Late to the comments as usual, but I find myself sitting firmly on team camera lens in recent years. Influenced heavily by them not being one trick ponies. I have also found that, if you're willing to ditch sharpness in the corners, that the optical speed of some lenses allow for resolving objects faster and brighter than most astrographs could ever hope to. The tradeoff to that is large amounts of coma, and chromatic aberration. Not really that comparable to telephoto, but I have used the a 50mm f0.95 (yes the actual red dot one for those who really want to know), and the capability of that aperture for resolving the night sky is kind of bonkers. That said, the coma an chromatic aberration tradeoff is almost off the charts, with the coma forming basically small crucifixes in the corners of the image.
Niko, you're just awesome! I've literally scoured the internet for the TTArtisan review as a lightweight mini-refractor in the past few days, and today I updated my subscription and see it on your mount, with comments and direct comparison 🔥🔥🔥 Thanks to you!
I started my astrophotography with a sigma 15 - 600 lens and my nikon ff camera. my final guiding solution, was a small rig cage, with an arca swiss clamp on the top and they guide scope on an arca swiss plate
@@bvdscheldesame here. Used to use a telescope but I'm travelling a lot more and got the 150-600 for multi purpose photography, astro being one of the purposes
I’ve recently been in this very situation. I’m a long time terrestrial photographer and had a selection of Canon Big White lens already as I started to look at Astro photography. I rapidly became apparent that the disadvantages of the native lens out weighed using them. Not least of which (which I don’t think you mentioned) is weight. The 300/2.8 and 500/4 EOS lens I have are heavy and that affects the mount. Then as you mentioned all the accessories particularly as I wanted to use a EAF and a dedicated Astro camera, so I need an adaptor. In the end I just bit the bullet and brought a Askar FRA300/5 and it been simply brilliant and easy to use, just what a beginner wants.
Good comparison. There are mounting kits for the more popular camera lenses such as the Samyang/Rokinon 135 f2 of course which allow the easy attachment of accessories such as guide scopes, auto focusers and if yo use them with astronomy cameras filter wheel and draw adapters are also available. If the lense comes with a foot it can usually be attached to a losmandy plate or vixen style dovetail bar. The good thing these days is that there is so much gear available to people wishing to get into astro photography to suit most budgets.
Just a thought as a photographer and budding astrophotographer, I feel like a top tier prime lens would have been a more fair comparison for the telephoto lens. There's less elements, and they tend to be just a hair sharper than the zoom telephotos, particularly when stopped down by 1/3 or 1/2 stop. I just acquired my first scope, and I deliberately went with a long focal length because my 300mm f/2.8 prime and my 600mm f/4 prime have been doing quite well up to this point. Cheers, and thanks for the comparison!
I did buy an extra long Vixen dovetail for my 30mm mini guide scope. It worked but wasn’t ideal. I switch between cameras and scopes, so I had to move the guide scope for each setup. (Each scope has its own dovetail plate, and then I have another for camera lenses.) But I now have a nice solution with excellent cable management. My guide scope is shoe-mounted on the side of my AM5 saddle plate. The AM5 manual says you can put an ASIair in that spot, but I put the ZWO 30F4 and ASI120MM guider there. I put my ASIair mini on the side of the AM5 next to the 12v output port. ZWO does not recommend it there, but with what I’ve done it is good and will not crash into the mount. It is mounted so the WiFi antenna is always pointing to Polaris. I bought very short USB cables with 90 degree connectors so that there is clearance to the Alt-Az portion of the AM5 base. It is also important to keep the Az lockdown levers moved flush up against the mount after you lock down. Anyway, power comes up from Jackery to the AM5 12v input. Then, I have a very short 12v cable with 90 degree connectors from AM5 12v output to ASIair mini 12v input. These two move together, so short cable is wrapped tight 1.5 times around the ASIair dovetail. Similarly, I have a very short USB cable with 90 degree connectors from ASIair to AM5. Again, these move together, so cable is just long enough and doesn’t even need to be wrapped around the ASIair dovetail. Now I need a longer and more flexible USB cable from ASIair to ASI120MM. I got one with 90 degree connectors, coiled so it stretches, and fabric sheathed. It goes from ASIair and wraps 1x times around the round black neck of AM5 that is under the saddle plate, and then into the ASI120. So it is never hanging loose. It accommodates pointing anywhere in the sky without any hang ups. It works rather perfect. For now, that is all my cabling. I’m shooting with my Fuji mirrorless camera, but eventually I will get the ASI2600 and deal with additional cables. But for now, when you look at my setup, you don’t even notice the cables except for the main power cable from the Jackery. And, with the guide scope on the side of the saddle plate, it’s easy to swap scopes and camera lenses at will without needing to move the guide scope. Also, even the AM5 carrying case has a cutout in the foam to accommodate the shoe on the side of the saddle plate. I don’t use the AM5 hand controller, so the ASIair mini fits inside that spot within the AM5 case. Anyway, with very careful selection of which cables to buy (on Amazon), I’ve got this setup really, really neat and tidy. I’ve never seen anyone else do it like this, especially putting the guide scope on the side of the saddle plate.
12:04 Hi Nico, I’m pretty sure you’re aware of this, but perhaps not all viewers are. Your choice of exposure time for the SpaceCat puts it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Canon lens, if I remember correctly how this is supposed to work. The aperture of the Canon is f/4 and the SpaceCat is f/4.9. If we are to compare the real light gathering power of both apertures, we should work with the squares of the f-numbers: 16 vs. ~24. The difference is a factor of 1.5. So if we want to compensate for the larger aperture of the Canon, we should allow the SpaceCat a total exposure time of 1.5 x 12 minutes = 18 minutes. I must say I did notice the SpaceCat result being more noisy, so it does seem to have an effect.
Yes, I was trying to account for the number of glass elements as well (lots of glass elements means less light to the sensor), but perhaps went overboard as I agree the Spacecat result looked a little noisier which likely comes down to me messing up the calculation. First time trying to adjust for SNR (in the past I've just done equal integration), and not sure if I'll stick with it. Always just trying things out with these comparisons to see what works. Thanks for the input! Cheers, Nico
@@JulesStoopNo, I think that was my problem - its very dependent on the coatings used, so I just did a best guess based on a few different random sources, but it seems they were wrong. Lesson learned! Maybe in the future I can put together an optical bench and try to figure these things out for real. In any case, hopefully the SNR differences weren't too distracting. I think my main points about the Spacecat being the best corrected in the corners of full frame, the TTArtisan having some CA, and not seeing huge differences in the amount of detail at center with any of them still came through.
