I need a little help. Sony Alpha a58 ~ lens for astrophotography. Lens for flowers

[JBW]

Hi, I am totally and absolutely bedazzled by all of the lens options for my camera. It will be a year at least before I buy but any suggestions for lenses for astrophotography (moon, constellations, nebulae, coloured stars) and flowers/bugs in the wild? Are there any online reading resources that I can use to educate myself?

Brian

[Krawuntzel]

... and flowers/bugs in the wild? Are there any online reading resources that I can use to educate myself?
Brian

Hello Brian
for the flower/bugs I would consider a macro lens, either by Sony, see:
http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/len...ect_lens.shtml
or a macro lens made by Sigma, see:
http://lenshero.com/lenses/macro-len...alpha-by-Sigma

Sometimes you might still find a Minolta 100mm/2.8 macro which is/was a very good lens for this kind of photos (I own one of these myself and use it on my Alpha 900 and A77).
Erwin

[tao2]

+1 tae what Erwin says about the Minolta 100mm , it's a superb lens. Have a look on Japanese ebay equivalent (if ye know a Japanese speaker, or use google translate).Seen them for around 150 GBP, there. A couple of reviews...

http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/100mm-f28.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53528403

[DanK]

For bugs in the wild, you should get a dedicated macro lens. If you want to get close to 1:1 magnification, I wouldn't go shorter than 90 or 100mm, because the minimum working distance gets shorter as the focal length gets shorter. (Minimum working distance is unaffected by sensor size.) This is a fine option for flowers as well. Shorter works fine for flowers too if you have a plain background, but the longer the focal length, the greater the background blur. I use a 100mm macro lens for both.

I have only used Canon macro lenses, but from what I have read, most real macro lenses are very sharp, regardless of manufacturer. They differ in other features. I would avoid lenses that are externally focusing (that is, they zoom when focus is changed), since that might spook critters.

I can't help with astrophotography.

[Tringa]

For astrophotography have a look at this - http://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-fo...y-photography/

It is quite long but interesting. There is a link below the "Comparing Lenses for Nightscape Photography" table which links to an even larger list of lenses. It appears a favoured lens for night sky shots is a 24mm f1.4, though there are many others that are almost as well liked.


I don't know of any guides for photographing the moon and nebulae but there must be lots out there.

Close up shots of the moon need a much longer lens. I have managed a barely acceptable shot of the moon with a 300mm lens on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor, and even that shot needed cropping further but a longer lens would give a better chance of getting a better shot.

Fortunately even when a cresent (when the craters show up really well) the moon is bright and no guidance is needed, just a steady tripod.

Nebulae are something else altogther. All are very faint and small as seen from the Earth. Most shots that show any detail are via a telescope.

Dave

[jcuknz]

I would assume there is a whole lot of difference in the lens required depending on how you approach the stars and things and that the 24mm f/1.4 could be a good choice for general views of the night sky and including earth perhaps but quite useless for individual stars unless fitted to a high quality telescope ... and I doubt that would work either. [ the lens, not the scope]
But as I have pointed out to you there are other ways than a 'macro' lens for the flowers. best IQ coming from extension tubes. But since you can crop out of your 20Mp these days even a moderate CU lens will give good results with the edges cropped off ...I really do not know why you seem to ignore your bridge camera which is a quite capable camera if you work around its limitations. Just as you are finding with the new camera , just different problems.

[JBW]

I would assume there is a whole lot of difference in the lens required depending on how you approach the stars and things and that the 24mm f/1.4 could be a good choice for general views of the night sky and including earth perhaps but quite useless for individual stars unless fitted to a high quality telescope ... and I doubt that would work either. [ the lens, not the scope]
But as I have pointed out to you there are other ways than a 'macro' lens for the flowers. best IQ coming from extension tubes. But since you can crop out of your 20Mp these days even a moderate CU lens will give good results with the edges cropped off ...I really do not know why you seem to ignore your bridge camera which is a quite capable camera if you work around its limitations. Just as you are finding with the new camera , just different problems.

I am not ignoring my Fuji. The problem is that most of my macro shots are hand held and the Fuji is not as good at stopping the shaking as the Sony. My tremors are such that I rarely get a good hand held with the Fuji anymore.

[JBW]

For astrophotography have a look at this - http://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-fo...y-photography/

It is quite long but interesting. There is a link below the "Comparing Lenses for Nightscape Photography" table which links to an even larger list of lenses. It appears a favoured lens for night sky shots is a 24mm f1.4, though there are many others that are almost as well liked.


I don't know of any guides for photographing the moon and nebulae but there must be lots out there.

Close up shots of the moon need a much longer lens. I have managed a barely acceptable shot of the moon with a 300mm lens on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor, and even that shot needed cropping further but a longer lens would give a better chance of getting a better shot.

Fortunately even when a cresent (when the craters show up really well) the moon is bright and no guidance is needed, just a steady tripod.

Nebulae are something else altogther. All are very faint and small as seen from the Earth. Most shots that show any detail are via a telescope.

