What is the best camera lens for astrophotography?
Eikwoa Riverblood asked:
I want to buy a camera kit and use it for astrophotography. My budget is around $1,000 Australian dollars for the actual camera body.
I want to buy a camera kit and use it for astrophotography. My budget is around $1,000 Australian dollars for the actual camera body.
What are the best cameras, lenses and tripods you would recommend for astrophotography without using a telescope?
First I would like to start with planets, and then try nebulae.
And also, are there any specific brands that are best for this, and why?
Thanks for any advice 
June 12th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Maybe worth looking into Digiscoping, a cheaper way in to see if you really like this hobby without spending a fortune!
June 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
You will want a high quality 35mm Single Lens Reflex (SLR) Camera. You will also want it be fully manual. Astrophotography is best done using a telescope camera body adapter on a telescope. You will want one that can accept the various eyepiece lenses for you telescope. Another Item you will want is a cable shutter release. As for the telescope, a model with motorized tracking is best. Another thing I recommend is to use slide film and when you have the film developed, write "DO NOT CUT" in the special instructions. Slide film will give you a higher quality image and you can still have prints and even CD's made from the slide film. I also recommend you start out by photographing the moon and then planets and then on from there. I used a Pentax K1000 but I don't even know if that model is made anymore. That was 20 years ago.
One more thing I highly recommend it to purchase a book about Astrophotography because there are nuances of astrophotography that I could never begin to describe, or for that matter remember after so many years.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Most astrophotographers lean towards Canon DSLRs, though for serious astrophotography these need to be modified. I've recently bought a Rebel XT, which I think will do for my purposes.
Planets are too small to be photographed without a fairly powerful astronomical telescope, needing at least 2000 mm focal length. Deep sky objects can be photographed using any lens, depending on their size. Single focal lengths prefered over zooms. The Nikon 180mm is highly regarded by many astrophotographers; you can buy an adapter to use it on a Canon body.
Unless you're content with star trails, you will need some sort of powered mount in order to track the sky as the Earth rotates; you can build a simple "barn door tracker" yourself, A serious equatorial mount will cost you at least a thousand dollars.
Astrophotography is by far the most expensive and technically difficult aspect of amateur astronomy. I'd strongly recommend doing some reading before venturing any further. Terence Dickinson's books, NightWatch and Backyard Astronomer's Guide, both have good sections on astrophotography (be sure to get the latest editions for digital camera coverage), as is Michael Covington's book.
[Edit] Nobody is using 35mm astronomically nowadays; digital is the only way to go. Astrophotography is difficult enough to learn, without tying yourself to slow and obsolete technology.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
You need a telescope to photograph the planets because they are very small. No camera lens can give a big enough image to see anything other than a dot. However, you can make excellent use of ordinary camera lenses ranging from a 16mm full frame fish-eye lens to a 300 or 400mm telephoto lens. What you will want to use are good, non-zoom lenses that admit enough light to keep exposure times within reason. That means a lens that opens up to F/2.8 or F/2. With the telephotos lenses f/4 or F/4.5 will suffice. Don't use the F/1.4 and F/1.2 lenses wide open, they will usually produce wretched star images at the edges unless you close down the lens one F/stop.
Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and other major brand lenses are fine. Given the domination of digital cameras on the consumer market, you could with some searching find used lenses at low prices in excellent condition. The camera itself doesn't need to have the auto focus, auto exposure and auto winders that are built into many film cameras. They are not only unnecessary, they render the camera harder to use. What is most important is that the camera has a Bulb or T setting that allows for long exposures to be made, and it's highly desirable that the shutter be a mechanical shutter. No battery power is needed to hold it open during a 30 minute exposure, and electronic shutters drain the battery when they are open. If you run out of power, the shutter closes and your camera is useless until you insert new batteries. In the cold, that can come about very quickly. Manual film advance is also almost a must, when film is very cold it become very brittle and could snap. An interchangeable focusing screen is very useful also. The view will be very dim and you can get focusing screens better suited to astro photography at night.
I would go for an older 35mm camera such as a Nikon F-2. F-3, FM or FM-2, an older Pentax such as the K-1000, an Olympus OM-1 and others that have as little automation as possible.
I am a former photojournalist, and I've done many kinds of photography including astro photography. It can be very difficult and frustrating to get started in. My advice is to get a good camera, a few lenses and a tripod and start on subjects such as star trails, planetary conjunctions and meteor showers. Then with a inexpensive star tracker you can get some nice shots with lenses up to 135 or 200mm in focal length. Beyond that you will need a telescope with a good equatorial mounting that can handle the weight of a camera plus heavy telephoto lens along with the telescope. After that, you can start shooting pictures through the telescope. There are many telescopes you can choose from, but a good telescope for photographic purposes will bust your budget right now. You will also need dew heaters for the lenses, otherwise when they dew up, your picture is ruined. A dark site free from light pollution is also required. I hope you don't mind going into the wilderness, because that is what amateur astronomers and astro photographers do to get the best views and photographs.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:33 am
For that kind of money, a used film SLR may be the way to go, even if it's technologically obsolete. You may be able to get one for nothing, since there are lots of them lying around, and if the camera is fully manual, you can get started with it.
For film cameras the faves are systems like Olympus OM-1 and Nikon F2. When you move up to a DSLR you can use the Nikon lenses on a Canon DSLR with an adapter. I've done this, and have taken some nice pictures. My first astronomical camera was a Pentax Spotmatic. The camera store gave it to me because they were going to throw it out.
I second the suggestion to do some reading. This is a huge, fascinating, rewarding and exasperating field. You will see many references to books by Michael Covington. Buy them.
I also second the suggestion to start slow. Make a barn door tracker and take some pictures with it. See if you can hook up with some local astronomers; a visit to somewhere like the Binocular and Telescope Shop in Sydney could be very illuminating.
You live in a part of the world with very rich skies. I envy you.