Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

[49616E]

Here is an example of using the 8-15mm Fisheye I took. Although I did use a long exposure to get star trails. Hopefully it is still informative for you.

I also have used the TS-E 24mm II for astrophotography and have quite enjoyed it, however I can definitely understand wanting the EF 24mm 1.4 opposed to it for that specific use. Here is an example although I do not have any Milky Way shots with the 24mm.

 

[charlesa]

Here is an example of using the 8-15mm Fisheye I took. Although I did use a long exposure to get star trails. Hopefully it is still informative for you.

I also have used the TS-E 24mm II for astrophotography and have quite enjoyed it, however I can definitely understand wanting the EF 24mm 1.4 opposed to it for that specific use. Here is an example although I do not have any Milky Way shots with the 24mm.

How did you manage to fit a filter in front of the fisheye? Or you just used bulb mode in near darkness?

 

[49616E]

Here is an example of using the 8-15mm Fisheye I took. Although I did use a long exposure to get star trails. Hopefully it is still informative for you.

I also have used the TS-E 24mm II for astrophotography and have quite enjoyed it, however I can definitely understand wanting the EF 24mm 1.4 opposed to it for that specific use. Here is an example although I do not have any Milky Way shots with the 24mm.

How did you manage to fit a filter in front of the fisheye? Or you just used bulb mode in near darkness?

No filter used, just a ~15 minute exposure. It was extremely dark though and was difficult to compose easily. I end up illuminating the center focus point and looking through the viewfinder with both eyes open and focusing to infinity (with my eyes, not the lens) to superimpose the focus point on what I am directly looking at straight ahead with my other eye, if that makes any sense. It is usually surprisingly accurate and definitely eliminates having to waste several long exposure shots just getting things composed well.

 

[bycostello]

the hubble.... ;D ;D

 

[lilmsmaggie]

I attended a presentation given by Jennifer Wu last night. She is a Canon Explorer of Light photographer:

http://www.jenniferwu.com

This lady loves to do time-lapse and still photography of the night sky. She travels to where the dark skies are.

She uses many of Canon's UWA and WA lenses including the 24 1.4L to photography the night sky.
Granted, she has access to high quality gear via CPS but she recommends stopping this lens down to 2.8 or even 5.6 to reduce coma.

Yeah, she's probably shooting with a 1Dx or 5D MK3 but she understands the limits of her gear and uses it to her advantage.

She's also in the process of releasing a book on night sky photography.

Get the 24mm f/1.4L II lens.

That lens has terrible coma for star shots. Please see:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13722.msg247717#msg247717

More:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50949062
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html
http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2013/02/overcoming-coma-aberration-part-2.html

 

[s2kdriver80]

I don't know if it's the best lens for the job, but I took some astrophotos with my 16-35mm II. This lens also gives you the flexibility to use in non-astro situations.

 

[niteclicks]

well, it's not the 28 f 1.8, not wide open anyway. My Rokinon 14 f2.8 came today so I'll play with it tonight if the clouds hold off. This the lower left corner from 5Dm3.

 

[extremeinstability]

She uses many of Canon's UWA and WA lenses including the 24 1.4L to photography the night sky.
Granted, she has access to high quality gear via CPS but she recommends stopping this lens down to 2.8 or even 5.6 to reduce coma.

Just what one wants to have to do with the expensive as hell 24L they just bought, stop it down to F2.8 or gasp F5.6. Must be cool to be restricted by being tied to Canon when giving recommendations.

Stopping way down for say Milky Way shots isn't using the limitations knowledge of the gear to their advantage. It's using just Canon gear to their disadvantage.

 

[Nate]

What about canon 15mm fisheye?

The 24 1.4II is pretty much unusable under 2.8.
The Rokinon 14 2.8 as I heard is pretty good and also the 16-35 II is pretty good,
but I never heard anyone using a 15 mm fisheye and than de-fisheye it.

If you de-fisheye in photoshop a raw image you loose a lot of sharpness?

