DA 200mm f2.8 for astrophotography?

quedecree · 12-10-2014, 09:56 PM

Has anyone used the DA 200mm f2.8 for astrophotography or night time shots? The reviews seem pretty good except for a bit of CA/fringing on the edges of high contrast objects - this could be a problem at night for stars/lights. I bought the 35mm f2.4 recently which is quite ok during the day but at night, whoa! every star gets a little red halo around it making the whole image go a bit 'pink'! Wouldn't want to make the same mistake with a more expensive lens like the 200mm 2.8 or maybe the 300mm f4.

I've used my 18-125mm for a few night shots with surprisingly good results but it's f5.6 at 125mm which is a little slow for what I'm doing.

**jbinpg** · 12-10-2014, 10:04 PM

No worries with the DA*300/4. It is an astrophoto champ.

Stone G. · 12-11-2014, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by quedecree

Has anyone used the DA 200mm f2.8 for astrophotography or night time shots? The reviews seem pretty good except for a bit of CA/fringing on the edges of high contrast objects - this could be a problem at night for stars/lights

No 'ordinary' telephoto lenses are optimized for astro photography, but I am quite happy with my DA* 200. I usually stop down the lens a bit, and here are some examples at f/4.0, (click on images to see larger versions):

(Uncropped image)

(Cropped image)

More examples here: DSLR Astophotography: Astrotracer Images with Pentax GPS Unit O-GPS1

quedecree · 12-11-2014, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Stone G.

No 'ordinary' telephoto lenses are optimized for astro photography, but I am quite happy with my DA* 200. I usually stop down the lens a bit, and here are some examples at f/4.0, (click on images to see larger versions):

Cheers for that. The CA looks quite acceptable - bit of blue fringing on the brighter stuff. but not the horrible red halos around everything that the 35mm f2.4 gives. Particularly like the photo of Jupiter - the stars are nice and sharp around the field. M33 and M31 are very low on the horizon for me and I can never get a good look at them.

maxxxx · 12-11-2014, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Stone G.

No 'ordinary' telephoto lenses are optimized for astro photography, but I am quite happy with my DA* 200. I usually stop down the lens a bit, and here are some examples at f/4.0, (click on images to see larger versions):

(Uncropped image)

(Cropped image)

More examples here: DSLR Astophotography: Astrotracer Images with Pentax GPS Unit O-GPS1

A few questions about the Andromeda picture:
Did you use stacking?
Do you need to be in a dark area? I can take Andromeda picture in Los Angeles but the background is brown and I can't figure out how to process the image without losing detail and color

Stone G. · 12-11-2014, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by maxxxx

A few questions about the Andromeda picture:

Yes, I use stacking as I shoot under rather light polluted conditions. Details for the Andromeda picture are:

20 sec., f/4.0, ISO2000, 8 images stacked in deep Sky Stacker and post-processed in PhotoImpact X3.

Contrast enhancement is a must for me because of the light pollution and hence, the need for stacking to reduce noice.

Attached is one of the original images (strongly reduced in size here but uncropped). The images were shot some 40 kilometers north of Copenhagen, (and with other towns nearby), but I can even get quite decent results from my balcony in a light polluted suburb just 12 kilometers from Copenhagen.

maxxxx · 12-11-2014, 12:35 PM

I usually shoot at ISO 3200, F2.8 and 30 seconds. I will try your values. I wonder if Copenhagen is as bad as Los Angeles in terms of light pollution.

Stone G. · 12-11-2014, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by maxxxx

I wonder if Copenhagen is as bad as Los Angeles in terms of light pollution.

Well, Los Angeles is about as large in area as the entire island of Zealand where I live - but due to the lousy climate we usually suffer from poor seeing, mist and smog...

Anyway, here's what my suburbanian sky looks like:

single exposure: 200mm, f/2.8, 20 sec., ISO 3200

and what some stacking and post-processing can do:

10 images stacked in Deep Sky Stacker and post processed in PhotoImpact X3

quedecree · 12-11-2014, 02:01 PM

This is a single 5 minute exposure @ ISO 800 with the Sigma 70-300 Zoom. I was about to do some stacking when the clouds abruptly rolled in! Apart from some relatively minor fringing and a bit of ghosting on the brighter stars, I think it's pretty good for a $200 lens. It was around the 200mm mark at f4.5. Windy night with the light pollution just starting to creep in on the raw file - only a little adjustment to the blacks and a smidge more exposure was used. Looking forward to getting my hands on one of the better pentax telephoto lenses.