Thank you Nico for sharing this helpful video highlighting what I always thought was an uncommon practice in astro which is using a telephoto lens for deep sky astrophotography. I love my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and have gotten really great images of a variety of objects, that's what I love about variable zoom lenses, you are not fixed at one focal length, however the tradeoff is image sharpness.
Outstanding objective comparison. Do more of these! I have a Canon 400mm f/2.8 and a ZWO 6200 on a Takahashi EM 200. I can screw filters directly into the camera body or put them in the lens filter drawer. The imaging is fast and most excellent. I hacked a piece of printer belt and use a ZWO EAF and after I reset the backlash, works flawlessly. I can use the Canon 1.4X and 2X teleconverters and there is no appreciable degradation in the image quality. This fixed focus setup is considerably sharper than zoom lenses and offers up to 800mm at f/5.6. A great lens I got used on Cloudy Nights in "as new" condition with the case and original box and packing for $3k! My other scopes include a Tak NEWQ, TOA 130 and a PlaneWave 14. Guess which setup gets used the most.
Great video again Nico, and boy do I fee lgood, because the TTArtisan lens arrived last week for some occasional astro and it's not disapoiting! Thanks.
I noticed you used the new RF canon zoom RF 100-300mmF2.8 lens it's a whopping 10,000. Canon have really gone wild with the price. I have a Canon EF 300mm F2.8LIS this lens I got new almost 20 years ago its just like new still they are very solid durable lenses. These days you can get them for cheaper second hand for around the cost of the WO scope. Also when you use the Canon R cameras you can buy an EF-R converter that has a filter slot so you can nicely add any filters you want between the lens and camera. I have absolutely no blurring near edges so likely its to do with the new zoom mech. The 300mmF2.8LIS prime was one of Canons sharpest. Also I find you can actually autofocus perfectly on stars and it's great for wildlife/Birds BIF. The lens has plenty resolution to resolve with a 32mp apsc Canon R7 and the 1.4xIII converter so you can have 420mm F4 or 600mm F5.6 with the 2xIII.
Canon lenses do come with some sticker shock, but consider what else you said: you can use them for decades. I have a couple manual lenses from the film SLR days that are 40+ years old, and they're still fantastic today (except for the lack of autofocus). When you factor in expected age, the price doesn't seem as out-of-touch. And that's not addressing the exceptional image quality from Canon's lenses. I wouldn't expect 20+ years out of a TTArtisan, or even a Tamron or Sigma (they're more mid level now, but they used to be the cheap lenses). EDIT: All of that said, I'd only buy used Canon lenses today. My personal finances can't justify the cost of new ones, since photography is a hobby for me and not a profession.
I also STRONGLY recommend looking at vintage FD lenses, particularly the New FD 300mm f/2.8L. It’s incredible how good the image quality of those older lenses are. You won’t have autofocus and will need a mount adapter, but if you’re okay with that, then the FD lenses are wonderful.
Great comparison. Note that if you use a tracker with a heavy setup, it will need to be an expensive heavy duty model. The telescope is much lighter. I am an all around photographer with a mild interest in astro, and my go-to lens is a Canon 70-300mm L on a Canon 6D. It covers 90% of anything I do. I actually captured Orion's nebulae. I didn't even know I did until I had the images on my computer, then zoomed and cropped. A very pleasant surprise!
Im currently looking at buying a telephoto lens and combining it with a Openastrotracker, mainly due to cost. I know astrophotography is expenseive, but having some of the guys reccommend a beginner or starter setup that is in the 4 figures is just demotivating, so thanks for showing that a telephoto, especially one this "cheap" (its still 300bucks obv), is actually viable for for astrophotography
Thanks for another great video. The one thing you omitted to mention was the speed of the Canon vs the other lenses and the massive reduction in imaging time. A fairer comparison may have been the 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 L lenses
I just got back from a stargazing trip using a telephoto lens (sigma 150-600 contemporary) and while I know it has some CA and other undesirable behaviors it still does a pretty good job. Haven't processed the pics yet but I know we got some great photos. I did just get an EQ6-R mount, so that helped a ton. Luckily I was able to attach it to the mount using a tripod shoe I already owned, but it certainly wasn't the most secure option. Still had a great time, and I'm looking forward to getting a real telescope and guide camera for those really long exposures
Update: My photos weren't as good as I expected, but it's because we went for dim objects with only 10-20min of exposures. I've now upgraded to the Askar 103APO, and I've learned how to use my equipment much better in just the last month. The jump from tripod and zoom lens to mount and scope is huge. And I made the leap just in time for the eclipse.
Hi Nico, I have a Canon L 600mm f4 lens which I use, mainly for wildlife, paired with my R6 mk ii full-frame body. I have recently gotten back into astrophotography and am using this combo on my 10Micron mount. Early days but I am very pleased with the results: very little if any chromatic aberration and excellent sharpness across the frame. Thanks for reviewing these three.
I'm surprised that you choose a zoom photography camera lens. A 300 f/2.8 would be a better corrected lens and probably better for astro. It would also have fewer elements, and probably a better T value. I love these reviews and am thinking of trying some astro with my 500 f/4 lens. Thanks for including a photography lens in this shoot out!
I suppose he chooses what he has, as I am doing now that I am taking Astro photography as a secondary hobby after my main hobby, photography. We remove the biggest part of the cost equation by doing so.
As usual, a very even-handed review of three very different lenses, showing that each has advantages. And that while no one will buy a $10k Canon Zoom specifically for Astro Photography, it can be used and with the proper add-ons produce a very satisfying result! Great job, Marco!
You’re the man, Nico! I have the Canon RF 100-500 that I picked up for astro, sports, to attempt wildlife photography, and even certain styles of portraits. I’ve had it for a couple of months and am really pleased with it, but I did wonder if a spacecat or other small refractor would have been a better choice for astro (buyer’s remorse, maybe?). I feel that your comparison here reaffirms my choice - the lens provides great results and gives me an all around option for multiple types of photography. Thanks for sharing as always, and clear skies!
From what I am reading, the 100-500 L lens is excellent general purpose lens. Trying to use it for an occasional astrophotography application isn't a bad idea, but ergonomics favour a dedicated telescope
Great content, Nico- Until the S50 and other smart scopes hit the market, a camera and tracker were the "gateway drug" to AP. Thank you for showing that it's still viable! Newbs in my astronomy club are hell bent on spending a fortune on gear that they see on UA-cam before they really learn the craft.
I noticed CA on both the SpaceCat and Canon lenses as well. It would've been nice if you compared them to the CA you found on the TT Artisan and noted the difference.