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

What does everyone think about the Rokinon 35mm 1.4? I'm considering it because I saw on Gizmodo that you can get one for about $350. I'm thinking that a fast 35 might come in handy for a lot more compared to a 14mm. My only concern is it being to tight. The Rokinon 24 seems great but spending $600 on a third party manual focus lens just seems like a lot.

 

[CarlTN]

The best resource I know of for night photography is David Kingham. He specializes in night/Milky Way photography and has a lot of great gear information and tutorials on his website. Definitely worth checking out.

http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/

Interesting info, thank you.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

I'm not a fanboy and I'm not biased but -- She's good at what she does. Her photographs speak for themselves. Not everyone shoots wide open and all fast UWA lenses shot at their maximum aperture will exhibit similar issues.

I've personally seen Jennifer's work - not just night sky stuff. She lives here in the Sacramento area (actually, she's from Davis, CA.) She belongs to a member-owned photographic gallery of which I happen to be a member of as well. Most of her night sky work have exposure times of 30 minutes or less depending on subject, lens employed, her photographic vision and conditions.

Remember, that the lenses in question, e.g. Canon, Rokinon, Sigma, etc. were not designed for astronomical use in mind but for terrestrial applications. The problem I'm seeing from reading reviews of the Rokinon is QC, and decentering being chief among them. I'm mean who wouldn't want a lower cost alternative? As a matter of fact, I'm tempted to see what the Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC is capable of doing and will probably rent one to get my own real-world results of night sky images.

Personally, I'd rather use a wide-field telescope or Astrograph and even some of the optics in these designs depending on subject being imaged and atmospheric conditions will exhibit coma -- Obviously, the advantage of shooting night sky images with a lens at its widest aperture is to reduce exposure time and noise -- IMHO stopping down the lens to achieve better results is not necessarily a disadvantage.

She uses many of Canon's UWA and WA lenses including the 24 1.4L to photography the night sky.
Granted, she has access to high quality gear via CPS but she recommends stopping this lens down to 2.8 or even 5.6 to reduce coma.

Just what one wants to have to do with the expensive as hell 24L they just bought, stop it down to F2.8 or gasp F5.6. Must be cool to be restricted by being tied to Canon when giving recommendations.

Stopping way down for say Milky Way shots isn't using the limitations knowledge of the gear to their advantage. It's using just Canon gear to their disadvantage.

 

[LOALTD]

The Canon 24/1.4 II seems like the intuitive choice but, as others have pointed out, the coma is really, really bad. Even stopped down to f/2.8 it’s still quite bad. It’s almost gone by f/4.0 but…now you’re shooting f/1.4 glass at f/4.0…how does that make you feel?

I’ve been researching this for quite a while and I’m about 95% of the way to buying:
The SamyRokiowyer 14 f/2.8

Not just because it’s cheap, it seems to have FAR better coma-control than anything else available. I also have a buddy that uses one of these almost exclusively for star-work, and the results are impressive.

I’m a CPS member and have been auditioning tons of lenses that are 50mm and wider…and most Canon glass doesn’t cut it for one reason or another. The fast glass needs to be stopped down a ton before you get rid of the coma artifacts. The slow glass (like the 17mm and 24mm tilt shifts) is pretty damn good but…it’s slow…you have to really crank hard on the ISO.

I’ve rented the Zeiss 15 and 21’s but I never had good skies while I was renting them so I couldn’t test them. Anyone test these bad boys out yet? Curious if the coma is well-controlled or not.

 

[noisejammer]

Lens selection is part of the problem - but it's quite feasible to use a 50/1.8. It doesn't even matter if your fastest lens is f/2.8. Here's how...

Apart from the most astrophotography, there's no real reason to limit yourself to ultrawide lenses or short exposures. It's quite possible to use easily run 5 minute exposures with a 200 mm lens if you're willing to construct a "barn door tracker."

Basically, the tracker is two pieces of wood connected with a hinge. A screwed rod and an elastic band connect the pieces of wood - one pulls and the other pushes. Now you point the hinge at the north celestial pole (which is located very close to Polaris) and push using the screwed rod. Here's a really good design... http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/52 .

