BogdanMD

Final update on this topic, After I've changed my mind a couple more times and missed out on some used lens, I got a new Samyang 135mm for a good price (it was also the only one I've found in my country, nobody sells them anymore). I'm having really bad luck with the weather, the last 2-3 weeks have been cloudy every night but I've got about 2-3 hours of clear sky on Thursday so I tried out the mount and the lenses (50mm and 135mm). I'll post the 3 captures I've taken. The mount wasn't polar aligned, I've just oriented it where my phone said it was the true north. At 90s there was already noticeable star trail. But I'm excited about the results, with the naked eye I can only see the 3 stars in Orion's belt and the core of the nebula. . Orion's belt and Nebula (50mm f1.8 ISO 400, 10 x 58s) Orion Nebula (135mm f2 ISO 400, 30 x 30s) Rosette "Nebula" (no actual nebula visible) (135mm f2 ISO 400, 20 x 90s)

I'm back with a another question. I got the Canon 50mm lens and the Star Adventurer 2i and decided to go all in for a modern 200mm. But I can't decide between Canon's 200mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f4 L USM. I'll buy either of them used at about the same price. I like the idea of getting a zoom lens to also use during day time and also for more field of view options when framing stars. But I came across this article (Star Test of Canon 70-200mm/f4.0 L USM Lens) and at 70mm the results are not very good in the corners, not even when stopped down a bit. So I expect I won't be using it at 70-100mm for astro, but at 200mm looks fine. In that case it's better to get the prime lense for astro and get limited use during daytime, right? Just that this topic says to pick the zoom lens. Some comments there say the 70-200mm fully open would get similar results to the prime stopped down at f/4. But what interests me most is, when both are used at 200mm, would I get better results with the prime lens when shooting DSOs? Because of the larger f-ratio, better design... other reasons.

Absolutely amazing picture and incredibly detailed! If I ever get to shoot something like this I'll pinch myself, it's hard to believe there are so many stars that we can't see with the naked eye.

Thanks a lot, this seems to be the way to go! I'll also get the bigger mount (Star Adventurer 2i). This will be my late Christmas present, I knew I was saving money for something, should have expected it would go this way.

To me the words aperture and f ratio are interchangable... I'll look into it. I have no illusion that it will come even close to a telescope, but I want something lightweight which I can take with me anytime to keep me interested in astrophotography. I've also postponed getting the Carl Zeiss. I'm considering buying a used (but in perfect condition) Canon 200mm f2.8 USM for 410 euros and a Canon 50mm. The investment is substantial for me but perhaps the results will be worth it in the long run.

Ah, I already talked to the seller for the CZ, both were priced the same but the Takumar had more scratches on the body so I went with the one that seemed in better condition. I don't really know what to expect but I'm sure it will impress me. f/3.5 is too slow or camera lenses in general? I've read that many "budget" lenses around this focal length perform best at around f/4 while at faster apertures there will be more image aberrations. I will certainly get the Canon 50mm, it is regarded as a good beginner lens. I don't have the kit lens, bought the camera SH, just the body and used it on a Newt 6". I bought a 10 euro M42 adapter (advertised for 60D and able to achieve infinity) today but I'm waiting for the lens to be delivered. I think the problem reaching "infinity focus" was actually Nikon related in that post. Meanwhile I've found another article that mentions which combination to avoid. http://www.nightofmanywords.com/articles/budget-lenses-for-astrophotography

Hello, I'm looking to buy some lenses for a Canon 60D which I'll mount on a Star Adventurer mini. I did some research myself and found a few models, but I'm slightly worried about incompatibilities using vintage lenses. So far I set my eye on these: Canon EF EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (new) Canon EF 100mm Macro USM f/2.8 (second hand, great condition) Asahi Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 (second hand, great condition) Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f/3.5 (second hand, great condition) Carl Zeiss Aus Jena Pancolar 50mm f/2 (second hand, great condition) I'm aware that I'll need to use an adapter (M42-EOS) for the Takumar and Carl Zeiss. I also read that the simple ring adapter doesn't allow to focus to infinity and I'll need to use a different kindwhich will be hard for me to acquire. Does anyone have experience with these on Canon DSLRs? I'd like to pick a 50mm and a 100/135mm. Thank you for any advice!