Nico, great video. I have a 14 inch Celestron EdgeHD with ZWO ASI 6200 Pro full frame sensor that I have been taking DSOs for years. However, for the total solar eclipse last month I bought a Sky Watcher GTi portable mount and already had a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens. I use the EF EOS to ZWO adapter with 48 mm filter drawer to connect my ZWO sensor. I was wondering how good DSOs would look with this setup since it is very portable to travel to dark sky’s. This video was helpful in answering that question. Of course, there is a big difference in focal length 400 mm Canon vs. 715 mm w/HyperStar lens on the 14 inch SCT. Thanks for your videos. I am really impress with all your videos as well as your carpentry skills building your own observatory.
Noob here. I think I'm missing something obvious here. I just bought a Sony camera with an E-mount. What cameras can these lenses be mounted to? Are they all only for Canon cameras? Are there adapters?
I noted all the practical advantages of the telescope over the expensive Canon lens, but an interesting comparison for me would be to compare the Spacecat with a zoom lens of a more similar price, say the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3, which I have seen is a popular lens to use for astrophotography. I suppose I would expect the Spacecat to be better image quality but it would be nice to see how much better.
I have an old Tamron mirror lens -- 500mm f/8 -- that did pretty well during the eclipse. I'm going to try it for deep space objects when the weather cooperates.
Those IS/VR lenses tent to drift focus through out the night. The TTArtisan 500mm can be modified to DSLR mount or even telescope M48x0.75/M42x0.75 etc threads.
Not to be contrary (I know a contrary opinion on the internet, how rare? lol) however, while Nico is without a doubt top tier when it comes to getting the most out of an image what he did here was actually a pretty simple comparison that I think anyone at the beginner end of things with the same gear could achieve quite quickly, just a few subs, not much integration time and a quick stretch in Pixinsight. Without a doubt if he were to put all three up for a multi-night shoot then spend hours on each one optimising the workflow then yeah I think that would skew the results a bit
Lovely video, Can I reccomend you try mirror lenses? They're like mini SCTs that are lenses, they seem to produce good results if you get the right one
Great review/comparison. Cheap lenses have really come a long way in the last 10 years, and that's helping me get back to doing more photography again. 6:37 Clear Bahtinov mask? Doesn't that add a touch of muddiness to the view? I'm sure William Optics did their testing and it's fine, but I'm having trouble imagining how the extra front/back surfaces wouldn't impact the view while focusing even if the diffraction spikes remain sharp. Especially if it's made of acrylic (as it appears to be) and prone to scratches from even the softest of cleaning cloths.
@@NebulaPhotos Aha! Pretty clever of WO to do that. I knew there had to be something I was missing for a company like them to do it -- I trust them to not deliberately compromise the light path quality. Thanks for the extra info.
I have exclusively used a modified Canon 5D mark III and a 300 F2.8 mk2 for all my AP. The advantage of the 300mm f2.8 is the 2" drop in filter so you can use AP filters.
Dang, sorry Nico for getting your name wrong. I as also impressed with your handling of the $300 500mm lens. No surprises with the William Optic 'scope, except that it is more affordable than I thought. Again, thanks for your insightful efforts!
Thank you for this comaprison! I'll probably stick to lenses a while longer since I'm quite happy with the results. I'd like to add one thing: some lenses show diffraction spikes from their apertures on bright stars (yes, even wide open). Like for example my fuji 150-600 mm lens, which gives me 9 spikes due to the 9 bladed aperture. I happen to find them pretty, but they can make life diffcult, e.g. when trying to use starnet to reduce stars. I think elsewehere you mentioned that by putting a few step down rings in front, the aperture can be rounded in exchange for a little bit of light. I haven't tried it myself but it makes sense to me optically.
Yes, the step down rings do work for that, but I've had challenges with flats correction using them, so there are major tradeoffs. Thanks for the reminder about this, wish I would have mentioned it.
8 місяців тому+1
Thanks, I needed this! I was waiting for a lot more lens reviews. :D
Telescope all the way for magnification purposes. You can't put in a barlow lens or narrow-band filters on a camera lens. But... a lot of older telephoto lenses are pretty much telescopes: t-mount, large front objective, so you can actually put a diagonal, barlow, filter, etc. on them.
May I ask your best resource for learning of a lens’ resolving power. I believe the 70-300 mm I have by Tamron does not have the resolving power to take out detail of distant objects. The moon does not have a lot of detail in this lens and I’m trying to find a place to find resolution power/review of sorts
Nope, and it’s part of why telescopes can be sharp but with fewer lens elements, they only have to focus at infinity and only with manual focus and no IS. You can buy after-market focusers that work with software on a tethered computer to autofocus on the stars. Those are typically easier to install on a telescope than a lens. They don’t work like regular autofocus in that you already have to be very close to focus for them to work at all and they are slow (can take 30 seconds or more), but they are accurate and handy once you get them tuned.
My experience with canon lenses is similar, although I wouldn’t recommend them unless it’s what you have and you just want to give it a try. I have all top of the line lenses, and none of them are really good for astrophotography unless you don’t care about the star shapes. I’m amazed that it doesn’t show up in terrestrial photos, but it doesn’t. The stars in each one are funky in numerous ways.
Nice. I could do with a mount. I recently sold my 400/5.6L as it just sat on the shelf and have other lenses that cover that range. I defo need to get out more, last time I tried to capture NEOWISE just on a late one.
A better comparison with the Redcat vs camera lens would be to use a prime camera lens (fixed focal length) rather than a zoom. While zoom lens technology has vastly improved over the years, there are still issues, as were pointed out in this comparison. It's interesting, though, the very obvious quality difference between the Canon and TTArtisan lenses. While the Canon lens has a better build, the optical quality is not what is expected. However, too, that lens is a rental and its treatment in many hands and many postal trips across the country may not be the same as from a single owner. It could have been banged up a little bit versus the TTArtisan which may essentially represent a single owner lens in this test. Informative comparison and useful points for the beginner, though.
Surely someone else has already said it… washers. Will increase the holding power of your aftermarket screws and save your vixen plate from damage. Thanks for the review Nico us new guys need as much guidance as possible
the mounts and the auto-guides working wonders behind the scenes here! and those aren't pennies either :'''''( anyway, another great video Nico, cheers and clear skies
zwo 662 + светосильный гид svbony 60mm - 400 долларов Это недорого, по сравнению с результатом Ну еще нужен ноутбук, если вы снимаете не на астрокамеру, а на фотоаппарат. Nina бесплатная
@@TMichman Посмотрим, насколько плох мой переводчик :) Ну, эти цены не так уж и ужасны, но у меня есть несколько объективов и зеркальная камера, которые, по моим подсчетам и часам чтения того же самого, требуют как минимум EQ5 Pro SynScan GoTo mount, который стоит около 900$. Не конец света, я думаю, но это не считая автогида и остальных мелочей. Когда-нибудь :)
Again a very nice in depth review about questions we all have when evaluating what to buy. I just love these videos and the coupon code as a bonus is really nice. Kind regards from a fan.
