Had the chance to use the R5 for astrophotography

[Bert63]

Nothing earthshattering here, but... In both cases I raised the contrast a bit, in one case I cropped out really bright ground.

View attachment 192008

The really bright "star" is Jupiter, up a bit and well to the left, that second brightest "star" is Saturn. They're going to get a LOT closer to each other in December...close enough to possibly appear in a telescope simultaneously. 24.0 mm 10sec, f/2.8, iso 10000.

View attachment 192009

The continuation of the Milky way upwards from the horizon takes you into the Summer Triangle (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere). Same exposure info. The bright star top and center is vega, the brightest star in the lower right quarter is altair, and Deneb is at about mid height, a quarter of the way into the image from the left. to the right of Deneb are three stars (fairly widely spaced) that form the "crossbar" of the northern cross, the other two stars in the vertical (which is horizontal in this picture) are a lot harder to pick out.

Steve - as someone who has never tried this, what lens did you use to take these images? I’ve heard “the faster the better” But I’ve also seen some good images taken with the 16-35 f4..

Curious on your opinion.

 

[SteveC]

I had never tried this in particular until two nights ago. (I had to give up the first night because the moon came up--the moon will blast the bejeezus out of this whole endeavor.) I used the RF 15-35 f/2.8 L for these. (I think I gave all other settings in the post--and I stole those from FRO's video on taking astro pictures with the R5; he did show some starscapes after his planet shots.) "The faster the better" is a good principle, but an f/4 should be fine...if you're willing to double your exposure time, or ISO, or some combo that adds up to a stop, to compensate. Zooming in I see short star trails so I'd not want to go with a longer exposure unless the ISO noise is intolerable.

I was originally thinking of getting that f/4 in fact, but decided at the last moment to splurge on the f/2.8 and then was talked into going RF native for yet more money (a smaller step though than going to 2.8 in the first place). The lens is bigger, but not hugely so. I'd certainly not bother ugrading for this! (I had no wider full frame lens before this than the pancake 40mm.)

 

[cornieleous]

There is no form of photography that excites me more than astrophotography.

There is no form of photography that pisses me off more than astrophotography.

I have spent many cold nights taking what can only be the most amazing photos while on site only to be revealed as the complete shit they are once downloaded on to my computer.

I have read/watched everything I can on the subject and I am convinced the sky hates me and I will never never waste my time again with it....

Hmm there is a meteor shower this week.

I guess I can give it another go.

This is hilarious and I agree so much. The struggle is real. Images always look amazing on that tiny screen until you get home.

 

[cornieleous]

Steve - as someone who has never tried this, what lens did you use to take these images? I’ve heard “the faster the better” But I’ve also seen some good images taken with the 16-35 f4..

Curious on your opinion.

I'm not Steve, so pardon the interruption, but I have done extensive reading, and then field testing with many lenses for astro and maybe someone will benefit from my time spent. For sharpness, coma, speed, and vignette concerns, the absolute best EF lenses I have found, when you want the best posssible image and noise levels for astrophotography are:

@14mm: Samyang/Rokinon 2.8. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible for astro wide open, and ok as a very sharp lens during the day at 5.6. Terrible mustache distortion, 3 stops vignetting to corners. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often.

@15mm-30mm: Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 V2. It's huge with bulbous element but has amazing coma performance (stars stay round) and corner to corner sharpness is good through most of the zoom. Its a nice lens during the day too, but can't put filters on it even with square holder setups without buying one of those huge clamps that go over the built in hood. The 16-35 F4L is slow, and the 16-35mm F2.8L V3 has awful vignetting (4.5 stops) despite incredible image quality for all subjects- that vignetting equals lots of shadow noise in the corners.

@24mm Samyang/Rokinon 1.4. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible stopped down to F2 or F2.8. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often. Very little vignette or distortions of any kind.

I've gotten passable shots with the 16-35mm F4L, it is a decent performer in all subjects and coma is ok, not perfect. It is of course, 1 stop slower than you'd like to start your astro, and a stop is a stop of more noise (at high ISO increases quickly).

For wide angle landscape astro, these are about as good as it gets. Sigma and Zeiss have a few options but none are really better and the price goes way up. Most lenses simply are not built with astro in mind, and suffer from distortions like coma or soft corners, or heavy vignette wide open.

I'd love to test the RF 16-35mm F2.8, but will be surprised if it is that much better with vignette than the EF. If it is, I could probably replace everything but my Samyang 24mm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have no idea with regards to 'big observatories' but a lot of people in the astro photography enthusiast community use monochrome CCD cameras. So no bayer filters. You get more light, and pick the wavelength (a specific color, infrared, ultraviolet, specific molecule emissons like hydrogen-alpha, ...) that you want to capture by installing a filter.

As for resolution, if you capture stars, I don't think there's much of a benefit to be had from the additional resolution of the R5.

That makes sense. The built in UV filter is likely a big culprit.

 

[RobbieHat]

A few perspectives from my experience. I shoot astro with the 5DSR and a Sigma 14mm f1.8. As was stated previously, the faster the lens the better. I own the 16-35mm f2.8 but will only use that in a pinch. I also own the 11-24 f4 and haven't tried that at 11 and f4 but might to experiment a bit. The challenge with a 16mm f4 shot is you are definitely going to get star trails above about 20 seconds. As a result you will need to be shooting at 3200 or 6400 ISO to get enough light to not have to lift the exposure a lot in post. As was stated, lifting higher ISO images in post introduces a ton of noise and it is quite difficult to deal with.