Note that this model has a ball head for the camera (so you can point it anywhere) and another ball head (to allow the hinge to be aligned with the earth's rotation.) If you have one, a Manfrotto or Arca-Swiss Cube are better choices for mounting the lower plate but there are far less expensive solutions.

If you do get into using a tracker, it's quite feasible to record galaxies - the Magellanic clouds, M31/M101 and M33 are easy. This does require a measure of sophistication in your image processing - in particular you need to learn about minimising camera noise. This is a good reference http://astropix.com/ but I recommend you buy Jerry's e-books.

Ok - on the Zeiss 25/2
I have one of these. It's an expensive piece of glass. It's also probably the sharpest lens of it's type available. It is certainly sharper than the 21/2.8. Be aware that the 24L has considerable focus curvature. The Zeiss has some but it's better controlled. If you're after the very best possible, the Zeiss 50/2 MP and 135/2 are beyond compare in the SLR business. Both are quite capable of resolving stars to a couple of pixels over the entire frame. It is extremely difficult to focus with sufficient accuracy - magnified live view is the only way and since temperature can swing things around, you're silly if you rely on the lens' hard stop.

Finally - the obligatory plug. If you're interested in astrophotography with a camera, why not join the Canon DSLR Digital Astrophotography group on Yahoo! We have nearly 2900 members (not all of whom are active)
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon_DSLR_Digital_Astro/

Full disclosure - I'm one of the moderators.

 

[CarlTN]

Ok - on the Zeiss 25/2
I have one of these. It's an expensive piece of glass. It's also probably the sharpest lens of it's type available. It is certainly sharper than the 21/2.8. Be aware that the 24L has considerable focus curvature. The Zeiss has some but it's better controlled.

Sorry to quote out of context, but this is directly contrary to what Lensrentals found when they tested the Zeiss 25mm f/2. They found it was not all that sharp, and I assume tested several copies.

The Canon 24/1.4 II seems like the intuitive choice but, as others have pointed out, the coma is really, really bad. Even stopped down to f/2.8 it’s still quite bad. It’s almost gone by f/4.0 but…now you’re shooting f/1.4 glass at f/4.0…how does that make you feel?

I’ve been researching this for quite a while and I’m about 95% of the way to buying:
The SamyRokiowyer 14 f/2.8

Not just because it’s cheap, it seems to have FAR better coma-control than anything else available. I also have a buddy that uses one of these almost exclusively for star-work, and the results are impressive.

I’m a CPS member and have been auditioning tons of lenses that are 50mm and wider…and most Canon glass doesn’t cut it for one reason or another. The fast glass needs to be stopped down a ton before you get rid of the coma artifacts. The slow glass (like the 17mm and 24mm tilt shifts) is pretty damn good but…it’s slow…you have to really crank hard on the ISO.

I’ve rented the Zeiss 15 and 21’s but I never had good skies while I was renting them so I couldn’t test them. Anyone test these bad boys out yet? Curious if the coma is well-controlled or not.

I rented the 24mm f/1.4 ii, a couple of years ago. I only used it on a crop camera. I found that the image did not get sharp toward the corners until stopped down to f/6.3. I can't imagine how much worse it would have been on a full frame. And this was just standard daytime "terrestrial" outdoor shooting. I didn't even bother trying any Milky Way shots with it.

As wide angle lenses go, I will just come out and say it. This particular Canon, does seem to represent a poor value. The Zeiss 21mm Distagon, even though priced a bit higher and "only" f/2.8, would rank a far higher value for money, in my opinion (despite the above).

That said, I am leaning more towards the Tokina 16-28 zoom, but some have said it exhibits weird "halo" flare around things like street lights, at night. That would not be good for shooting the stars, Milky Way, and upcoming "brighter than the full moon and visible in daytime" comet...

A friend of mine has this lens for his 7D (go figure), so I plan to try it on my 6D, before I decide which lens to buy. His daytime shots with it look fantastic (except for the 7D's noise), and I have not noticed any flare.