I have a 14mm Sigma Art lens which has a little more distortion/softness on the right cornerside than left. I wonder if it is normal to have small differences or should I complaint the seller.
It is fairly normal. It is usually an issue we call 'tilt' and it can come from the lens itself, the camera, or where the lens and camera connect (the 'bayonet' or 'mount'). it is hard to track down where the tilt is coming from. Some people use stragetically placed shims (thin piece of foil) on the lens bayonet to help address this issue.
Currently I'm planning to use a Medium Format telephoto lens that works with my MF Film Camera for my digital astro kit. Lets me use 1 lens for two bits of kit and despite it's age it's a very sharp piece of kit and more affordable for me than a new Astrograph.
I'm very interested in the newly released $600 Askar 71f flat-field, quad element, APO refractor. Seems like it's very cheap when compared to most APO OTA's of the similar size and even more so against any flat field APO astrographs. But nervous buying something I haven't seen independently tested.
Really interesting, thanks for this. I have some Nikon long zooms and was wondering if they could be used in this fashion. But it may be cheaper or the difference not so costly to go with a setup telescope wrather than adapt other plain lenses. Also for those less experienced in this form of photography like me, a dedicated system may be easier to get decent results out of....
i sold my telescope and my 120-300mm f/2.8 wildlife lens so i could get a modern 400mm f/2.8, and i use it for deep space alongside a standalone autoguider, it’s amazing :) it has its downsides, but that speed just can’t be replicated by any 400mm focal length refractor. plus i can use 2” filters in the drop in filter slot inside the lens, no clip in filters needed! it’s worth noting that a lot of telephoto lenses use drop in filters around the 2” size, so clip in filters may not always be your only option
I have Nikon's 400mm f2.8 TC for wildlife photography and I am interested in using it for astro as well. What tracker and guide did you end up getting for yours? How is it working out for you? I haven't purchased a tracker yet due to the concern over finding the right one for lens weight and balance for the 400mm f2.8 TC.
@@KristenLAndersen i’m jealous, i’ve been dreaming of having that lens for astro and wildlife for so long now! i use the nikon 400mm f/2.8 G ED VR and a D850 for both scenarios. so it’s both longer and significantly heavier than what you’d be using. with that said, i’ve been using the iOptron CEM25p, the newer version of that is the CEM26, or there’s their GEM28, and then there’s also SkyWatcher’s offering for that weight class, which i believe is the EQM35, HEQ5, and all their predecessors. Long story short, there’s the light-middleweight class of mounts that support 25-35lbs, and that’s the smallest i would be looking at for your setup :)
Would there be an alternative to the William optics cat 61, that is less expensive. I am starting from scratch and you know all of the equipment is expensive.
Look at the Astro-tech or Apertura lines of telescopes. These are budget friendly refractors that work well. The Astro-tech AT60ED + 1x field flattener is around $500 and is similar in specs to the Cat 61, a bit slower and the stars will be a little more bloated, but still a good scope for the price.
With pix insight fixing chromatic aberration by separating the colors and then re-aligning them and Blur-exterminator fixing most coma…..even the cheapest lens is good enough.
RBB samples - the Canon seemed to have less fringing and tighter stars and show more subtle nebula detail. At least to my eyes. But hey, it should given it's much more expensive than the other 2 options.
I need to investigate these. I'm guessing you need to snap up the mirror and then fit in the holder - I can see how there would be enough room in that case. How badly does the 1.25" filter vignette?
It would have made more sense to choose a Canon EF 400 f/5.6 or something else affordable. If you can afford a $10K Canon zoom, then you can drop a couple of grand on a nice little triplet.
Does moving the guide scope closer to the center of rotation of the mount effect the tracking? What if it's on the axis or on the opposite side of the axis? Does the distance between the axis of the mount and the centerline of the scope effect the accuracy/resolution of the guiding? I've always wondered about this.
I’ve never tested this. I am not positive the different options here would result in a big enough difference to show up in testing. The first thing autoguiding software does is ‘calibrate’ your guiding system by sending a series of corrections in each direction to the mount to understand its position and orientation.
Late to the comments as usual, but I find myself sitting firmly on team camera lens in recent years. Influenced heavily by them not being one trick ponies. I have also found that, if you're willing to ditch sharpness in the corners, that the optical speed of some lenses allow for resolving objects faster and brighter than most astrographs could ever hope to. The tradeoff to that is large amounts of coma, and chromatic aberration. Not really that comparable to telephoto, but I have used the a 50mm f0.95 (yes the actual red dot one for those who really want to know), and the capability of that aperture for resolving the night sky is kind of bonkers. That said, the coma an chromatic aberration tradeoff is almost off the charts, with the coma forming basically small crucifixes in the corners of the image.
Another great comparison Nico!
All great lenses, but man that TT for $329 is 🤯
That's what you were supposed to write.
Finally the TTArtisans test I was waiting for! Well done. Thank you
Niko, you're just awesome! I've literally scoured the internet for the TTArtisan review as a lightweight mini-refractor in the past few days, and today I updated my subscription and see it on your mount, with comments and direct comparison 🔥🔥🔥
Thanks to you!
I started my astrophotography with a sigma 15 - 600 lens and my nikon ff camera. my final guiding solution, was a small rig cage, with an arca swiss clamp on the top and they guide scope on an arca swiss plate
I recently got the 150-600m, how are you finding it for astro? What other gear you have for astro photography for this lens?
@@bvdscheldesame here. Used to use a telescope but I'm travelling a lot more and got the 150-600 for multi purpose photography, astro being one of the purposes
I’ve recently been in this very situation. I’m a long time terrestrial photographer and had a selection of Canon Big White lens already as I started to look at Astro photography. I rapidly became apparent that the disadvantages of the native lens out weighed using them. Not least of which (which I don’t think you mentioned) is weight. The 300/2.8 and 500/4 EOS lens I have are heavy and that affects the mount. Then as you mentioned all the accessories particularly as I wanted to use a EAF and a dedicated Astro camera, so I need an adaptor. In the end I just bit the bullet and brought a Askar FRA300/5 and it been simply brilliant and easy to use, just what a beginner wants.
Good comparison. There are mounting kits for the more popular camera lenses such as the Samyang/Rokinon 135 f2 of course which allow the easy attachment of accessories such as guide scopes, auto focusers and if yo use them with astronomy cameras filter wheel and draw adapters are also available. If the lense comes with a foot it can usually be attached to a losmandy plate or vixen style dovetail bar. The good thing these days is that there is so much gear available to people wishing to get into astro photography to suit most budgets.
