Originally posted by Bob 256 The moon isn't demanding since it's illuminated by the sun just like a sunlight day here on earth. Short exposures with higher f values are quite possible (and needed in most cases) so tracking the moon isn't that much of a requirement.
Wide angle shots can use shutter speeds long enough to gather enough light without tracking if your lens is reasonably fast (f5.6 or faster) because low focal length lenses slow star motion at the film or sensor plane enough to allow those longer exposures. These types of exposures will capture galaxies and stars pretty well and some great shots can be had.
When you start going to longer lenses, two problems show up. Longer lenses usually aren't that fast (higher f numbers wide open), and star motion at the film or sensor is exaggerated requiring short exposures and/or tracking (longer fixed exposures will streak images). Some brighter objects can be photographed (e.g. the moon and some planets), but dimmer ones will definitely require longer exposures and tracking. Some tracking mounts are now available, specifically for photography and cameras, but they can be limited in load capacity. For lighter rigs, they are the way to go and can get you into tracked shots for less money than a full-blown equatorial mount. An example is the Sky Watcher Star Adventure mount (Amazon and others). These mounts are very portable and easy to set up. They come in around $300US.
Good luck. By the way "astral" pertains more to crystal balls than lenses - your new hobby is "astro" photography as the other contributors have made use of in their replies. Don't take that as criticism - just a helpful note as you master the art.
All good advice, thank you! And yeah, I know it's astro - I saw the typo, but by the time I did, there was too much good advice. Besides, if someone were offering advice on astral bodies, that could be fun, too :P
Attached is a moon photo from a couple nights ago - from my Soligor 450mm f/8.