Lens Recommendation Astro and Macro

[BlkdOutGsxr]

Hello all,
I'm new to the forum, just thought I would get some opinions on what lenses I should consider for the two subjects posted; Astrophotography and Macro. I've been reading around the internet but there is so much information that it really makes it difficult to form an opinion. Astro can be really expensive I know, I'm not looking to get crazy with it but just kinda basic landscapes with stars. I am a college student, so I'd like to keep the lenses under 500 dollars/pc. Thanks in advance for any help and I look forward to discussions on the forum!

Body: D5100

My current lenses:
18-55mm 3.5 kit lens
55-200mm VR
will be purchasing 50mm 1.8 when it gets in stock at the photo shop in town for portraits and walking around

 

[Rafterman]

For macro, the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 is just $490 brand new. It won't auto-focus on the D5100 though, so you'd have to manually do it, which is most often the case when shooting macro anyway. It's a RAZOR sharp lens though.

If you want something with an AF motor in the lens, look at the Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8 as an option. It's $465 brand new at Amazon.

As for the astro-photography, just try the 18-55 kit lens to start. Use a tripod, then do some really long exposure stuff.

 

[bc_steve]

Astro can be really expensive I know, I'm not looking to get crazy with it but just kinda basic landscapes with stars

you are going to want a wide fast lens for this. Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 perhaps? There are several other options in this range, but go with something with a wide aperture.

 

[bc_steve]

Yep you can definitely take some photos of the stars with the 18-55 kit lens. Here's a couple I did with it:


nighttime in the valley by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr


venus over the mountains by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr

Here's a couple with the Tokina:


Sedona, Arizona by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr


Sedona, Arizona by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr

 

[BlkdOutGsxr]

@ Bc_steve did you use a flash on your Sedona, AZ picture?(edit: your first one with the lit foreground, didn't realize you had two of Sedona) I'm heading out tonight to try out my 18-55mm and was curious.

 

[bc_steve]

Nope I was too far away from those rocks for a flash. The moon was out though, about 3/4 full.

 

[Aloicious]

if you're just doing wide angle astro stuff, most any wide angle can be made to work, but you'll get the best results with a fast wide prime. its when you get into long and telescope stuff that you need to up your game significantly. just make sure you have a good steady tripod and a remote release, or use the timer or something.

this is a series of images I took with a cheap $100 50mm f1.8d a few years ago when I was first experimenting with astrophotography. its far from perfect, but I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of landmarks I could see clearly with a cheap 50mm.

here's the notated version of that image if you want to see some of the landmarks in it:

now the 50f1.8D won't autofocus on your D5100, but you could get the slightly higher priced 1.8G version, or if you're including landscape in the images, something wider would be better, perhaps a 35mm 1.8, or if you've got a little extra cash something like a 28mm 1.8, or look at third party lenses too, but ideally you'll want something pretty fast to be able to capture all the light you can.

 

[Aloicious]

forgot about the macro question. that kindof depends on what you're shooting, if its products or flowers or something like that, then a 60mm-100mm would be fine, if you're shooting bugs or anything alive, then I wouldn't even consider anything below 100mm, you'll have to be way too close to get the shot and most bugs are easily frightened. I've got a 150mm Sigma f2.8 non-OS macro that is excellent, if you look around the used market you should be able to find a good copy -without OS- for around $500-600. since you'll be manually focusing for macro anyways, don't forget to look at older lenses too, the older nikon 105mm f2.8 macro is still and excellent lens, or the tokina 100mm or similar lenses. you MAY even be able to find a 105mm VR macro on the used market, but they'll probably be in the $6-700 range.

 

[BlkdOutGsxr]

Yes I was finding that macro was not just one kinda lens as I was looking around. I think that I'll probably just get out and shoot as much as possible and see what areas I get frustrated with my current equipment in. I know I'm buying a 50mm F/1.8 because its cheap and a great lens, but for Macro I think I'll hold off till I know exactly what it is I need. Thanks for the information everyone, I think I have a good starting place to do some research. It's difficult going into it blind lol. Keep any comments coming if you have other suggestions!

Thomas

 

[Rafterman]

I know I'm buying a 50mm F/1.8 because its cheap and a great lens

I'd also heartily recommend the 35 1.8G in addition to the 50. You may find that the 50 isn't wide enough on the D5100 after the crop factor is taken into consideration. I have the 50 1.8D myself, and it's a great lens, but I regret selling my 35 a little more and more each day. I'm actually considering letting the 50 go and picking up another 35.