Yes! I wanted you to review that lens and here you are!
Just a thought as a photographer and budding astrophotographer, I feel like a top tier prime lens would have been a more fair comparison for the telephoto lens. There's less elements, and they tend to be just a hair sharper than the zoom telephotos, particularly when stopped down by 1/3 or 1/2 stop. I just acquired my first scope, and I deliberately went with a long focal length because my 300mm f/2.8 prime and my 600mm f/4 prime have been doing quite well up to this point. Cheers, and thanks for the comparison!
I did buy an extra long Vixen dovetail for my 30mm mini guide scope. It worked but wasn’t ideal. I switch between cameras and scopes, so I had to move the guide scope for each setup. (Each scope has its own dovetail plate, and then I have another for camera lenses.) But I now have a nice solution with excellent cable management. My guide scope is shoe-mounted on the side of my AM5 saddle plate. The AM5 manual says you can put an ASIair in that spot, but I put the ZWO 30F4 and ASI120MM guider there. I put my ASIair mini on the side of the AM5 next to the 12v output port. ZWO does not recommend it there, but with what I’ve done it is good and will not crash into the mount. It is mounted so the WiFi antenna is always pointing to Polaris. I bought very short USB cables with 90 degree connectors so that there is clearance to the Alt-Az portion of the AM5 base. It is also important to keep the Az lockdown levers moved flush up against the mount after you lock down. Anyway, power comes up from Jackery to the AM5 12v input. Then, I have a very short 12v cable with 90 degree connectors from AM5 12v output to ASIair mini 12v input. These two move together, so short cable is wrapped tight 1.5 times around the ASIair dovetail. Similarly, I have a very short USB cable with 90 degree connectors from ASIair to AM5. Again, these move together, so cable is just long enough and doesn’t even need to be wrapped around the ASIair dovetail. Now I need a longer and more flexible USB cable from ASIair to ASI120MM. I got one with 90 degree connectors, coiled so it stretches, and fabric sheathed. It goes from ASIair and wraps 1x times around the round black neck of AM5 that is under the saddle plate, and then into the ASI120. So it is never hanging loose. It accommodates pointing anywhere in the sky without any hang ups. It works rather perfect. For now, that is all my cabling. I’m shooting with my Fuji mirrorless camera, but eventually I will get the ASI2600 and deal with additional cables. But for now, when you look at my setup, you don’t even notice the cables except for the main power cable from the Jackery. And, with the guide scope on the side of the saddle plate, it’s easy to swap scopes and camera lenses at will without needing to move the guide scope. Also, even the AM5 carrying case has a cutout in the foam to accommodate the shoe on the side of the saddle plate. I don’t use the AM5 hand controller, so the ASIair mini fits inside that spot within the AM5 case. Anyway, with very careful selection of which cables to buy (on Amazon), I’ve got this setup really, really neat and tidy. I’ve never seen anyone else do it like this, especially putting the guide scope on the side of the saddle plate.
12:04 Hi Nico, I’m pretty sure you’re aware of this, but perhaps not all viewers are.
Your choice of exposure time for the SpaceCat puts it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Canon lens, if I remember correctly how this is supposed to work. The aperture of the Canon is f/4 and the SpaceCat is f/4.9. If we are to compare the real light gathering power of both apertures, we should work with the squares of the f-numbers: 16 vs. ~24. The difference is a factor of 1.5. So if we want to compensate for the larger aperture of the Canon, we should allow the SpaceCat a total exposure time of 1.5 x 12 minutes = 18 minutes.
I must say I did notice the SpaceCat result being more noisy, so it does seem to have an effect.
Yes, I was trying to account for the number of glass elements as well (lots of glass elements means less light to the sensor), but perhaps went overboard as I agree the Spacecat result looked a little noisier which likely comes down to me messing up the calculation. First time trying to adjust for SNR (in the past I've just done equal integration), and not sure if I'll stick with it. Always just trying things out with these comparisons to see what works. Thanks for the input! Cheers, Nico
@@NebulaPhotos Interesting approach! Did you find a reliable source for the transmissibility (is this a word?) of the tested equipment?
@@JulesStoopNo, I think that was my problem - its very dependent on the coatings used, so I just did a best guess based on a few different random sources, but it seems they were wrong. Lesson learned! Maybe in the future I can put together an optical bench and try to figure these things out for real. In any case, hopefully the SNR differences weren't too distracting. I think my main points about the Spacecat being the best corrected in the corners of full frame, the TTArtisan having some CA, and not seeing huge differences in the amount of detail at center with any of them still came through.
@@NebulaPhotos I enjoyed watching the comparison and your main points certainly came across.
Thank you Nico for sharing this helpful video highlighting what I always thought was an uncommon practice in astro which is using a telephoto lens for deep sky astrophotography. I love my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and have gotten really great images of a variety of objects, that's what I love about variable zoom lenses, you are not fixed at one focal length, however the tradeoff is image sharpness.
Outstanding objective comparison. Do more of these! I have a Canon 400mm f/2.8 and a ZWO 6200 on a Takahashi EM 200. I can screw filters directly into the camera body or put them in the lens filter drawer. The imaging is fast and most excellent. I hacked a piece of printer belt and use a ZWO EAF and after I reset the backlash, works flawlessly. I can use the Canon 1.4X and 2X teleconverters and there is no appreciable degradation in the image quality. This fixed focus setup is considerably sharper than zoom lenses and offers up to 800mm at f/5.6. A great lens I got used on Cloudy Nights in "as new" condition with the case and original box and packing for $3k! My other scopes include a Tak NEWQ, TOA 130 and a PlaneWave 14. Guess which setup gets used the most.
You have a beefy mount for that?
nice video Nico!
just got a 70-200 f2.8 for sports and Astro in addition to the 135 G2 I had which cannot be used for sports 😅
Great video again Nico, and boy do I fee lgood, because the TTArtisan lens arrived last week for some occasional astro and it's not disapoiting! Thanks.
I noticed you used the new RF canon zoom RF 100-300mmF2.8 lens it's a whopping 10,000. Canon have really gone wild with the price. I have a Canon EF 300mm F2.8LIS this lens I got new almost 20 years ago its just like new still they are very solid durable lenses. These days you can get them for cheaper second hand for around the cost of the WO scope. Also when you use the Canon R cameras you can buy an EF-R converter that has a filter slot so you can nicely add any filters you want between the lens and camera. I have absolutely no blurring near edges so likely its to do with the new zoom mech. The 300mmF2.8LIS prime was one of Canons sharpest. Also I find you can actually autofocus perfectly on stars and it's great for wildlife/Birds BIF. The lens has plenty resolution to resolve with a 32mp apsc Canon R7 and the 1.4xIII converter so you can have 420mm F4 or 600mm F5.6 with the 2xIII.