Dave

I have a feeling that I will be buying an adapter to mount the Sony on our Lightbridge. No tracking but fine views.

[DanK]

My tremors are such that I rarely get a good hand held with the Fuji anymore.

Brian,

I have almost no luck doing purely handheld macro shots. My hands just aren't steady enough. When I add the off-center weight of a diffused flash, which I do for most bug shots, it becomes virtually impossible for me. I almost always use some kind of support. Sometimes, the bug makes this easy--say, resting on a handrail that I can use for support. Mostly, they don't. Mostly, I use a monopod. For a few years, I used a really cheap plastic one that I bought for about $50. Brian Valentine, one of the best macro photographers I know, often uses just a plain stick. Lately, I have been using a carbon-fiber monopod with a tilt head that is set to rotate front-to-back. My usual rig is this:



The monopod is not too expensive, even though it is carbon fiber. (Mine is an Oben.) The tilt-head is expensive, but you can get much cheaper and lighter ones, e.g., Benro. The tripod ring I use to hold the whole thing is a knock-off I bought for very little on eBay.

Dan

[jcuknz]

I will repeat my suggestion made long ago when Brian first mentioned his steadiness problem and this was to organise a stick ... this can be something simple like a section of a broom handle or more elaborate with a 1/4 inch screw in one end to secure the camera, depending on what DIY tools one has or nearby person has to do the job for you.
Meanwhile I have shot a thread comparing my two dioptre close-up lens with 20mm and 16mm extension tubes on a small flower [weed] in my garden this afternoon. I think it is a brochli or suchlike with flowers about 20mm or so across.
It does not have to be elaborate shop item like Dan suggests and my wife uses her walking stick [ ex ski-pole ] for this purpose and never uses the thread I added to it for her
One should bear in mind that a two dioptre on a 140[280] lens does not give the magnification such as my 430mm bridge or Brians 550mm bridge ... hence my disappointment and resorting to extension tubes now I have an ILC like Brian's new camera.

[JBW]

Dan, my bamboo stick was my monopod. But over time I found that unless it worked a little less every day. Now i need a monopd for the camera and a wall for me. That and a camera with serious anti shake in the build.

[JBW]

I will repeat my suggestion made long ago when Brian first mentioned his steadiness problem and this was to organise a stick ... this can be something simple like a section of a broom handle or more elaborate with a 1/4 inch screw in one end to secure the camera, depending on what DIY tools one has or nearby person has to do the job for you.
Meanwhile I have shot a thread comparing my two dioptre close-up lens with 20mm and 16mm extension tubes on a small flower [weed] in my garden this afternoon. I think it is a brochli or suchlike with flowers about 20mm or so across.
It does not have to be elaborate shop item like Dan suggests and my wife uses her walking stick [ ex ski-pole ] for this purpose and never uses the thread I added to it for her
One should bear in mind that a two dioptre on a 140[280] lens does not give the magnification such as my 430mm bridge or Brians 550mm bridge ... hence my disappointment and resorting to extension tubes now I have an ILC like Brian's new camera.

I did take your advice and developed a bit of skill with a stick. But over time the stick option has quit working. Even with a wall and a stick most days it is not going to work very well without a great anti shake system in camera and lens. hnece my questions about lenses.Whatever i get, if i get, will need to be tremor proof.

[DanK]

Dan, my bamboo stick was my monopod. But over time I found that unless it worked a little less every day. Now i need a monopd for the camera and a wall for me. That and a camera with serious anti shake in the build.

Brian,

I sympathize. I often kneel to steady myself, or even sit in the dirt. One nice thing about a monopod, vs. a stick, is that you don't need to stabilize the camera on the support. It's firmly fastened.

I often kneel or sit in the dirt to lessen my own motion.

This is one reason for using flash. Flash makes the whole rig even harder to hold steady, but it also freezes motion.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Astrophotography? That generally means shooting through a telescope, not a camera lens. You can get a shot of the moon with just about any lens, but the others in your list tend to require highly specialized equipment for really long exposures and tracking motors that move the telescope at the same rate as the earth's rotation.

This is a very expensive hobby to get into and I personally only know one person who does this.

[JBW]

Astrophotography? That generally means shooting through a telescope, not a camera lens. You can get a shot of the moon with just about any lens, but the others in your list tend to require highly specialized equipment for really long exposures and tracking motors that move the telescope at the same rate as the earth's rotation.

This is a very expensive hobby to get into and I personally only know one person who does this.

I know which is why i was hoping to be able to find a lens.

[Manfred M]

I know which is why i was hoping to be able to find a lens.

Why would anyone spend all the money on a telescope when a lens would do? There's a good reason that a different set of tools is used. Simple stuff like the moon and star streaks, okay, that can easily be done with a lens, the rest, no.

[jcuknz]

I thought of you Brian when I was browsing through the latest Jaycar catalog [ Aussie electronics retailer] and saw an i-pad on the back of a telescope .... they have a website too.