Telescope for Astrophotographer.

[sdawson91]

Hey guys!

I'm a photographer currently using a Canon 550D and I really want to do some basic astrophotography and I would like get some suggestions of a good telescope I could use.

I know with telescopes you can't go cheap and expect good quality and that's why I've set my self a budget of around $600-$900 NZD or between 300 Pounds to 500 Pounds. I'm really keen on a reflector/newtonian and something that will at least give me a good view of some nebulae. I would look into nebulae filters at some stage.

I just need some help as to what telescope comes highly recommend or what people know is around and is good or those who currently do astrophotographer and could suggest a good model in that price range.

Any advice would be very appreciated.

Cheers.

Stuart from New Zealand

[Capricorn]

Small, fast refractor, ED80 of one make or another.

Actually I think someone in NZ is selling a WO GT-81 but I think the price is higher then the budget you give.

Look through UK Astro But and Sell.

Put it all on a good EQ mount, get the alignment very accurate, and get yourself some 30-120 second exposures, then stack them.

And before you ask why a refractor take a look at your camera lens.

How many of them are reflectors ?

[swag72]

Do you already have a mount? You really need to be building the AP setup from the bottom upwards, and a minimum starting mount for AP is generally considered to be an HEQ5. Yes you can do it with less, but it makes life so much easier having the right tools for the job. As you already have a DSLR, do you have any lens's to go with that? If you started off by purchasing the mount, then you can get some good pictures with the camera and lens, especially id you have a long telephoto lens, you can get quite a few larger DSO's with that. As mentioned above, you will need to take loads of exposures and then stack them.

[umadog]

Short tube refractor. You'll get stunning shots of nebulae. It's easy to get started with such a scope due the short focal length. It's easy (cheapish) to mount because it's not heavy.

[NickK]

Oddly the mount is the most important thing. As it hold the image precisely and accurately as the earth rotates - it de-rotates. Weight and longer focal length make the mount's job harder (as the others have stated).

The same process that you'd have to use for an SLR + lenses on a mount is exactly those you'll find for telescopes, just the difficulty of the task increases.

[Geoffteeth]

first thing to buy would be "making every photon count" its a great book that will tell you exactly what you need for what you want to do. its available from flo. it will save you a fortune in the long run, i know

[ollypenrice]

The same song from me. Minimum mount, HEQ5, then short, fast refractor. And Steve's book, needless to say!

Olly

[kirkster501]

I have bought that book. Its utterly superb. I didn't even know what I didn't know. I am on my fifth re-read in a week.

[PaulABS]

A chap at my work place is in the same situation as you. After a lengthy discussion we recommended an 80ED or 100ED refractor on an HEQ5 or NEQ6 mount. Similar to the above suggestions!

Cheers,

Paul.

[ollypenrice]

Paul, I'd say the ED100 was too slow for AP, especially with a DSLR where you are limited by thermal noise to relatively short exposures. The ED80, yes, with reducer-flattener.

Olly