white area between Philadelphia and New York is where I live! :beguiled: There isn't any dark sky anywhere around here. Sometimes the light pollution here is extremely visible to the naked eye.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Moab Man]

Solar photography

Two options, a dedicated solar filter or a solar film cap for your lens. The key is to buy from reputable sources. There was a lot of recalls on solar glasses because of look alike films were being used. If you use a solar film cap then I always suggest a couple pieces of tape securing it to the body for extra good measure.

Lens length, as long as you got or can afford.

I will get into shooting an eclipse on another posting.

 

[Moab Man]

To get these, can I use my kit 18-55 (at 18mm) or would the aperture be in the way? Would a 50mm 1.8 be any better? Or should I start trying to find a 14mm? Or another wide angle at large aperture? (Im thinking an older one, since it's going to be used manual anyway)

You are shooting on a crop sensor camera. That mean that a 14mm would give you a field of view equivalent to 21mm. (focal length x 1.5 is what you are seeing the equivalent of on a full frame) So go wide. Tokina has some that are wider and auto focus for crop sensor Nikons. The Rokinon I used is manual.

The challenge with using your 18-55 lens is that its wide open aperture is I believe 3.5. You want wide. The lenses I'm using are 2.8, it may not seem much, but it really helps. Second would be the focal length. 18x1.5 = 27mm.

Rokinon (works for both crop and full frame) manual focus
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02


Tokina 11-16mm - the filters with it are crap, but you want the lens hood.
https://www.amazon.com/11-16mm-Acce...90&sr=1-8&keywords=tokina+11-16mm+f+2.8+nikon

There was a new Tokina 12-28mm brought out, but it's an f/4 lens from what I can see.

Of course there are other options, but you want WIDE and ideally f/2.8.

 

[hark]

Solar photography

Two options, a dedicated solar filter or a solar film cap for your lens. The key is to buy from reputable sources. There was a lot of recalls on solar glasses because of look alike films were being used. If you use a solar film cap then I always suggest a couple pieces of tape securing it to the body for extra good measure.

Lens length, as long as you got or can afford.

I will get into shooting an eclipse on another posting.

You are shooting on a crop sensor camera. That mean that a 14mm would give you a field of view equivalent to 21mm. (focal length x 1.5 is what you are seeing the equivalent of on a full frame) So go wide. Tokina has some that are wider and auto focus for crop sensor Nikons. The Rokinon I used is manual.

The challenge with using your 18-55 lens is that its wide open aperture is I believe 3.5. You want wide. The lenses I'm using are 2.8, it may not seem much, but it really helps. Second would be the focal length. 18x1.5 = 27mm.

Rokinon (works for both crop and full frame) manual focus
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02


Tokina 11-16mm - the filters with it are crap, but you want the lens hood.
https://www.amazon.com/11-16mm-Acce...90&sr=1-8&keywords=tokina+11-16mm+f+2.8+nikon

There was a new Tokina 12-28mm brought out, but it's an f/4 lens from what I can see.

Of course there are other options, but you want WIDE and ideally f/2.8.

George, just so Yan Lauzon understands the why behind the focal length selections, the widest possible (but not a fisheye) is to capture the entire Milky Way in one shot, yes? Anything longer might cut off part of it, wouldn't it?

And for the solar images, the longest telephoto lens possible is to keep from having to crop away too much of the image?

What type of solar filter did you use for your sun photos? For some reason, I keep thinking of the Marumi DHG ND-100000 Solid Neutral Density 5.0 Solar Eclipse Filter (16.5 Stops). There is also one made by Hoya, but I thought I read an article on the Marumi--can't remember who wrote it--possibly PetaPixel or F/Stoppers. Do you know anything about this filter? At some point, I might get one. The Hoya doesn't have any reviews which makes be skeptical to get it (simply don't want to be guinea pig).

Marumi Solar Filter: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1299067-REG/marumi_amdn01on_77mm_solar_eclipse_filter.html

Hoya Solar Filter: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...xpd_77nd100000_pro_nd100000_solar_filter.html

 

[Moab Man]

George, just so Yan Lauzon understands the why behind the focal length selections, the widest possible (but not a fisheye) is to capture the entire Milky Way in one shot, yes? Anything longer might cut off part of it, wouldn't it?

Yes, you are correct. To capture it all in one shot, but no fish-eyes. Multiple shots can be done to photograph the milky way, but that is a whole other topic.

And for the solar images, the longest telephoto lens possible is to keep from having to crop away too much of the image?

Exactly. The more you crop down and then fit the image to what you want the more you're stretching pixels.