So higher framerate is prefarable to higher resolution (for planets)? What might be the reasoning for that? I thought I could get the same number of frames by recording longer videos. I'll check out second hand cameras although I usually refrain from buying SH since many seller are less than honest in my country. I any case I assume from your pov either of those cameras are fine for AP.

Hi, I've recently bought a 150/750mm Skywatcher reflector on a EQ-5 mount (no autoguide) and finally managed to get to a place without light pollution, it was an amazing experience seeing DSO's for the first time with my own eyes (until built up condensation on the mirror stopped the session after about 2 hours). Now I'm thinking about slowly getting the gear needed for some basic astrophotography and I'll start with a camera to shoot planets and short exposure images of stars, until I get a GoTo setup to put on my mount. I'm not willing to buy a new mount (HEQ-5) for at least another 6-12 months. For my current budget these are the two best options, I want to use the camera for day time use also so I don't plan on modifying it. Both cameras have almost identical specs, so I would go for the newer 250D which supports 4K video (at 24FPS), newer processor (DIGIC 8 ) and better power use, but it has only 9 focus points compared to the 800D which has 45. From what I understand having more points helps autofocus better but does it matter when photographing the sky with manual focus? Also, since I'll first start by shooting (filming) planets, would filming in 4K (24FPS) capture noticeable more detail than 1080p (60FPS), or 1080p is enough? Any reason to choose the 800D instead, something I might have missed? If you have any opinions on this matter please share! Disclamer: I haven't looked at cameras from other brands.

@Pixies Yes, you are absolutely right, I've taken another look last night and used the finder scope more, it was certainly easier to move from one star to the next since most of the bright stars I look for are visible on the small scope also. I haven't thought about changing the finder scope and attaching another one doesn't seem possible on my telescope, at least not without some DIY. As a side note to my original post, I've noticed that the 28mm 2" EP shows a better image than the 25mm 1.25" EP (Skywatcher Planetary UWA) , the stars look brighter and their colors are easier to distinguish. So I guess I should be looking for a 2" EP when I upgrade.

Thank you! I think that's what Louis meant as well, have a darker background without losing too much light coming from the DSO. I'll check out your suggestions as well.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. So a wider AFOV at the same focal length will provide a better image (higher TFOV, increased contrast), that's reason enough to upgrade. I don't understand why should I go for the 21mm compared to the 31mm or 41mm? My understanding was that lower focal length means smaller exit pupil -> darker image, harder to spot dim objects. If I'm trying to avoid that, shouldn't I pick the larger focal length and only switch to a smaller one to get better details on bright DSO's? Also, having the eyepiece darken the sky is something I want? Wouldn't that also darken everything else? Apologies for the silly questions. I assume you gave them as examples to your point but Tele Vue optics are too expensive for my budget (~300$).

Hello, Last night I've made my first observation of the deep sky, I was looking at Saturn and Jupiter and noticed that the moon had not risen yet and the sky was darker than usual (I live in the light polluted city). I'm using a Skywatcher 6" Newtonian with the stock eyepiece (Apex 28mm 57 degree FOV). While I didn't had much success spotting DSO's, partly due to my inexperience (found M22 and Sagittarius star cloud), I think I had trouble star hoping also because of the "narrow" FOV. So I'm thinking about buying a new medium budget eyepiece in the 80-100 degree range. I found the 82 degree series from Explore Scientific which seem to be well regarded. My question is, beside the larger FOV, are there any other benefits from getting a more expensive eyepiece? Mainly, will it make small DSO's easier to spot? Also, if you have other suggestions for eyepieces that would do a good job, please share. Thanks!

