I hope this is not a stupid question but here goes. I have a dslr and a lot of experience with terrestrial photography. I would like to take a crack at some imaging. My plan is to mount a dslr with prime lens, 200mm f2.8 or 300mm f4 to my cem25p mount and not attach the dslr to a telescope, say a 80mm.
My question is, what is the advantage of a dedicated refractor over a similarly speced prime lens? The lens would be a high quality Canon L series lens. I realize that this would not work for visual observing but I intend to only image.
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
The lens is an excellent way to start. The L series are very popular.
But you asked what the advantage of a scope. Since it need focus only at infinity, it's cheaper. And has fewer elements to absorb light.
But a fast lens is a better way to get started. <smile> Learning imaging and doing imaging are two different things.
Beware of being unduly influenced by a terrestrial background. Terrestrial and astro are even more different. For example. An astro specific calibrating/stacking/processing program like Astro Pixel Processor has significant advantages over trying to add on to and warp a terrestrial photo editing program to do astro.
The low signal to noise ratio in astro changes _everything_. A cautionary tale.
"I've been into photography for 20 years so how hard can AP be?" He found out. <smile>
Edited by bobzeq25, 08 April 2021 - 12:10 PM.