I'm using an EF 70-200 f2.8 on an EOS RP and it works wonderfully!
Agreed, I am using my old 400/5.6L lens and 1.4x extender for extra reach with my R7 this way
Canon lenses do come with some sticker shock, but consider what else you said: you can use them for decades. I have a couple manual lenses from the film SLR days that are 40+ years old, and they're still fantastic today (except for the lack of autofocus).
When you factor in expected age, the price doesn't seem as out-of-touch. And that's not addressing the exceptional image quality from Canon's lenses. I wouldn't expect 20+ years out of a TTArtisan, or even a Tamron or Sigma (they're more mid level now, but they used to be the cheap lenses).
EDIT: All of that said, I'd only buy used Canon lenses today. My personal finances can't justify the cost of new ones, since photography is a hobby for me and not a profession.
I have that same 300mm 2.8 IS lens. It hold up today very well and still produces sharp images on my R5
I also STRONGLY recommend looking at vintage FD lenses, particularly the New FD 300mm f/2.8L. It’s incredible how good the image quality of those older lenses are. You won’t have autofocus and will need a mount adapter, but if you’re okay with that, then the FD lenses are wonderful.
Great comparison. Note that if you use a tracker with a heavy setup, it will need to be an expensive heavy duty model. The telescope is much lighter. I am an all around photographer with a mild interest in astro, and my go-to lens is a Canon 70-300mm L on a Canon 6D. It covers 90% of anything I do. I actually captured Orion's nebulae. I didn't even know I did until I had the images on my computer, then zoomed and cropped. A very pleasant surprise!
Im currently looking at buying a telephoto lens and combining it with a Openastrotracker, mainly due to cost.
I know astrophotography is expenseive, but having some of the guys reccommend a beginner or starter setup that is in the 4 figures is just demotivating, so thanks for showing that a telephoto, especially one this "cheap" (its still 300bucks obv), is actually viable for for astrophotography
This is what I have been curious about since I started to this hobby! Great video❤
Thanks Brutha for all the hard work you do. We all appreciate you😃😃
Thanks for another great video. The one thing you omitted to mention was the speed of the Canon vs the other lenses and the massive reduction in imaging time. A fairer comparison may have been the 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 L lenses
I stopped it down, but should have mentioned this. Thanks!
Hi Nico, great video. May I suggest using washers between hex screws and dovetails? This prevents slips and screws don't damage the dovetails.
I just got back from a stargazing trip using a telephoto lens (sigma 150-600 contemporary) and while I know it has some CA and other undesirable behaviors it still does a pretty good job. Haven't processed the pics yet but I know we got some great photos. I did just get an EQ6-R mount, so that helped a ton. Luckily I was able to attach it to the mount using a tripod shoe I already owned, but it certainly wasn't the most secure option. Still had a great time, and I'm looking forward to getting a real telescope and guide camera for those really long exposures
Update: My photos weren't as good as I expected, but it's because we went for dim objects with only 10-20min of exposures. I've now upgraded to the Askar 103APO, and I've learned how to use my equipment much better in just the last month. The jump from tripod and zoom lens to mount and scope is huge. And I made the leap just in time for the eclipse.
Hi Nico, I have a Canon L 600mm f4 lens which I use, mainly for wildlife, paired with my R6 mk ii full-frame body. I have recently gotten back into astrophotography and am using this combo on my 10Micron mount. Early days but I am very pleased with the results: very little if any chromatic aberration and excellent sharpness across the frame. Thanks for reviewing these three.
I'm surprised that you choose a zoom photography camera lens. A 300 f/2.8 would be a better corrected lens and probably better for astro. It would also have fewer elements, and probably a better T value. I love these reviews and am thinking of trying some astro with my 500 f/4 lens. Thanks for including a photography lens in this shoot out!
I suppose he chooses what he has, as I am doing now that I am taking Astro photography as a secondary hobby after my main hobby, photography. We remove the biggest part of the cost equation by doing so.
As usual, a very even-handed review of three very different lenses, showing that each has advantages. And that while no one will buy a $10k Canon Zoom specifically for Astro Photography, it can be used and with the proper add-ons produce a very satisfying result! Great job, Marco!
if you already have the lens, it is a great way to start off and learn, without spending a fortune on astro gear
You’re the man, Nico! I have the Canon RF 100-500 that I picked up for astro, sports, to attempt wildlife photography, and even certain styles of portraits. I’ve had it for a couple of months and am really pleased with it, but I did wonder if a spacecat or other small refractor would have been a better choice for astro (buyer’s remorse, maybe?). I feel that your comparison here reaffirms my choice - the lens provides great results and gives me an all around option for multiple types of photography. Thanks for sharing as always, and clear skies!
From what I am reading, the 100-500 L lens is excellent general purpose lens. Trying to use it for an occasional astrophotography application isn't a bad idea, but ergonomics favour a dedicated telescope
You are the only one who has shown the ttartisan 500mm 6.3 Lens for astrophotography. Really liked the information you have shown here. Thank you!
From last 2 days i was searching deep space results using ttartisian 500 mm. Thank you so much
I love these comparison videos. Nice work Nico!! Cheers!
I found a 135mm f/2.8 with 2 lenses that are ED glass. Maybe I'll test it once i recoup from my surgery. It is fully manual too
Finally someone comparing telephoto lenses with telescopes 👏🏽👏🏽
Great content, Nico- Until the S50 and other smart scopes hit the market, a camera and tracker were the "gateway drug" to AP. Thank you for showing that it's still viable! Newbs in my astronomy club are hell bent on spending a fortune on gear that they see on UA-cam before they really learn the craft.
I noticed CA on both the SpaceCat and Canon lenses as well. It would've been nice if you compared them to the CA you found on the TT Artisan and noted the difference.
Nico, great video. I have a 14 inch Celestron EdgeHD with ZWO ASI 6200 Pro full frame sensor that I have been taking DSOs for years. However, for the total solar eclipse last month I bought a Sky Watcher GTi portable mount and already had a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens. I use the EF EOS to ZWO adapter with 48 mm filter drawer to connect my ZWO sensor. I was wondering how good DSOs would look with this setup since it is very portable to travel to dark sky’s. This video was helpful in answering that question. Of course, there is a big difference in focal length 400 mm Canon vs. 715 mm w/HyperStar lens on the 14 inch SCT. Thanks for your videos. I am really impress with all your videos as well as your carpentry skills building your own observatory.
Noob here. I think I'm missing something obvious here. I just bought a Sony camera with an E-mount. What cameras can these lenses be mounted to? Are they all only for Canon cameras? Are there adapters?