What type of solar filter did you use for your sun photos? For some reason, I keep thinking of the Marumi DHG ND-100000 Solid Neutral Density 5.0 Solar Eclipse Filter (16.5 Stops). There is also one made by Hoya, but I thought I read an article on the Marumi--can't remember who wrote it--possibly PetaPixel or F/Stoppers. Do you know anything about this filter? At some point, I might get one. The Hoya doesn't have any reviews which makes be skeptical to get it (simply don't want to be guinea pig).

Marumi Solar Filter: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1299067-REG/marumi_amdn01on_77mm_solar_eclipse_filter.html

Hoya Solar Filter: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...xpd_77nd100000_pro_nd100000_solar_filter.html

I went with solar filmed that I sandwiched between cardboard (hole cut out in the cardboards) and made a boot attached to the sandwich that slid over the end of my lens. My reasoning is that I don't do much solar photography and film is cheaper and the better deal for how rarely I do it.


Thank you for jumping in. When we just know something we don't always explain as much as we could or maybe should because we just don't think about it.

 

[Kevin H]

[MENTION=11881]Moab Man[/MENTION] I'll be watching this thread it's something I'm interested in too not sure when yet but I'll try to get to Algonquin Park for some

 

[Yan Lauzon]

the widest possible (but not a fisheye)

Thanks for the emphasis on no fisheye.. A lot of the wide ones I saw are fisheye


So, ideally, I'd want as wide as or wider than my kit but with my prime's aperture...

At what wideness would I start losing part of the milky-way, considering I have a crop sensor?

I assume a 35mm is too narrow, but would ~22mm go well? Just to help in my lens hunting

On the other side, is a unique lens good for both moon and sun (with added filters) or are we talking something different?

Thanks a lot guys for all the information!!

 

[Yan Lauzon]

And, please... Just "Yan"

 

[hark]

Thanks for the emphasis on no fisheye.. A lot of the wide ones I saw are fisheye


So, ideally, I'd want as wide as or wider than my kit but with my prime's aperture...

At what wideness would I start losing part of the milky-way, considering I have a crop sensor?

I assume a 35mm is too narrow, but would ~22mm go well? Just to help in my lens hunting

On the other side, is a unique lens good for both moon and sun (with added filters) or are we talking something different?

Thanks a lot guys for all the information!!

You want to go as wide as possible with as large an aperture as possible. Moab Man gave you some options when he said:

You are shooting on a crop sensor camera. That mean that a 14mm would give you a field of view equivalent to 21mm. (focal length x 1.5 is what you are seeing the equivalent of on a full frame) So go wide. Tokina has some that are wider and auto focus for crop sensor Nikons. The Rokinon I used is manual.

The challenge with using your 18-55 lens is that its wide open aperture is I believe 3.5. You want wide. The lenses I'm using are 2.8, it may not seem much, but it really helps. Second would be the focal length. 18x1.5 = 27mm.

Rokinon (works for both crop and full frame) manual focus
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02


Tokina 11-16mm - the filters with it are crap, but you want the lens hood.
https://www.amazon.com/11-16mm-Acce...90&sr=1-8&keywords=tokina+11-16mm+f+2.8+nikon

There was a new Tokina 12-28mm brought out, but it's an f/4 lens from what I can see.

Of course there are other options, but you want WIDE and ideally f/2.8.

So there are around 3 options for you which would work best.

1. A 14mm f/2.8 prime such as the Rokinon.
2. An ultra wide angle zoom that isn't as fast such as the Tokina 12mm-28mm f/4 that Moab Man mentioned above.
3. A fixed aperture ultra wide zoom such as the one Moab Man linked in his quote.

You can get by with less expensive alternatives, but you will sacrifice something in the process. Having a wide a lens as possible with as fast an aperture as possible is key for the Milky Way shots.

You asked about @22mm. The problem is you are using a DX body so the equivalent focal length when 20mm is mounted on an FX body is at least 30mm on DX. You will cut off part of the Milky Way. That's the sacrifice you will get if you don't choose a lens that is wide enough.

Thank you for jumping in. When we just know something we don't always explain as much as we could or maybe should because we just don't think about it.

I apologize if I stepped on your toes, George! I certainly hadn't meant to--I have a teaching degree (music) so my head just goes to explaining the why simply for the learning--it isn't anything I consciously think of when I start to type a response. I have a great deal of respect for your ability and your work. You and Scott Murray are the only two I can think of off hand who have shared Milky Way images, but Scott hasn't been around much for quite a while. So Yan, please try to understand everything Moab Man is saying here and weigh your options carefully.

@Moab Man one more thing...can you please explain to Yan as to why an f/2.8 lens is preferred over f/3.5? Since I've never taken any long exposures like these require, it would help him make an informed decision. If he chooses to go with some type of wide lens that isn't as fast as an f/2.8 lens, he will get an idea of what he is sacrificing. Thanks!