[pvarangot]

Learning how to setup tracking with a meh telescope and a sturdy mount is in my opinion more fun and more rewarding than just tracing with a DSLR tele lens. Unless you have a system with big enough magnification to start bumping into the real issues with stabilization and tracking, on a DSLR with an APS sensor that will start happening around 300/400 mm focal length and lenses that are good enough to start doing stacking with are more expensive than a meh telescope.

Also it's better to start playing with a telescope sooner so that you get used to the particular problems of telescopes regarding IQ, like the ugly "bokeh" from the spider and the (lack of) chromatic aberration.

A good telescope you can look through is a smoother gateway into this than a DSLR for some people.

[ece]

More than stabilization and tracking issues, is light pollution unless you have 300mm+ lenses. At that point with the tracking gear, lens and body you're well above a meh telescope, unless maybe you build the tracking gear yourself and are ok with some lens experimentation.

A cheap body+wide lens can do astro-photography, if you can easily get away from light pollution. If you want to look at things from a suburban backyard, a decent telescope is the way to go, maybe one with some sort of a camera attachment.

[pvarangot]

Yeah but you can't do much about light pollution so it's boring. With the telescope or the long lens you can learn how to deal with vibrations, drift, learn how to calibrate tracking, etc...

[ece]

There are things you can do with physical+software filters, and bias frames in general, for wide astrophotography shots.

My point is you'll need a tracker with the long lens, worry about light pollution with a wide lens, and worry about neither with a telescope because human eyes aren't limited to ISO6400 and can stack in real time.