Back to forums

Usable Objective Lens For The Canon EOS 2000D

Canon EOS 2000D DSLR Buying Advice
6 replies•236 views
Szijártó Áron avatar
Szijártó Áron avatar
#astrophotography

Hello and welcome. For the previous post, I have another question.
Since I was about to invest in astrophotography cameras like DSLR. I went to see to look for a budget-friendly cheap but good objective lens, and when I was on them, every marketplace I looked into to getting both the camera and the objective, they were so expensive and I have to buy them separately.
So I wanna know which camera objectives you guys use for the 2000D if u have it.
​​​​​​And it's cheaper to buy and good for astrophotography. Like it has a good reach or extended reach to capture everything that we can.
​
Maxim avatar
Maxim avatar
Hey, depends on what kind of objects you want to shoot and if you're planning to use a mount or a startracker.
Szijártó Áron avatar
Szijártó Áron avatar
Maxim:
Hey, depends on what kind of objects you want to shoot and if you're planning to use a mount or a startracker.


@Maxim what I want to capture are the objects that we can see.
The moon, planets including those that are far from us too.
And those celestial objects like the stars. And the faint, brighter objects to the galaxies and nebulae and of course the star clusters and comets.  Those objects can be captured through a DSLR camera.
JoeRez avatar
JoeRez avatar
DSLR cameras can capture all of the objects you listed in the previous post. However, smaller object like galaxies, star clusters and especially planets require longer focal lengths. Camera lens become very expensive at long focal lengths therefore telescopes become a better cost option. Then you will also need a tracker or mount to follow the object for long exposures. I'm only hitting the high points of the this subject. 

If you are just starting out, may I suggest the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. It's relatively inexpensive (about $125 US dollars), but can take some nice wide field images. Note that you will be limited to only 6 second exposures before star trails appear.  For longer exposures you will need a tracker.

Hope this helps and CLEAR SKIES !!!
Helpful Supportive
Ethan Sweet avatar
Ethan Sweet avatar
For milky way shots you can't go wrong with the Rokinon (Samyang) 14mm f/2.8.

As mentioned above, for a little bit tighter view the Canon 50mm EF f/1.8 is an excellent starter lens as well. However the stars are trash at f/1.8.

I use the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 USM II for most of my shots (all the ones in my AB profile were taken with my unmodified 70D and this lens). It's an awesome lens and darn near perfect at f/4 that you can pick up on MPB for $450.

You will need a tracker for this lens though (unless you enjoy taking thousands of 1 second images)

Larger focal length than that and you might as well get a refractor.

CS!
Helpful
Miroslav avatar
Miroslav avatar
Canon 2000D can make a good photos, i am using it with a telescope and its a stock one. It have some noise but if you take a good ammount of pictures you will be good. I found that shooting at ISO1600 works best for me and my setup. With display turned off while you shooting, it can last about 3 hours, maybe a bit more, thats why i have a spare battery. The thing i dont like about it is non rotating screen, i wish i have screen like that.
Concise
Christian Großmann avatar
Christian Großmann avatar
Reading your post, you seem to be on a really tight budget. If you are starting out, the stock (unmodified) Canon EOS 2000D will be a good starting point. The mentioned 50mm f/1.8 lens is an option. But you may have to use it at f/4 at least to get rid of most of the coma it produces. So in your position, the standard kit lens (18-55mm?) is a good option, too. It is really sharp compared to the 50mm lens (I owned both) and you may use it for daylight photography as well. As @Miroslav  said, you can get great images with this equipment. I did my first images on a similar setup as well. The ISO1600 is what I used all the time.

Although you can image without a star tracker or mount, astro photography is in my opinion starting with such a device. There are some cheap options out there, but with a DSLR and (maybe) a longer focal length, you may look for something like the Skywatcher star tracker or sky guider or whatever they are called. These devices may be more expensive than even your camera and your lens together. But a good mount or tracker is the most important thing in astro photography. I am sure, most of the other members agree with this statement.

The targets you mentioned are all totally different from each other. Shots of the milky way with its bright nebulae are nice to image with a camera lens. But even smaller scopes up to 400mm might be called wide field. With even longer focal lengths, you can be more selective. But then you want a better mount or tracker. For planets, you need a lot of focal lenth. A bigger telescope is a must in this case. You may guess, that every step up on the ladder to a better setup is much more expensive. That is one part of the rabbit hole everybody is talking about.

But don't let these words bring you down. With a simple camera on a triped and some thought through techniques, you can get great images. Just do it and learn the basics. You soon will realize what is needed next and you get a feeling about where to go.

Clear Skies

Christian
Helpful Supportive