I plan some time lapse astrophotography with a Z6 ll. I have a 24-70 F4S and am thinking of a Z 50mm 1.8. Any thoughts by anyone of pros and cons? Will be using a tracker also.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
Why would you want to do time lapse photography with a tracker?
Either use the tracker for long exposures or use a series of shots for time lapse.
Using a wide field of view will make the sky motion very small. You might want to use the longer lens for the time lapse unless you're leaving the system set up for a few hours, at which time you might run into battery issues on the camera. I think the longest time lapse I ever took (germinating onion seeds) ran about 6 hours before the battery ran out.
Focal Length depends on what you are trying to achieve. Just a particular segment of the sky, or a whole swab? For general sky, 14mm to 24 mm single focal lens is kind of standard. If you need a specific cluster then the 50mm could be all you need. Whatever you get, f4 or more, such an f2.8, f1.8, aperture lens is better.
You are correct, two separate things taking place, not at same time. Tracking planets and celestial objects is one, but time lapse night photography another. Thanks for lens suggestions. I also have a Coolpix 1000P I use for planet shots, with the tracker to stack after. It’s fun, and easier than pulling the Mead 8” telescope.
The 50mm will be the one that shines...which isn't surprising...it's a great lens for astro...seems to be sharpest at f/2.8
The zoom...well...not as good...not intended or designed with that in mind...but it will work no problem.
The one to get for the Z system is the 20mm f/1.8 Nikon...best they have ever made.
Addressing a 50mm lens purchase:
Aside from the current project you have in mind, you are obviously building your lens collection.
50mm is a good all around lens to have, it mimics what the human eye sees. I see the Z lenses are a big jump between the 1.8 and the 1.2. Obviously the 1.2 gives you more mid range apertures where the lens will be sharpest... but a $1500 jump from the 1.8 ($600) to the 1.2 (+/- $2,000) 50mm is pretty steep. $600 is bad enough for a 1.8. Thats 3 times what a 50mm 1.8 DSLR Nikkor costs ($216). I was going to suggest jumping to the 1.4 ($450)- till I saw you will want Z lenses. ( unless you are good with the adapter)
I don't think I will be going to mirrorless anytime soon, all my glass is DSLR. I know you can get adapters...
RE: night /landscape photography:
I like the wide open, feel you get with wide angle for landscapes, it feels like you could stick your head in the frame and look around, where narrower zoom lenses compress details, making features to look like layers... So depending on what you want for a field of view specific to your project at hand, I'd usually grab for a wide angle for night photography/landscapes, (in the 20mm's or less),
Regardless, I would always agree that a 50 is good to have on hand.
Thank you very much for sharing this compendium of resources. It's GREAT!
You might like something wider
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.