Canon 60D lenses. Found some and I'm looking for advice.

[BogdanMD]

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!

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by BogdanMD

[alacant]

5 hours ago, BogdanMD said:

Asahi Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 (second hand, great condition)

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f/3.5 (second hand, great condition)

Hi

Here's an example with the Takumar, and some with the Zeiss. Both with an eos700d. For me, the Asahi has the edge, but there's very little in it. Be warned however; camera lenses are painfully slow for astro...

No need for the €silly adapter. Any of the proliferation of €2 models M42 to Eos ex AliExpress are fine.

HTH

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by alacant

[Alien 13]

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is probably the best option for wide field although the kit 18-55mm STM is good too. 

I agree with alacant regarding adapters, any of the std M42 to EOS will be fine provided they specify infinity focus, you might even be able to get a "chipped" one but check that your 60D is included in the details.

Alan

[BogdanMD]

16 hours ago, alacant said:

Hi

Here's an example with the Takumar, and some with the Zeiss. Both with an eos700d. For me, the Asahi has the edge, but there's very little in it. Be warned however; camera lenses are painfully slow for astro...

No need for the €silly adapter. Any of the proliferation of €2 models M42 to Eos ex AliExpress are fine.

HTH

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.

16 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is probably the best option for wide field although the kit 18-55mm STM is good too. 

I agree with alacant regarding adapters, any of the std M42 to EOS will be fine provided they specify infinity focus, you might even be able to get a "chipped" one but check that your 60D is included in the details.

Alan

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.

Quote

 

The lenses I’ve used all have either a M42 (42mm threaded) or Pentax-K (bayonet) mount. These are common types but there are many others, you’d need to check if an adaptor is available for the camera body you own. To muddy the waters slightly, even with an adaptor not all types will reach infinity focus. For example, M42 lenses can be fitted to Nikon bodies but will not focus anywhere near infinity as the element-to-sensor distance is incorrect (Nikon M42 adaptors with a correcting glass element are available but looking at example images this appears to kill the image quality). Here are some combinations that I know to work:

• M42, Pentax-K or Olympus OM lenses on crop-sensor (APS-C sensor) Canon bodies. (However, you need to buy the right adaptor, some are thicker than others. Look for ones explicitly advertising ‘infinity focus’).
• Nikkor lenses on Nikon bodies.

And some that don’t work:

• M42 or Pentax-K lenses on Nikon bodies.
• Canon FD lenses on Canon bodies, Canon changed their lens spec in 1989.
• M42 or Pentax-K lenses on full-frame (35mm sensor) Canon bodies should be treated with caution. Some lenses can actually damage the camera because they protrude too far into the body, causing the mirror to hit them when actuated. I believe some can be used but you'd be wise to check carefully before using one, those cameras are expensive. I don't know if this problem applies to full-frame cameras from other manufacturers

 

• http://www.nightofmanywords.com/articles/budget-lenses-for-astrophotography

Edited January 6, 2021 by BogdanMD

[alacant]

1 hour ago, BogdanMD said:

f/3.5 is too slow or camera lenses in general?

Stop (e.g. the Zeiss) down to a usable f5 and you're left with just 25mm aperture. Try marketing that as a telescope!

But seriously, look at the aperture, not the f ratio. Camera lenses tend to have small apertures. You need ages to get a decent image. 

Cheers

 

[BogdanMD]

1 hour ago, alacant said:

Stop (e.g. the Zeiss) down to a usable f5 and you're left with just 25mm aperture. Try marketing that as a telescope!

But seriously, look at the aperture, not the f ratio. Camera lenses tend to have small apertures. You need ages to get a decent image. 

Cheers

 

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.

Edited January 6, 2021 by BogdanMD

[wxsatuser]

The Canon 200mm f2.8 is a nice lens.

If you get a really good one f2.8 is achievable.

[Alien 13]

7 minutes ago, wxsatuser said:

The Canon 200mm f2.8 is a nice lens.

If you get a really good one f2.8 is achievable.

Agreed, at f2.8 the aperture would be 71 mm ish, thats telescope country 

Alan

[BogdanMD]

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. 

[Alien 13]

3 minutes ago, BogdanMD said:

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. 

Sounds like a good plan to me..the lenses will be useful for daytime stuff too which is always a bonus.

Alan

[toxic]

i have used the stock 50mm f1.8 at f7.1 and the 70-300mm f4-5.6L at f5.6 and f7.1 for astro and they are great lenses - the Cassiopeia image was taken with the 50mm at f7.1 on the EOS 200D and orion with the 70-300 at F7.1 on the EOS 90D the reason for that f stop is for the stars to be round in the corners and that is all.and both used on the old star adventurer.

Edited January 6, 2021 by toxic
missed a line of text

[Seelive]

57 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Agreed, at f2.8 the aperture would be 71 mm ish, thats telescope country 

Alan

+1 for the Canon 200mm F2.8. It can be used wide open. The smaller 100mm F2 USM (not the macro version) is also good when stopped down to F2.8.

[BogdanMD]

25 minutes ago, toxic said:

i have used the stock 50mm f1.8 at f7.1 and the 70-300mm f4-5.6L at f5.6 and f7.1 for astro and they are great lenses - the Cassiopeia image was taken with the 50mm at f7.1 on the EOS 200D and orion with the 70-300 at F7.1 on the EOS 90D the reason for that f stop is for the stars to be round in the corners and that is all.and both used on the old star adventurer.

 

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.

[BogdanMD]

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.

Edited January 10, 2021 by BogdanMD

[Alien 13]

I do like my 70-200mm f/4 L and have found that its fine for AP wide open but I usually only use the 100-200mm range for that. It is however very useful as a walkabout lens for daytime shots or video.

Alan

[Seelive]

I sincerely doupt that any (like for like) zoom lens would out-perform a prime lens at the same focal length.

[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)

Edited January 23, 2021 by BogdanMD