(manually guided with illuminated cross hairs and 4" f5 acro refractor.)

maxxxx · 12-11-2014, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Stone G.

Well, Los Angeles is about as large in area as the entire island of Zealand where I live - but due to the lousy climate we usually suffer from poor seeing, mist and smog...

Anyway, here's what my suburbanian sky looks like:

single exposure: 200mm, f/2.8, 20 sec., ISO 3200

and what some stacking and post-processing can do:

10 images stacked in Deep Sky Stacker and post processed in PhotoImpact X3

My pictures have the same brown background. Which software removes the brown? Deep sky stacker or PhotoImpact? I only have LightRoom and couldn't figure it out.

Stone G. · 12-11-2014, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by maxxxx

My pictures have the same brown background. Which software removes the brown? Deep sky stacker or PhotoImpact? I only have LightRoom and couldn't figure it out.

Deep Sky Stacker produces an almost grayscale image and I use PhotoImpact to "nudge" colour and contrast. That's quite a topic in itself (involving curves, levels, layers...).

Anyway, Lightroom is good for raw-processing and library management, but it isn't really designed for specialized digital (raster) image processing. Dedicated raster software such as PhotoShop (Essentials), Paintshop Pro, Gimp and the like are much better suited for that.

---------- Post added 12-11-2014 at 11:12 PM ----------

Originally posted by quedecree

(manually guided with illuminated cross hairs and 4" f5 acro refractor.)

Absolutely good for such a lens. You even captured the Flame Nebula very well!

maxxxx · 12-11-2014, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Stone G.

Deep Sky Stacker produces an almost grayscale image and I use PhotoImpact to "nudge" colour and contrast. That's quite a topic in itself (involving curves, levels, layers...).

Anyway, Lightroom is good for raw-processing and library management, but it isn't really designed for specialized digital (raster) image processing. Dedicated raster software such as PhotoShop (Essentials), Paintshop Pro, Gimp and the like are much better suited for that.

Good idea. I have Photoshop elements and the gimp. I will try them next time I have pictures.

I hope to get to Utah and Nevada over Christmas and they should have much less light pollution.

12-10-2014, 09:56 PM	#1
quedecree New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 15	DA 200mm f2.8 for astrophotography? Has anyone used the DA 200mm f2.8 for astrophotography or night time shots? The reviews seem pretty good except for a bit of CA/fringing on the edges of high contrast objects - this could be a problem at night for stars/lights. I bought the 35mm f2.4 recently which is quite ok during the day but at night, whoa! every star gets a little red halo around it making the whole image go a bit 'pink'! Wouldn't want to make the same mistake with a more expensive lens like the 200mm 2.8 or maybe the 300mm f4. I've used my 18-125mm for a few night shots with surprisingly good results but it's f5.6 at 125mm which is a little slow for what I'm doing.

12-11-2014, 01:31 AM	#3
Stone G. Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Zealand, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,516	*Pentax DA 200mm Astrophotos** Originally posted by quedecree Has anyone used the DA 200mm f2.8 for astrophotography or night time shots? The reviews seem pretty good except for a bit of CA/fringing on the edges of high contrast objects - this could be a problem at night for stars/lights No 'ordinary' telephoto lenses are optimized for astro photography, but I am quite happy with my DA* 200. I usually stop down the lens a bit, and here are some examples at f/4.0, (click on images to see larger versions): (Uncropped image) (Cropped image) More examples here: DSLR Astophotography: Astrotracer Images with Pentax GPS Unit O-GPS1

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: DA* 200mm F2.8	Ayoh	Sold Items	4	07-03-2014 07:09 PM
DA* 200mm F2.8 - $969	Adam	Pentax Price Watch	8	01-17-2013 01:45 PM
Lensswitch descision's: DA50-135/f2.8 -> DA200mm/f2.8	RonHendriks1966	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	09-23-2011 01:21 PM

12-10-2014, 10:04 PM	#2
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	No worries with the DA*300/4. It is an astrophoto champ.