Regarding the Rokinon 24mm...I have not yet tried it, but I own their 85mm f/1.4, and it is quite nice. Very sharp, not decentered, basically no CA that I can see, even in the full frame corners. It is supposedly an old Nikon optical design. However, I have it for sale, because I prefer autofocus in this focal length...and because at this time I need a wide zoom more, since I bought the 6D. I've told myself I need the Canon 100mm f/2, but the other voice in my head says "just use your 135 f/2 and take a few more steps backward"...haha...I think I'll listen to that voice this time!

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Hi noisejammer -- I just posted a question along these lines on the yahoo forum and thanks for posting the barndoor tracker -- forgot all about that -- Doh!

My vote for the Zeiss except I've never used their glass for astrophotography.

Lens selection is part of the problem - but it's quite feasible to use a 50/1.8. It doesn't even matter if your fastest lens is f/2.8. Here's how...

Apart from the most astrophotography, there's no real reason to limit yourself to ultrawide lenses or short exposures. It's quite possible to use easily run 5 minute exposures with a 200 mm lens if you're willing to construct a "barn door tracker."

Basically, the tracker is two pieces of wood connected with a hinge. A screwed rod and an elastic band connect the pieces of wood - one pulls and the other pushes. Now you point the hinge at the north celestial pole (which is located very close to Polaris) and push using the screwed rod. Here's a really good design... http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/52 .

Note that this model has a ball head for the camera (so you can point it anywhere) and another ball head (to allow the hinge to be aligned with the earth's rotation.) If you have one, a Manfrotto or Arca-Swiss Cube are better choices for mounting the lower plate but there are far less expensive solutions.

If you do get into using a tracker, it's quite feasible to record galaxies - the Magellanic clouds, M31/M101 and M33 are easy. This does require a measure of sophistication in your image processing - in particular you need to learn about minimising camera noise. This is a good reference http://astropix.com/ but I recommend you buy Jerry's e-books.

Ok - on the Zeiss 25/2
I have one of these. It's an expensive piece of glass. It's also probably the sharpest lens of it's type available. It is certainly sharper than the 21/2.8. Be aware that the 24L has considerable focus curvature. The Zeiss has some but it's better controlled. If you're after the very best possible, the Zeiss 50/2 MP and 135/2 are beyond compare in the SLR business. Both are quite capable of resolving stars to a couple of pixels over the entire frame. It is extremely difficult to focus with sufficient accuracy - magnified live view is the only way and since temperature can swing things around, you're silly if you rely on the lens' hard stop.

Finally - the obligatory plug. If you're interested in astrophotography with a camera, why not join the Canon DSLR Digital Astrophotography group on Yahoo! We have nearly 2900 members (not all of whom are active)
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon_DSLR_Digital_Astro/

Full disclosure - I'm one of the moderators.

 

[westr70]

The best resource I know of for night photography is David Kingham. He specializes in night/Milky Way photography and has a lot of great gear information and tutorials on his website. Definitely worth checking out.

http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/

Excellent source. Thanks.

 

[Mr Bean]

I’ve rented the Zeiss 15 and 21’s but I never had good skies while I was renting them so I couldn’t test them. Anyone test these bad boys out yet? Curious if the coma is well-controlled or not.

I've rented the 21mm and own the 15mm. Wide open @f2.8 both are extremely good for lack of coma, the 21mm was probably slightly better.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

My vote would be for Jerry Lodriguss: http://www.astropix.com

Jerry goes into far more detail and has been imaging for many years as well as having written several books on the subject of DSLR astrophotgraphy. Canon also has a DLC article written by Jerry:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/astrophotography_techniques.shtml

The best resource I know of for night photography is David Kingham. He specializes in night/Milky Way photography and has a lot of great gear information and tutorials on his website. Definitely worth checking out.

http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/

Excellent source. Thanks.

 

[CarlTN]

My vote would be for Jerry Lodriguss: http://www.astropix.com

Jerry goes into far more detail and has been imaging for many years as well as having written several books on the subject of DSLR astrophotgraphy. Canon also has a DLC article written by Jerry:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/astrophotography_techniques.shtml

The best resource I know of for night photography is David Kingham. He specializes in night/Milky Way photography and has a lot of great gear information and tutorials on his website. Definitely worth checking out.

http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/

Excellent source. Thanks.

Thanks for even more useful info!