Do you recommend using a guide camera for the star adventurer 2i pro mount and ttartisan 500mm lens combo? What guide camera do you recommend?
I noted all the practical advantages of the telescope over the expensive Canon lens, but an interesting comparison for me would be to compare the Spacecat with a zoom lens of a more similar price, say the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3, which I have seen is a popular lens to use for astrophotography. I suppose I would expect the Spacecat to be better image quality but it would be nice to see how much better.
I have an old Tamron mirror lens -- 500mm f/8 -- that did pretty well during the eclipse. I'm going to try it for deep space objects when the weather cooperates.
Wow, a whole 3% off, I'll jump right on that deal. 😂
Those IS/VR lenses tent to drift focus through out the night. The TTArtisan 500mm can be modified to DSLR mount or even telescope M48x0.75/M42x0.75 etc threads.
Just to summarise, astro imaging scopes are similar to high end prime lens with better lens specific for taking DSO.
Thx a lot for this one! It's probably also because you are so experienced and are able to get the best out of every lens / telescope.
Not to be contrary (I know a contrary opinion on the internet, how rare? lol) however, while Nico is without a doubt top tier when it comes to getting the most out of an image what he did here was actually a pretty simple comparison that I think anyone at the beginner end of things with the same gear could achieve quite quickly, just a few subs, not much integration time and a quick stretch in Pixinsight. Without a doubt if he were to put all three up for a multi-night shoot then spend hours on each one optimising the workflow then yeah I think that would skew the results a bit
Lovely video, Can I reccomend you try mirror lenses? They're like mini SCTs that are lenses, they seem to produce good results if you get the right one
Great review/comparison. Cheap lenses have really come a long way in the last 10 years, and that's helping me get back to doing more photography again.
6:37 Clear Bahtinov mask? Doesn't that add a touch of muddiness to the view? I'm sure William Optics did their testing and it's fine, but I'm having trouble imagining how the extra front/back surfaces wouldn't impact the view while focusing even if the diffraction spikes remain sharp. Especially if it's made of acrylic (as it appears to be) and prone to scratches from even the softest of cleaning cloths.
It has smaller solid patterns laser etched into it. Should have mentioned that.
@@NebulaPhotos Aha! Pretty clever of WO to do that. I knew there had to be something I was missing for a company like them to do it -- I trust them to not deliberately compromise the light path quality. Thanks for the extra info.
I have exclusively used a modified Canon 5D mark III and a 300 F2.8 mk2 for all my AP. The advantage of the 300mm f2.8 is the 2" drop in filter so you can use AP filters.
I have a 600mm f4 mark ii for birding photography and used it for astro but my William's refractor is so much easier to focus manually
Dang, sorry Nico for getting your name wrong. I as also impressed with your handling of the $300 500mm lens. No surprises with the William Optic 'scope, except that it is more affordable than I thought. Again, thanks for your insightful efforts!
What star guiding mount do you recommend for doing astrophotography with the ttartisans 500mm??
Love these side-by-sides.
Will the TT artisan fit a Canon EOS 90D? I am trying to find a quality but cheaper lens for deep sky! I have a tracker already
Thank you so much! This is really useful review!
Thank you for this comaprison! I'll probably stick to lenses a while longer since I'm quite happy with the results. I'd like to add one thing: some lenses show diffraction spikes from their apertures on bright stars (yes, even wide open). Like for example my fuji 150-600 mm lens, which gives me 9 spikes due to the 9 bladed aperture. I happen to find them pretty, but they can make life diffcult, e.g. when trying to use starnet to reduce stars. I think elsewehere you mentioned that by putting a few step down rings in front, the aperture can be rounded in exchange for a little bit of light. I haven't tried it myself but it makes sense to me optically.
Yes, the step down rings do work for that, but I've had challenges with flats correction using them, so there are major tradeoffs. Thanks for the reminder about this, wish I would have mentioned it.
Thanks, I needed this! I was waiting for a lot more lens reviews. :D
It comes down to having the right tool for the job. Great video on this comparison. It really helps.
Telescope all the way for magnification purposes. You can't put in a barlow lens or narrow-band filters on a camera lens. But... a lot of older telephoto lenses are pretty much telescopes: t-mount, large front objective, so you can actually put a diagonal, barlow, filter, etc. on them.
Wonderful comparison Nico!
This is the review I've been waiting for as I have been considering the TT lens for my SA GTi. However I'm trying to resist my G.A.S.
Awesome test!
May I ask your best resource for learning of a lens’ resolving power. I believe the 70-300 mm I have by Tamron does not have the resolving power to take out detail of distant objects. The moon does not have a lot of detail in this lens and I’m trying to find a place to find resolution power/review of sorts
Are telescopes equipped with autofocus and stabilization as the Canon (photo) lens?
Nope, and it’s part of why telescopes can be sharp but with fewer lens elements, they only have to focus at infinity and only with manual focus and no IS. You can buy after-market focusers that work with software on a tethered computer to autofocus on the stars. Those are typically easier to install on a telescope than a lens. They don’t work like regular autofocus in that you already have to be very close to focus for them to work at all and they are slow (can take 30 seconds or more), but they are accurate and handy once you get them tuned.
That was very useful!
Some cameras (Panasonic, OM, Olympus, ?) have Star AF built in assuming you use an autofocus lens.
My experience with canon lenses is similar, although I wouldn’t recommend them unless it’s what you have and you just want to give it a try. I have all top of the line lenses, and none of them are really good for astrophotography unless you don’t care about the star shapes. I’m amazed that it doesn’t show up in terrestrial photos, but it doesn’t. The stars in each one are funky in numerous ways.
Nice. I could do with a mount. I recently sold my 400/5.6L as it just sat on the shelf and have other lenses that cover that range. I defo need to get out more, last time I tried to capture NEOWISE just on a late one.
A better comparison with the Redcat vs camera lens would be to use a prime camera lens (fixed focal length) rather than a zoom. While zoom lens technology has vastly improved over the years, there are still issues, as were pointed out in this comparison. It's interesting, though, the very obvious quality difference between the Canon and TTArtisan lenses. While the Canon lens has a better build, the optical quality is not what is expected. However, too, that lens is a rental and its treatment in many hands and many postal trips across the country may not be the same as from a single owner. It could have been banged up a little bit versus the TTArtisan which may essentially represent a single owner lens in this test. Informative comparison and useful points for the beginner, though.
