So, for around a grand ...

[DonSchap]

Well, after checking out the telescope idea ... I am seriously considering it.




I did the math, with the astrophotography aspect, a complete starter kit (optics and power) and a GPS alignment add-on, and it comes in right around $1550.

That's a 2032mm f/10 lens! Some serious scoping out of that eagle.

Take something like this ...


Get it more to around this size ... (simulation)


Yeah, telescopes also flip everything on its head! LOL

Without moving That is "monster-reach" over the 200-500mm. A lot more lens ... 31-lbs worth ... with tripod. It is still lighter than that 33-lb SIGMA 200-500mm f/2.8!

[Elisha]

but the Sigma looks way sexier!

[DonSchap]

At $24,000 ... that's a lot of sex, Elisha

[DWessel]

At $24,000, that's a new car. Or, lets see for that you could buy:


Camera
A900 body .................................................. ...... $2,700
Spare A900 body ............................................... $2,700
Sub-total .................................................. ....... $5,400

High quality lens line up:
16-35mm f/2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* ..$1,900
24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* .............$1,600
Sony AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM ................$1,800
300mm f/2.8 APO G SSM Autofocus ....................... $6,300
Sigma Telephoto 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO ............... $5,000
Subtotal .................................................. .........$16,600

Grand total .................................................. ......$22,000

That leaves room a macro prime or two.

[Peekayoh]

That does it. I'm definitely not buying that Sigma.

[DonSchap]

Well, you would have to be an "Olympic Contender" to just lug it around by your self. It would be a terrific lens for indoor sports, but that camera is going nowhere, fast, on the back of that puppy.

Anyway, the telescope can serve two roles ... a tremendous long distance lens for the camera and just an observational, somewhat portable look at the stars, planetoids ... and that incoming asteroid!

[DonSchap]

Okay ... focusing in ... I am dismissing the powerful flash/bang and the new camera for the time being. Leaving the 85mm f/1.4, the fisheye (thinking about a MF 8mm f/3.5, not the AF 4.5mm f/2.8) and the telescope.

Here is my leaning on this, so far ... the telescope package w/GPS ($1547) and the 8mm fisheye ($349) Lots of glass ... and some growth into areas I have NEVER been before! Add some excitement to this coming FALL.

[Peekayoh]

$349 is a lot of loot just for a gimmick.

[SONYNUT]

I've had telescopes...pain in the butt...

[DonSchap]

I've had telescopes...pain in the butt...

Yeah, I know what you mean, considering what I have gone through in the past with my old tube telescope. But there is nothing MORE rewarding than to get it all set up for that flash-in-the-pan event (meteor storm or spacecraft blur). LOL Man, don't make me think about this.

$349 is a lot of loot just for a gimmick.

As far as the 8mm f/3.5 goes, considering people are paying almost $1000 for the alternative fisheyes ...it seems to be an honest-to-jake bargain.

I think you guys are just hung up on the camera body. And that is not a bad thing ... just something I'm not feeling all that pressured to have to get. It truly is a natural progression, just not very exciting, considering the substantial increase in overall cost (vertical grip {cheapest @ 'SONY Style' Hong Kong ($295)}, no trigger flash, and each image's file size) and that I have most of the focal lengths covered in glass, a couple novelty lenses are not really that much to take as a "walk on the wild side." As Sean noted: I have had the telescope on my "wish list" like forever. Too many opportunities come up where I am just fuming at not having one available to get those occasional 'celestial' shots.

I also have flash units out the ying-yang ... so the Metz is just being redundant, at this point. I would definitely find some use for it, but it would not have the dramatic impact on my photography that other things might. Should I start doing any real work with this whole set up ... it will be a first purchase.

The only alternative is the CZ 85mm f/1.4 ... and it is hard to turn my back on it. I did a focal length evaluation of my shots, recently, with a free software tool.



The analysis revealed that I am usually shooting in the 10-50mm range ... with a lot of long lens 200-500 stuff (mostly 500mm). That leaves the 70-200mm almost looking like a virtual desert. It is not like I do not own a 70-200mmm f/2.8 zoom ... it it rarely gets pulled for being just too long or too short. So ... where does that leave my use of an 85mm? (The 80mm stuff on this chart were 90mm MACRO shots I recently did in Wisconsin.) It is weird, but before I sold all my Canon stuff, the last two lenses I bought were the Canon EF 35mm f/2 and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm f./1,8 was the first one I sold, barely used! So, the experience tells me that the 85mm is an expensive add on ... not a "base lens" for me. One of the most expensive I would own. I honestly believe the telescope would get more use!

It is a personal reflection. I suppose if I shot more portrait stuff ... but, I don't. I shoot the moon!