What f-mount lens should I use for M42, M45, M31, etc Nikon D7500 · Pete · ... · 31 · 472 · 3

I could never achieve what you have Andrea, your work is fabulous. I just get joy from looking at what people like you are able to achieve and share with us.
Thanks for your hard work!

Burger Oosthuizen:

Pete:

Burger Oosthuizen:
Hi Pete, it will work on your camera, but only really good for me milky way wide angle photos, no go for DSOs, you need at least 200mm.

andrea tasselli:

Pete:
I did some research, would this work well? https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8/sku-2615801

Stopped down to f/3.3 yes. But mainly for vistas/panoramas.

Burger Oosthuizen:
You can capture wide views of Orion, witches head horse head and flame, but they will be small, also Rho Ophiuchus.
Rho Ophiuchus complex can be imaged with success with something like a 80-100 mm focal length.

Wouldn’t this mean to get a 70-300? I’m new to astrophotography and I’m basically a broke teenager so aperture doesn’t matter the most

THat lens IS A good start! Very versatile.
You are a broke teenager, I'm a broke old man (67)😄
Buy good second hand! As long as you get it through a reputable place like eBay. Have fun! That's what is all about, one day you may be able to afford more expensive equipment, Trevor Jones on YouTube started out like us, with basic equipment and no money, check out his channel, very inspiring!

if you pay for the freight, I will gift you a Nikon 70/300 lens I can do without? Not sure how we can do that, but we can find a way!

Burger Oosthuizen:

Jon Rista:

Pete:
I got a Nikon D7500 (not modified, not going to) and the 18-55 stock lens isn't enough. Is there any good lens I could use for DSOs? Budget is $100, no higher.

"Good" is what gets me here. For terrestrial, it doesn't take all that much to create a good enough lens, and in some cases some aberrations (notably spherical) can actually be desirable. 

Astrophotography is a different beast, though, and "good" is an entirely different measure. Unless you are ok cropping a fair amount, you need pretty darn good optical performance all the way into the corners for a lens to be "good enough" for AP. As such, a $100 budget is pretty limiting. Maybe you could compensate with AI processing, but if you really want a good lens, it might be worth saving some more money and getting a lens that is better suited to the hobby.

You are correct. I guess it's a case of expectations verses reality.
If your goal is to publish or try for "likes"
Photo competitions etc, then you have to spend the money. But for an amateur like me on a budget who wants to explore the night sky, I am happy to compare myself with myself and try to do the best that I can with my budget in dollars and time.

My baseline for replying isn't about getting likes or APODs or anything like that. Its really just about getting a good picture. Not even a stellar picture, just a good picture.

Cheap lenses generally (some exceptions) make fairly significant optical compromises. That usually shows up as extreme stars in the peripheral regions of the field with astrophotography...maybe coma, maybe astigmatism, maybe extreme CA, maybe something else or a combination of effects. In any case, it tends to cost you field of view, as these usually need to be cropped out. Maybe something like BXT these days could correct all of these aberrations, and if so, then maybe its a different story these days.

Nevertheless...money can always be saved. It sometimes doesn't take much of a shift in lifestyle to say sav $10 a day, which might mean another $50 every week, around $400 every month (in my case, this was dropping designer coffee, which usually cost me $7 a pop once or twice a day!) Just offering that it may be worth saving more, before buying something.

Well, you let me know if you want the lens, it's just in my office.
Look forward to seeing your images!

Jon Rista:

Burger Oosthuizen:

Jon Rista:

Pete:
I got a Nikon D7500 (not modified, not going to) and the 18-55 stock lens isn't enough. Is there any good lens I could use for DSOs? Budget is $100, no higher.

"Good" is what gets me here. For terrestrial, it doesn't take all that much to create a good enough lens, and in some cases some aberrations (notably spherical) can actually be desirable. 

Astrophotography is a different beast, though, and "good" is an entirely different measure. Unless you are ok cropping a fair amount, you need pretty darn good optical performance all the way into the corners for a lens to be "good enough" for AP. As such, a $100 budget is pretty limiting. Maybe you could compensate with AI processing, but if you really want a good lens, it might be worth saving some more money and getting a lens that is better suited to the hobby.

You are correct. I guess it's a case of expectations verses reality.
If your goal is to publish or try for "likes"
Photo competitions etc, then you have to spend the money. But for an amateur like me on a budget who wants to explore the night sky, I am happy to compare myself with myself and try to do the best that I can with my budget in dollars and time.

My baseline for replying isn't about getting likes or APODs or anything like that. Its really just about getting a good picture. Not even a stellar picture, just a good picture.

Cheap lenses generally (some exceptions) make fairly significant optical compromises. That usually shows up as extreme stars in the peripheral regions of the field with astrophotography...maybe coma, maybe astigmatism, maybe extreme CA, maybe something else or a combination of effects. In any case, it tends to cost you field of view, as these usually need to be cropped out. Maybe something like BXT these days could correct all of these aberrations, and if so, then maybe its a different story these days.

Nevertheless...money can always be saved. It sometimes doesn't take much of a shift in lifestyle to say sav $10 a day, which might mean another $50 every week, around $400 every month (in my case, this was dropping designer coffee, which usually cost me $7 a pop once or twice a day!) Just offering that it may be worth saving more, before buying something.

Well said! Indeed it's something to aspire to!
Again, great work! 😄