Thank you for you insight, I really appreciate taking the time to respond even though I've already ordered the 150PDS with the NEQ5 yesterday. I'm really excited to try it out over the weekend and hopefully take it to a dark sky next week. I'll start saving for the HEQ5 mount and a camera once I get used with the EQ mount and know my way around the sky. I'll keep doing my own research in the meantime. Hmm, that is something I didn't know and wish I did. I still believe 150mm is the right aperture for me at this time. Anyway, I've already pulled the trigger on something else so let's see how that one plays out. Thank you for reaching out!

Hello everyone, complete newb here looking for advice. Many years ago I bought a Celestron Powerseeker 70AZ and spent quite a few nights looking at planets from my light polluted balcony. I've never seen a DSO and never took it to a really dark sky. For a couple of weeks now I've been looking for an upgrade. First I've looked at 8" Dobs but the bulky size and the near the ground mount made it not less suitable for some of my requirements (above average performance, compact design, light weight, budget priced +/- compatibility with AP in the future). Not asking much am I right? I then looked at 127 Maks, I was set on picking one but a good EQ mount would exceed what I'm willing to pay at the moment (750 euro). So the telescope that would fit my needs the best looks to be a EQ mounted Newtonian, the only model I'm looking at is the Skywatcher 150PDS or 200PDS on a NEQ-5 mount without GoTo. It's the only brand sold at a store which offers a suitable payment option. I'll still be using it most nights from my balcony but I can also take it to the countryside a couple times a month so size and portability are important. I'm aware the assembled telescope will weight ~26 or 29kg, but disassembled it should be manageable. I've been reading many discussions here and on other platforms, looked at sketches, videos so I think I have an idea what to expect I'll be able to see through the eyepiece which is nothing like the AP images, so tiny colored discs for planets and blurry, fuzzy grey streaks for nebulas. That's alright and enough at this point and price range, I'm sure it would still look impressive compared to my old scope. I've set one of the requirements as being able to upgrade in the future for astrophotography at a basic level. My planned budget for that would be about 1300-1400 euros, enough to buy a HEQ-5 GoTo mount (1075 euro) and a cheap CCD camera (I haven't done any research on the camera so my plan might not be realistic). I want to use the Newtonian on the new mount. A few things I couldn't decide on: 1) Since I'm starting with visual viewing for at least a few months, I can't decide if I should get the 6" or the 8" Newtonian. The 8" should provide a better image for my eye especially when it comes to DSO's but it might be too big for the HEQ-5 if I want to do AP in the future. The 6" would be best on that mount but if the visual viewing is poor, I'm afraid I might loose interest quickly. I'm somewhat inclined to go for the 6" half expecting DSO's not to be all that much more detailed on the 8" either, but sketches I've seen tend to prove the contrary. This chart also shows how much more powerful is the 8" mirror compared to the 6". Did anyone else face the same dilemma and what did you choose? If you upgraded from 6" to 8", was the improvement noticeable? 2) Does the 150/750 Newt require a coma corrector? What about the 203/1000? 3) For planetary viewing, what other eyepieces should I get beside the one that comes with the scope (Apex 28mm)? (50-75 euro range if possible). I think I could also use the 3x Barlow I have from my old telescope. 4) For DSO viewing, what other eyepieces should I get beside the one that comes with the scope (Apex 28mm)? Should I get one with more magnification for small nebulas? (50-75 euro range if possible) 5) Do I need to buy filters? Planet filters, light pollution filters, ultra high contrast? I don't really know anything about filters and their usefulness. Reading back what I've wrote it all sound really demanding for a single, budget scope but my old scope set the bar really low so I'm hopeful that I can put something together to have fun with in most situations. Thank you for reading and I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts! EDIT: For extra accessories I'm looking at: Skywatcher Gold Line 6mm and 15mm or Meade Zoom 8-24mm Eyepiece or Skywatcher Ocular Planetary UWA 6mm 1,25" Castell UHC filter Baader MPCC Mark III (this is a quite expensive piece and I probably won't buy it now if it's only needed for AP) Meade Laser collimator I'm limited in my choice by both price and store availability (I won't post the store unless it's alright).