Surely someone else has already said it… washers. Will increase the holding power of your aftermarket screws and save your vixen plate from damage. Thanks for the review Nico us new guys need as much guidance as possible
the mounts and the auto-guides working wonders behind the scenes here!
and those aren't pennies either :'''''(
anyway, another great video Nico, cheers and clear skies
zwo 662 + светосильный гид svbony 60mm - 400 долларов
Это недорого, по сравнению с результатом
Ну еще нужен ноутбук, если вы снимаете не на астрокамеру, а на фотоаппарат. Nina бесплатная
@@TMichman Посмотрим, насколько плох мой переводчик :)
Ну, эти цены не так уж и ужасны, но у меня есть несколько объективов и зеркальная камера, которые, по моим подсчетам и часам чтения того же самого, требуют как минимум EQ5 Pro SynScan GoTo mount, который стоит около 900$. Не конец света, я думаю, но это не считая автогида и остальных мелочей.
Когда-нибудь :)
Again a very nice in depth review about questions we all have when evaluating what to buy. I just love these videos and the coupon code as a bonus is really nice.
Kind regards from a fan.
I have a 14mm Sigma Art lens which has a little more distortion/softness on the right cornerside than left. I wonder if it is normal to have small differences or should I complaint the seller.
It is fairly normal. It is usually an issue we call 'tilt' and it can come from the lens itself, the camera, or where the lens and camera connect (the 'bayonet' or 'mount'). it is hard to track down where the tilt is coming from. Some people use stragetically placed shims (thin piece of foil) on the lens bayonet to help address this issue.
@@NebulaPhotosthank you for taking time to answer!
Currently I'm planning to use a Medium Format telephoto lens that works with my MF Film Camera for my digital astro kit. Lets me use 1 lens for two bits of kit and despite it's age it's a very sharp piece of kit and more affordable for me than a new Astrograph.
I'm very interested in the newly released $600 Askar 71f flat-field, quad element, APO refractor. Seems like it's very cheap when compared to most APO OTA's of the similar size and even more so against any flat field APO astrographs. But nervous buying something I haven't seen independently tested.
I wonder how prime vs zoom lenses (the same lenght, make, speed) would perform? Great work Niko!!!
Really interesting, thanks for this. I have some Nikon long zooms and was wondering if they could be used in this fashion. But it may be cheaper or the difference not so costly to go with a setup telescope wrather than adapt other plain lenses. Also for those less experienced in this form of photography like me, a dedicated system may be easier to get decent results out of....
Thank you very much for overview! Perfect! Superb! This overview is what I !
Thank you very much
Great video as always!!!
That TTartisan looks fantastic for DSO (and moonscapes)
great video, ive got a question though, i have a ttartistan 500mm and i want to buy a star tracker, what are some budget options?
Самый нормальный из самых дешевых и компактных, это sky watcher gti. Если вы готовы потратить больше денег, то zwo am3
The TTartisan, linked to a speedbooster, will do a great 350mm F4,5 in front of my Sony A6500 !
Read earlier about apt and it does auto focus on some lenses
Great advice! Thanks Nico.
Nikon also makes Fluorite lenses. I own the 600mm f/4. And it is light enough for a Celestron avx EQ mount
Nice work!
My Canon FD 600mm lens has the correct filter size so I'll give it a try soon.
Thanks for the informative videos....HB
nice review, i got the tt-artisan,waiting for first light
The TT surprised me! bummed it doesn't appear to have a micro 4/3 mount. Great info👍👍
you can get canon ef version and use it with any mirrorless camera with cheap adapter.
i sold my telescope and my 120-300mm f/2.8 wildlife lens so i could get a modern 400mm f/2.8, and i use it for deep space alongside a standalone autoguider, it’s amazing :) it has its downsides, but that speed just can’t be replicated by any 400mm focal length refractor. plus i can use 2” filters in the drop in filter slot inside the lens, no clip in filters needed! it’s worth noting that a lot of telephoto lenses use drop in filters around the 2” size, so clip in filters may not always be your only option
I have Nikon's 400mm f2.8 TC for wildlife photography and I am interested in using it for astro as well. What tracker and guide did you end up getting for yours? How is it working out for you? I haven't purchased a tracker yet due to the concern over finding the right one for lens weight and balance for the 400mm f2.8 TC.
@@KristenLAndersen i’m jealous, i’ve been dreaming of having that lens for astro and wildlife for so long now! i use the nikon 400mm f/2.8 G ED VR and a D850 for both scenarios. so it’s both longer and significantly heavier than what you’d be using. with that said, i’ve been using the iOptron CEM25p, the newer version of that is the CEM26, or there’s their GEM28, and then there’s also SkyWatcher’s offering for that weight class, which i believe is the EQM35, HEQ5, and all their predecessors. Long story short, there’s the light-middleweight class of mounts that support 25-35lbs, and that’s the smallest i would be looking at for your setup :)
@@gabewrsewell Thanks!
Would there be an alternative to the William optics cat 61, that is less expensive. I am starting from scratch and you know all of the equipment is expensive.
Look at the Astro-tech or Apertura lines of telescopes. These are budget friendly refractors that work well. The Astro-tech AT60ED + 1x field flattener is around $500 and is similar in specs to the Cat 61, a bit slower and the stars will be a little more bloated, but still a good scope for the price.
Excellent video
With pix insight fixing chromatic aberration by separating the colors and then re-aligning them and Blur-exterminator fixing most coma…..even the cheapest lens is good enough.
Wow the tt artisan performs kind of awesome for what it is
RBB samples - the Canon seemed to have less fringing and tighter stars and show more subtle nebula detail. At least to my eyes. But hey, it should given it's much more expensive than the other 2 options.
You can 3D print a clip in filter holder for 1.25” filters that will work OK for APS-C size DSLR’s.
I need to investigate these. I'm guessing you need to snap up the mirror and then fit in the holder - I can see how there would be enough room in that case. How badly does the 1.25" filter vignette?
Now I'm stuck between the Rokinon 135mm and the TT Artisan 500m for next step in astrophotography
It would have made more sense to choose a Canon EF 400 f/5.6 or something else affordable. If you can afford a $10K Canon zoom, then you can drop a couple of grand on a nice little triplet.
9:38 - 😻
real analysis starts at 12:00
Very helpful information as usual!
Does moving the guide scope closer to the center of rotation of the mount effect the tracking? What if it's on the axis or on the opposite side of the axis? Does the distance between the axis of the mount and the centerline of the scope effect the accuracy/resolution of the guiding? I've always wondered about this.
I’ve never tested this. I am not positive the different options here would result in a big enough difference to show up in testing. The first thing autoguiding software does is ‘calibrate’ your guiding system by sending a series of corrections in each direction to the mount to understand its position and orientation.
To make it really fair, use a fixed focal length Canon "L" lens. Have you ever tried the Canon 200 mm F 1.8 L ?