 

[bc_steve]

Yep I can get a lot more stars to show up at 1.8 than I can at 2.8. Aloicious, that is an awesome pic by the way. I find with the 50mm it is difficult to get much of the landscape in your shot because there is more lot pollution by the horizon and the stars are easier to see just a little bit higher up.

I would love to try the 24mm f/1.4 but it is around $2000! The 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 lenses are pretty affordable and excellent lenses though. As far as the 50mm goes, I have the D lens but it focuses on my camera. I would probably spend the extra money on the G lens to get auto-focus...

 

[Aloicious]

thanks, yeah I live in a pretty dark area so I can get to places with almost NO light pollution within an hour drive or so that picture is actually a bunch of frames stacked about 4-5 images deep, then stitched together (you can see where I missed some in the upper right corner)...I totally agree, a 50 is kindof long, and will limit you shutter times if you're trying to freeze the stars in their place, its just the cheapest lens of the bunch, the 35 would be much better for landscape stuff, I'd love to try that 24mm f1.4 too, I think it'd do really well.

this is from that same night (this was a few years ago and these were all with my old D90) this is an accidental single frame pic, I didn't see those telephone poles in the image, but I liked how it came out, that bright cluster of stars at the top of the image here is M7 labeled cluster in the picture from the other post.

and this is a 25minute exposure with the 14-24 at 14mm f2.8, this was from about a year ago or so. doing this at like f1.4 or f1.8 would have been incredible, that yellow in the sky isn't light pollution, its the milky way!, the slight orange around the tree is from a campfire about 1/2 mile away.

 

[BlkdOutGsxr]

When you say that the 50mm is pretty long to try and freeze the stars, is that because of the F1.8 vs the F1.4? Would I have the same problems if I had the 35mm 1.8? I will probably be spending around 500 now and 500 a little later on lenses. So I'm now trying to decide if I want the 50mm F1.8 + the 35mm F1.8, or If I would be better suited to buy something with F1.4 (like the sigma 30mm). Thanks for the help everyone!

Edit: Also if I can take get pictures that are even close to any of the ones shown on the thread I'll be satisfied LoL, this will be a learning process more then a "now I finally have the hardware I need process".

 

[Aloicious]

I was referring to the focal length when trying to freeze the motion in the stars. see when we do astro shots, we have to take into account the movement of the earth, which is why we get things like star trails if we just do a long exposure on a single frame. The longer the focal length the more pronounced this movement will be, and you'll have less time to leave the shutter open before the trailing is seen in the image, therefore you will be able to leave the shutter open longer to capture more light with a wider lens before you start seeing star trailing. for example, with a 50mm lens, you might be able to take a ~12s single exposure max before you start seeing star trails (these are just rough exposure times since other factors will come into play like what part of the sky you're photographing), but with a 35mm lens, you might be able to do something closer to ~20s before the star trailing is noticable....a 14mm ultrawide would let you get closer to 40s exposures without trailing, but a telephoto lens could be less than 1 second before the trailing is seen (with telephoto its harder to estimate a time since the movement is less pronounced at the celestial poles, vs at the meridian, etc...this is why with telephoto and telescopic stuff you need a special mount that is motorized to counteract the earth's movement in order to do longer exposures, etc..)....if that makes any sense.

personally, for the stuff you're shooting, I'd skip the 50mm and get the fastest wide angle you can. I hear the new sigma 35mm 1.4 is a phenominal lens, even moreso than the nikon ones. but I'm not too sure about the 30mm 1.4, you might want to research them out and see which will net the best results.

in the meantime, don't wait to get what's ideal, get out an practice with what you've got. you should be able to get some great pics with that.

 

[BlkdOutGsxr]

Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware the focal length made that drastic of an effect on the photo. Though it makes sense once I think about it.

Does anyone have any input on why the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 is so cheap compared to the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4? Price for the 30mm is half of the 35mm. Curious if anyone has used both on here. I have only read rave reviews on the 35mm, supposed to be really impressive.

Edit: NM on the Sigma 30mm, I might just save and increase my budget a little bit. Everything I read about that 35mm make it look like the best lens ever lol.