I have heard great things about the potential of the R5 (which I have on order) for high ISO noise handling compared to the 5DSR. I can't wait to test it out. I would gladly work on someone's raw image if you want to shoot a shot of the milky way at f2.8 (or faster if you have it), 16mm or wider and ISO 3200 or 6400.

I am really hoping Canon comes out with a comparable 14-24 lens that is either 2.8 or my dream lens f2.0! I know it would be a beast, and expensive, but it would be the ultimate astro lens. I will keep using my Sigma in the meantime. It is quite a nice lens.

Bob

 

[jjct]

I'm not Steve, so pardon the interruption, but I have done extensive reading, and then field testing with many lenses for astro and maybe someone will benefit from my time spent. For sharpness, coma, speed, and vignette concerns, the absolute best EF lenses I have found, when you want the best posssible image and noise levels for astrophotography are:

@14mm: Samyang/Rokinon 2.8. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible for astro wide open, and ok as a very sharp lens during the day at 5.6. Terrible mustache distortion, 3 stops vignetting to corners. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often.

@15mm-30mm: Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 V2. It's huge with bulbous element but has amazing coma performance (stars stay round) and corner to corner sharpness is good through most of the zoom. Its a nice lens during the day too, but can't put filters on it even with square holder setups without buying one of those huge clamps that go over the built in hood. The 16-35 F4L is slow, and the 16-35mm F2.8L V3 has awful vignetting (4.5 stops) despite incredible image quality for all subjects- that vignetting equals lots of shadow noise in the corners.

@24mm Samyang/Rokinon 1.4. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible stopped down to F2 or F2.8. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often. Very little vignette or distortions of any kind.

I've gotten passable shots with the 16-35mm F4L, it is a decent performer in all subjects and coma is ok, not perfect. It is of course, 1 stop slower than you'd like to start your astro, and a stop is a stop of more noise (at high ISO increases quickly).

For wide angle landscape astro, these are about as good as it gets. Sigma and Zeiss have a few options but none are really better and the price goes way up. Most lenses simply are not built with astro in mind, and suffer from distortions like coma or soft corners, or heavy vignette wide open.

I'd love to test the RF 16-35mm F2.8, but will be surprised if it is that much better with vignette than the EF. If it is, I could probably replace everything but my Samyang 24mm.

I’ve used the 16-35 f2.8 iii and been very pleased with results. The Rokinon SP f2.4 14mm is awesome, but I find 14mm a little too wide.

 

[tron]

I do have 5DsR and 5DIV but I use only 5DIV for astrophotography. I used EF14mm 2.8L II that although it has coma it is medium so tolerable if you add in the equation the much less vignetting than my 16-35 2.8l iii. Last year I added Sigma 14mm 1.8 to my kit which reduced ISO a lot (OK it reduced it exactly by 1 1/3 of a stop which is a lot when we are talking astro...nomical iso values). But it has no tolerance for flare (like 16-35 III has) which may or may not be a problem depending whether an early stage moon is on the sky (even not in sight).

I wonder if I would get significant improvement from R5 or R6 for this kind of photography. I dare not ask about 1DxIII for obvious reasons!

 

[Bert63]

I'm not Steve, so pardon the interruption, but I have done extensive reading, and then field testing with many lenses for astro and maybe someone will benefit from my time spent. For sharpness, coma, speed, and vignette concerns, the absolute best EF lenses I have found, when you want the best posssible image and noise levels for astrophotography are:

@14mm: Samyang/Rokinon 2.8. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible for astro wide open, and ok as a very sharp lens during the day at 5.6. Terrible mustache distortion, 3 stops vignetting to corners. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often.

@15mm-30mm: Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 V2. It's huge with bulbous element but has amazing coma performance (stars stay round) and corner to corner sharpness is good through most of the zoom. Its a nice lens during the day too, but can't put filters on it even with square holder setups without buying one of those huge clamps that go over the built in hood. The 16-35 F4L is slow, and the 16-35mm F2.8L V3 has awful vignetting (4.5 stops) despite incredible image quality for all subjects- that vignetting equals lots of shadow noise in the corners.

@24mm Samyang/Rokinon 1.4. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible stopped down to F2 or F2.8. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often. Very little vignette or distortions of any kind.

I've gotten passable shots with the 16-35mm F4L, it is a decent performer in all subjects and coma is ok, not perfect. It is of course, 1 stop slower than you'd like to start your astro, and a stop is a stop of more noise (at high ISO increases quickly).

For wide angle landscape astro, these are about as good as it gets. Sigma and Zeiss have a few options but none are really better and the price goes way up. Most lenses simply are not built with astro in mind, and suffer from distortions like coma or soft corners, or heavy vignette wide open.

I'd love to test the RF 16-35mm F2.8, but will be surprised if it is that much better with vignette than the EF. If it is, I could probably replace everything but my Samyang 24mm.

Wow. Super post and thank you very much. Feel free to interrupt any time you like.

A couple of follow-ups if you don't mind.. You ever notice when the doctor is in the house everyone crowds around for free advice?

- you say "can last probably a max of 5 years if used often" and I don't understand what you mean. Is it going to fall apart? Do the optics degrade somehow?

- what would you think about the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? Probably not wide enough?

Thanks again for the great response. I had to go lookup mustache distortion.. haha..