craig brown , Feb 08, 2012; 06:08 a.m.
Id just like to say Hi to everyone, I'm new.
I'd say I'm an amateur photographer and in need of suggestions.
I have managed to take photos of the night sky...just about, but being at night my camera will not focus on anything, tried different setting with no luck.
With the pictures I have taken everything with in them are tiny, understandable with the standard EFS 18-55mm lens.
Iv been on many forums and read this is down to the lens not being suited to this type of photography.
So my question to the canon community is 'What lens would be best for night photography for my particular camera ?'
Many thanks
Peter Meade 
, Feb 08, 2012; 06:48 a.m.
Hello Craig, focus on the stars is best done (I find) by setting to manual, although I haven't done very much. I think the results depend more on getting good exposures and also perhaps good post processing than in going for a better lens.
To get reasonable star trails, people tend to stack multiple exposures with a program like StarTrails http://www.startrails.de I've used it a couple of times and have been pleased with the results.
This less than perfect image came from 59 30 second frames.
I've managed to get a reasonable "static" star shot with an exposure of 60 seconds at f4 and iso-100.
The individual frames from the start trails above were 30 sec, f5.6, iso-400 and they seemed reasonable exposures.
I used the 17-40 for the shots here, but I have also used the kit lens and got reasonable exposures.
The kit you will find invaluable, is a solid tripod and a remote trigger. On the shot above you can see that the camera has had something of a nudge, this could have been due to strong wind or to me accidentally tugging on the cable release. I went back the next night and used a Hahnel radio trigger and got away with no similar movement.
Marcus Ian 
, Feb 08, 2012; 07:04 a.m.
Night is a 'condition' not a subject. But starfields are entirely doable with your kit lens, assuming you have a tripod, and preferably some kind of remote shutter release. Even your 18-55 has a manual focus option, and even though it doesn't display a distance scale, with a little playing around you should be able to figure out which direction is near focus, and which direction is infinity. just leave it at (or almost at) infinity, and you'll be fine focus wise. Be prepared to do exposure times of 4 seconds -> 30 sec depending on lighting and conditions. The longer your focal length (say if you got a 55-250) the shorter the max time (and therefore, less light) you can capture (due to starfield movement). Also, shoot at low ISOs to minimize noise, which can get very bad very fast.
Make sure you also set your camera so 'mirror lock up' is engaged, as the vibration can introduce a little bit of degradation otherwise.
Other than that, it's a matter of getting out there and doing it.
In a nutshell, it's not your lens, it's your technique. The only advantage in this respect, a bigger, longer, faster, more expensive, lens is going to have is a distance scale, which is practically irrelevant anyway.
G Dan Mitchell 
, Feb 08, 2012; 09:22 a.m.
If you are just getting started with night photography, some of the stuff in this post might be useful to you.
The "best lens" question doesn't have any single answer. For example, are you doing long exposure, small aperture stuff from the tripod or, at the opposite extreme, shooting hand held at largest apertures and high ISO? For most of my night photography I use the same lens I would use for a daytime shot of the subject.
Focusing is an issue, and the link has a few ideas about that.
Da
Scott Ferris , Feb 08, 2012; 11:24 a.m.
There is a rule of thumb for focal length and star movement. It is called the "600 rule". Divide six hundred by your focal length and you will get the number of seconds exposure you can shoot without objectionable star elongation.
So a 50mm lens would be: 600/50=12, so a 12 second exposure. A 600mm lens gets you one second, a 17mm lens would be a 35 second exposure.
Bob Atkins 
, Feb 08, 2012; 01:11 p.m.
You might want to take a look at this - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/astrophotography.html
Your lens is fine. Not perfect but it's certainly usable for star fields and star trails. Don't use autofocus. Either focus manually or autofocus on some subject as far away as possible ("infinity"), then switch the lens to manual focus. Focus AFTER you zoom, since zooming will shift focus.
If you wanted a "better" lens the 50/1.8 II is your lowest cost option.
Put the camera on a sturdy tripod, point the lens at the sky, set ISO to something like 800, set the aperture to the maximum value (minimum number, f3.5 at 18mm, f5.6 at 55mm) and set exposure to 30 seconds.
From there on adjust your exposure time and ISO to give you the best image. Be prepared to do some editing work in PhotoShop (or whatever Image editor you use).
Robert Body , Feb 08, 2012; 05:46 p.m.
Best are good ideas.... like shooting in not-quite-night when there is still some blue in the sky, that makes focusing easier too (which can be better done manually, with a live-view, which your present camera might not support)
Then right place, right subject
maybe several images together combined on the computer
maybe moonlight, maybe not
maybe other sources of light, from a city glow or lightning
maybe changing White Balance (in camera, harder or longer) or on the computer (if you shoot RAW)
M. P. , Feb 17, 2012; 01:47 a.m.
I use the 17-40 F4L also, but I absolutely love my 28 1.8 and 50 1.8 for any outdoors or low light photography. The ability to SEE what you are focusing on is huge. But I shoot people and scenery at night not skies. I lik ethose two lenses because they are so small and don't stand out much at all when shooting street photography or video at night.