12-11-2014, 02:19 AM	#4
quedecree New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 15 Original Poster	Originally posted by Stone G. No 'ordinary' telephoto lenses are optimized for astro photography, but I am quite happy with my DA* 200. I usually stop down the lens a bit, and here are some examples at f/4.0, (click on images to see larger versions): Cheers for that. The CA looks quite acceptable - bit of blue fringing on the brighter stuff. but not the horrible red halos around everything that the 35mm f2.4 gives. Particularly like the photo of Jupiter - the stars are nice and sharp around the field. M33 and M31 are very low on the horizon for me and I can never get a good look at them.

12-11-2014, 11:20 AM	#5
maxxxx Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 385	Originally posted by Stone G. No 'ordinary' telephoto lenses are optimized for astro photography, but I am quite happy with my DA* 200. I usually stop down the lens a bit, and here are some examples at f/4.0, (click on images to see larger versions): (Uncropped image) (Cropped image) More examples here: DSLR Astophotography: Astrotracer Images with Pentax GPS Unit O-GPS1 A few questions about the Andromeda picture: Did you use stacking? Do you need to be in a dark area? I can take Andromeda picture in Los Angeles but the background is brown and I can't figure out how to process the image without losing detail and color

12-11-2014, 12:35 PM	#7
maxxxx Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 385	I usually shoot at ISO 3200, F2.8 and 30 seconds. I will try your values. I wonder if Copenhagen is as bad as Los Angeles in terms of light pollution.

12-11-2014, 01:59 PM	#8
Stone G. Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Zealand, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,516	Originally posted by maxxxx I wonder if Copenhagen is as bad as Los Angeles in terms of light pollution. Well, Los Angeles is about as large in area as the entire island of Zealand where I live - but due to the lousy climate we usually suffer from poor seeing, mist and smog... Anyway, here's what my suburbanian sky looks like: single exposure: 200mm, f/2.8, 20 sec., ISO 3200 and what some stacking and post-processing can do: 10 images stacked in Deep Sky Stacker and post processed in PhotoImpact X3

12-11-2014, 02:09 PM	#10
maxxxx Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 385	Originally posted by Stone G. Well, Los Angeles is about as large in area as the entire island of Zealand where I live - but due to the lousy climate we usually suffer from poor seeing, mist and smog... Anyway, here's what my suburbanian sky looks like: single exposure: 200mm, f/2.8, 20 sec., ISO 3200 and what some stacking and post-processing can do: 10 images stacked in Deep Sky Stacker and post processed in PhotoImpact X3 My pictures have the same brown background. Which software removes the brown? Deep sky stacker or PhotoImpact? I only have LightRoom and couldn't figure it out.

12-11-2014, 03:10 PM	#11
Stone G. Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Zealand, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,516	Originally posted by maxxxx My pictures have the same brown background. Which software removes the brown? Deep sky stacker or PhotoImpact? I only have LightRoom and couldn't figure it out. Deep Sky Stacker produces an almost grayscale image and I use PhotoImpact to "nudge" colour and contrast. That's quite a topic in itself (involving curves, levels, layers...). Anyway, Lightroom is good for raw-processing and library management, but it isn't really designed for specialized digital (raster) image processing. Dedicated raster software such as PhotoShop (Essentials), Paintshop Pro, Gimp and the like are much better suited for that. ---------- Post added 12-11-2014 at 11:12 PM ---------- Originally posted by quedecree (manually guided with illuminated cross hairs and 4" f5 acro refractor.) Absolutely good for such a lens. You even captured the Flame Nebula very well!

12-11-2014, 03:32 PM	#12
maxxxx Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 385	Originally posted by Stone G. Deep Sky Stacker produces an almost grayscale image and I use PhotoImpact to "nudge" colour and contrast. That's quite a topic in itself (involving curves, levels, layers...). Anyway, Lightroom is good for raw-processing and library management, but it isn't really designed for specialized digital (raster) image processing. Dedicated raster software such as PhotoShop (Essentials), Paintshop Pro, Gimp and the like are much better suited for that. Good idea. I have Photoshop elements and the gimp. I will try them next time I have pictures. I hope to get to Utah and Nevada over Christmas and they should have much less light pollution.