u/Free_Masterpiece6004

Currently running a z5ii and was looking at the tamron telescopic lenses. Was originally focused on the 150-500 and the 50-400. Primarily planning to do landscape photography at the 135mm and 200-300mm FL, curious how this performs or if I should skip it in 2026 for the other lenses?

My main concern is not the performance but the lack of VR. Curious if that matters with my z5ii? I do have a tripod but I don’t want to have to take it out unless I have to I prefer to shoot while hiking. The thing that impressed me the most was the size and weight. I’m usually willing to compromise for smaller and lighter lenses on optical quality.

Found their music. Went on a binge listening to it. Blown away. Timeless. Then found out they died at very young ages in a stupid plane crash. Is it weird that I’m mad about a plane crash that happened almost 60 years ago for 2 artists I never heard of until 2 days ago?

I currently have a Nikon z5ii and was planning on purchasing one of these lenses for wide field shots. Currently have a cat 91 and asi 6200 as my main scope. Heq5 pro modded Rowan belt mod kit.

The 135 prime 1.8 is the viltrox and by all accounts it’s exceptional for the value of $900. The zoom lens is the Nikkor 70-200 ii… which usually you’d stay away from zooms but apparently this one has great corners. And is still f2.8 but it’s 3x the price. Hmmm…

Which would you buy?

So im sitting down watching Lawrence of Arabia and the famous “mirage shot” comes up. I haven’t seen it in a few years but like many others was blown away.

I looked up the lens they used, and it turns out it was around 480mm…

Well I just looked at my William Optics Ultracat 91 telescope (basically a big telephoto lens) and the focal length is 448mm (mine is 451).

I also live in the desert of Phoenix Arizona… I feel like God is tempting me to try this shot.

Does anyone have any times on attempting this? Time of day? Should I try it peak summer or wait for cooler weather? Potential filters I should consider? Exposure, ISO, aperture?

Looking at the 20mm-35mm Nikkor S primes for conducting Milky Way composites with foregrounds of red rocks around where I live in the south west. I plan on also having myself dogs in the foreground.

Currently using Nikon Z5ii and plan on only doing small prints and posting on instagram.

Generally it seems the consensus is the 20mm is recommended for landscapes and the Milky Way. However I was thinking of going for the 24mm or 35mm to show off more depth and less distortion of any human/dog in the picture. My last Milky Way shot was with a 16mm and IMO it was way too wide. I should also mention I have a tracking mount so star trailing with higher FL lenses is not relevant.

Any thoughts?

I only use my mom’s Z6 for landscape astro shots of the Milky Way + foreground twighlight landscape. I generally don’t use autofocus (should I?) and keep everything in manual mode on a tripod in complete raw format since I do all my editing afterwards.

I’m looking at all the gens of the z5 vs z6 vs z7. 24 MP seems to be enough for me but the crop-ability of the 45MP on the z7 intrigues me.

Purely from a well capacity, noise, Quantum efficiency, flatness of the sensor, etc do either of these cameras sensors stand out or are they all the same? I see first gen Z7s for like $900 on eBay. So if the sensors haven’t changed much I’d prefer to go that route to purchase a much better lens. However if newer sensors show less noise and better performance I’d rather get the z5ii.

I can win with the m4/ak but I always feel like I’m slightly below 50/50 in a duel. However I’ve been pretty damn good with the scout recently and have been landing headshots easily. Should I just continue to shill for the scout/awp and just accept that as my strength?

Lord have mercy

Running a 19.5 lbs William optics Ultracat 91 setup on an AM3n with ZW0 TC 40 tripod to make the heaviest “travel scope” I would run.

I’ve heard folks complain about carbon fiber legs and say I should instead go for the steel. But I’m assuming my setup isn’t too heavy?

I also purchased the ZWO PE 160 lightweight pier extension. Says it has a maximum weight capacity of 26-28 lbs, some folks suggest 22 lbs so I’m right below that. Should I have gotten the pe200?

I also have vibration suppression pads from celestron. And a 7.5lbs counterweight to use. I should be fine I assume?

Running a 19.5 lbs William optics Ultracat 91 setup on an AM3n with ZW0 TC 40 tripod to make the heaviest “travel scope” I would run.

I’ve heard folks complain about carbon fiber legs and say I should instead go for the steel. But I’m assuming my setup isn’t too heavy?

I also purchased the ZWO PE 160 lightweight pier extension. Says it has a maximum weight capacity of 26-28 lbs, some folks suggest 22 lbs so I’m right below that. Should I have gotten the pe200?

I also have vibration suppression pads from celestron. And a 7.5lbs counterweight to use. I should be fine I assume?