-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
What is the best lens for astrophotography - 35mm or wider?
- Thread starter chrysoberyl
- Start date
meywd said:
Thanks, Meywd. If the Rockinon 24mm is the same as the Samyang, then no, too much coma and the resolution wide open is poor.
If the Rockinon 35mm is the same as the Samyang, then no, too much coma and LOCA, and the resolution wide open is poor.
Interestingly, the tie for second place is the 35mm Sigma, my initial choice.
East Wind Photography said:
Thanks, East Wind, but I am on a tighter budget.
John
Upvote
0
I recently did some wide angle lens comparisons looking at coma. Of the lenses that I looked at, the new Tamron SP 15-30mm was the best all around lens for astrophotography.
http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html
http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html
Upvote
0
BeenThere said:
Thanks, BeenThere. The Tamron does look good in many respects, especially coma, but it is slower than I want.
Upvote
0
The Rokinon 14mm is the best I have used wide open. PTLENS has a profile for it that works well for the mustache correction.
Upvote
0
chrysoberyl said:
are you sure about the 24mm f/1.4? it is the recommended lens for astrophotography and always the reviews say its the one with least coma.
Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC Review
Samyang 24 mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC LensTip review
Prime Time! - Lenses for Night Photography
Upvote
0
niteclicks said:
I have the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and while I didn't yet shoot the milkyway with it - because I only got it this winter - I shot the night sky with it the other day.
SOOC @ 15sec ISO1600 f/2.8-4.0 (i don't remember exactly
)
Upvote
0
Hi Meywd. Lenstip is one of my go-to sites. According to Lenstip, the Sigma 35mm Art is much better for coma. And it is faster. I must say, though, that I do like the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 shot. Was that cropped? It doesn't quite look like 116 degrees.
Upvote
0
chrysoberyl said:
No cropping, guess it doesn't show how wide the scene is with the city lights being 10 miles a way, as for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, the only downside is that its 35mm, if you want to go wider you will have to stitch, but yeah its on my wish list.
Upvote
0
Long time reader...first post.
I also say the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is very good for astro. I bought it based on the reviews and first time out I was more than pleased with the results. Can't wait till the next new moon.
30s @ 3200 ISO F4 Canon 6D
https://www.flickr.com/photos/channone/16584220863/
I also say the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is very good for astro. I bought it based on the reviews and first time out I was more than pleased with the results. Can't wait till the next new moon.
30s @ 3200 ISO F4 Canon 6D
https://www.flickr.com/photos/channone/16584220863/
Upvote
0
Channone said:Long time reader...first post.
I also say the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is very good for astro. I bought it based on the reviews and first time out I was more than pleased with the results. Can't wait till the next new moon.
30s @ 3200 ISO F4 Canon 6D
https://www.flickr.com/photos/channone/16584220863/
Well, Channone, that's a nice shot. The coma isn't very obvious. It appears you didn't correct the distortion - is that correct?
Regards,
John
Upvote
0
That is correct. I did not use PTlens on it. As I look at the filename in Flickr it tells me nothing was done to it. That is how it came out of the camera.
chrysoberyl said:Channone said:Long time reader...first post.
I also say the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is very good for astro. I bought it based on the reviews and first time out I was more than pleased with the results. Can't wait till the next new moon.
30s @ 3200 ISO F4 Canon 6D
https://www.flickr.com/photos/channone/16584220863/
Well, Channone, that's a nice shot. The coma isn't very obvious. It appears you didn't correct the distortion - is that correct?
Regards,
John
Upvote
0
Thanks, all, for your input. My decision is to go with the Sigma 35mm Art.
As with any lens, there are trade-offs. In this case, the angle of view is somewhat limited and there is some LOCA. Otherwise, I see no downside; it is sharp wide open, coma is minimal, CA is very well controlled, distortion is minimal, vignetting is low and exposure times will not be excessive. So for astro, this is my choice. And with only moderate flare, this should also be quite good for landscapes.
Just for information, the camera body is a 6D. Currently, I have a Tokina 16-28 and Canon 24mm f/1.4. The Tokina is quite sharp, but the flaring can be problematic. The Canon also has issues with flare and the coma is excessive.
As with any lens, there are trade-offs. In this case, the angle of view is somewhat limited and there is some LOCA. Otherwise, I see no downside; it is sharp wide open, coma is minimal, CA is very well controlled, distortion is minimal, vignetting is low and exposure times will not be excessive. So for astro, this is my choice. And with only moderate flare, this should also be quite good for landscapes.
Just for information, the camera body is a 6D. Currently, I have a Tokina 16-28 and Canon 24mm f/1.4. The Tokina is quite sharp, but the flaring can be problematic. The Canon also has issues with flare and the coma is excessive.
Upvote
0
I went down this same road myself recently and kept coming back to the Sigma 35 1.4 to use with my Canon 6D.
I got it and love it.
The performance is nicely nice and works best for astrophotography around ƒ/1.8.
It has it's own look to it in daylight which is very pleasing.
I'd share some astro results, but I'm not having good luck stitching any of my 35mm panos
I got it and love it.
The performance is nicely nice and works best for astrophotography around ƒ/1.8.
It has it's own look to it in daylight which is very pleasing.
I'd share some astro results, but I'm not having good luck stitching any of my 35mm panos
Upvote
0
meywd said:
I was gonna say, how is the Rokinon 24 1.4 not at the top of everyone's list for astro work? It kills the Canon and Nikon, and the Sigma unfortunately did not match / beat it for coma and just barely surpassed it for vignetting, IIRC.
The one drawback about Roki-Bow-Yang lenses is, of course, their longevity and QC. You can indeed get a lemon. And you can expect a good copy of the lens to have a 50-50 chance of "rattling soft" if you spend too much time driving on nasty washboard roads to get to those nice desert places that astro-landscape shooters love to visit so much.
Considering the cost of the lens, and the cost of any of its competition, I consider it a fair trade. Buy three, keep only the sharpest one, return the others. Then in 2-3 years, sell it on Ebay, and repeat. Still way cheaper than a Canon L...
Upvote
0
ND said:
I just did the same. Found the reviews on the 35mm sigma to be just a tad better than the rokinon 24. Plus it has AF so can use it for other things as well.
Afma on my 5d3 was perfect at zero and was zero at minimum focus all the way to infinity. I've never had a Canon lens that could do that out of the box. Astro use will be manual focus only and it seems sharp to the corners on some daytime test shots. Haven't tried any night sky photos yet.
I'll post some when I can get out.
Upvote
0
