# What is the best lens for astrophotography - 35mm or wider?



## chrysoberyl (Apr 21, 2015)

For FF.


----------



## meywd (Apr 22, 2015)

Check this article Best Lenses for Milky Way Photography: Canon Astrophotographers


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 22, 2015)

I prefer to shoot astrophotography with a 300 or 600mm lens. Canon specifically.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 22, 2015)

meywd said:


> Check this article Best Lenses for Milky Way Photography: Canon Astrophotographers



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:


> I prefer to shoot astrophotography with a 300 or 600mm lens. Canon specifically.



Thanks, East Wind, but I am on a tighter budget.

John


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 22, 2015)

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


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 22, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> 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



Thanks, BeenThere. The Tamron does look good in many respects, especially coma, but it is slower than I want.


----------



## niteclicks (Apr 22, 2015)

The Rokinon 14mm is the best I have used wide open. PTLENS has a profile for it that works well for the mustache correction.


----------



## meywd (Apr 22, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Check this article Best Lenses for Milky Way Photography: Canon Astrophotographers
> ...



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


----------



## meywd (Apr 22, 2015)

niteclicks said:


> The Rokinon 14mm is the best I have used wide open. PTLENS has a profile for it that works well for the mustache correction.



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  )


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 22, 2015)

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.


----------



## meywd (Apr 22, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 22, 2015)

Dustin Abbott seems to like the 14/2.8 Rokinon.
Here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2013/10/rokinon-14mm-f2-8-wide-angle-review/

He also has other reviews with some astro shots.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 22, 2015)

Thanks, Been There/ Ron, for that excellent article and for information on the Samyang 12mm fisheye, which might be interesting for some all-sky shots.


----------



## Channone (Apr 22, 2015)

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/


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 22, 2015)

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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Channone (Apr 22, 2015)

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.
> ...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 23, 2015)

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.


----------



## ND (Apr 23, 2015)

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


----------



## Matthew Saville (Apr 29, 2015)

meywd 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
> ...



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...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 29, 2015)

ND said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 29, 2015)

Matthew Saville said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Compared to the Sigma 35mm, the Samyang 24mm does not appeal to me because:

1.	Coma is inferior
2.	Not sharp wide open
3.	Distortion is high
4.	Vignetting is high
5.	No AF

3. and 4. can be corrected, but I dislike post-processing if it can be avoided because of increased noise. As East Wind Photography points out, AF increases the usefulness.


----------



## niteclicks (Apr 29, 2015)

Here is a link to a raw file taken with the rokinon 14 @ 2.8 , if you would like to inspect.

http://src3rsteve.zenfolio.com/img/g308693065-o499831089.dat?dl=2&tk=8XNcKQIcN-_A26SJxw6Yg58OMw2Cbg1XUiot_5wf0UY=


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 29, 2015)

niteclicks, the rockinon 14mm was my second choice because I want faster and more flexible. But it certainly is a capable lens. The QC is a concern, though.


----------



## EvvPhotog (Apr 29, 2015)

I know you have already made your choice but I just recently picked up the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and have found it to be a decent lens. I do see some coma but nothing I can't live with. The attached image was taken in an area with a lot of light pollution and was my first real attempt at Milky Way shots. I'm fairly happy with the result but hope to do better.

Anyway, I think it is a great, cheap choice for astrophotographers on a budget.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 29, 2015)

I went with the Rokinon 14mm. Really good wide open corner to corner.



Perseids &amp; Milky Way 11 Aug 2013 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Matthew Saville (Apr 29, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I went with the Rokinon 14mm. Really good wide open corner to corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Perseids &amp; Milky Way 11 Aug 2013 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr



Nice shot of Andromeda (?) and the meteor! I love the Perseids...


----------



## Matthew Saville (Apr 29, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Compared to the Sigma 35mm, the Samyang 24mm does not appeal to me because:
> 
> 1.	Coma is inferior
> 2.	Not sharp wide open
> ...



Okay, if you compare the Sigma 35 to the Rokinon 24, its fair to say the Sigma is better, but that's mainly becaues it's 35mm, not 24mm. The Sigma 24mm doesn't beat the Rokinon 24 for much other than sharpness, and even then the Rokinon bests it in the extreme corners.

Considering that this is for astrophotography, I figured AF was completely out of the question.

For the record, though, as someone who doesn't just shoot astro, I do own the Sigma 35 as well, and love it. I just don't use it for astro nearly as much as I use my wider lenses. The Rokinon 14 and 24 are simply the go-to lenses, when you need such focal lengths without breaking the bank.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Apr 30, 2015)

I'll jump in here...

You guys please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main reasons the Samyang 24 f/1.4 _appears_ to have coma that is so uniquely better-controled is because its sharpness is so piss-poor! Its the Samyang's lack of resolution (at the ultra-wide apertures required of wide-field astrophotography) that goes a long way towards obscuring the the "gull wings" of problematic coma common to other manufacture's similarly fast 24mm lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=821&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=985&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 30, 2015)

JustMeOregon said:


> I'll jump in here...
> 
> You guys please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main reasons the Samyang 24 f/1.4 _appears_ to have coma that is so uniquely better-controled is because its sharpness is so piss-poor! Its the Samyang's lack of resolution (at the ultra-wide apertures required of wide-field astrophotography) that goes a long way towards obscuring the the "gull wings" of problematic coma common to other manufacture's similarly fast 24mm lenses.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=821&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=985&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Thank you, JustMeOregon! Sharpness partly molded my decision to go with the Sigma 35mm. Why have f/1.4 if it's not sharp? And the Sigma 35mm is even sharper wide open than any of these.

And distortion - I won't be critical of other's photo's (that's a matter of taste, budget, etc.), but for my photo's, I want a natural appearance with minimal correction that causes noise.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 30, 2015)

As a prime, the Sigma 24 Art shot at f/2.8 gives pretty good results, including coma. But I still like the new Tamron SP 15-30mm best for its focal length flexibility plus good coma performance.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 30, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> As a prime, the Sigma 24 Art shot at f/2.8 gives pretty good results, including coma. But I still like the new Tamron SP 15-30mm best for its focal length flexibility plus good coma performance.



The Tamron is indeed another fine lens, but I have a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and nothing between that and 70mm, so 35mm made sense. Also, the flare is not good (I also do sunsets), the edges are bit weak and it is slower than the Sigma. But what great vignetting and coma! And VC!


----------



## NancyP (Apr 30, 2015)

If you are doing single-shot (not stacked) exposures, the Sigma Art 35 could be used for panorama component shots. I have also seen some Sigma Art 50 AP panoramas.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Apr 30, 2015)

JustMeOregon said:


> I'll jump in here...
> 
> You guys please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main reasons the Samyang 24 f/1.4 _appears_ to have coma that is so uniquely better-controled is because its sharpness is so piss-poor! Its the Samyang's lack of resolution (at the ultra-wide apertures required of wide-field astrophotography) that goes a long way towards obscuring the the "gull wings" of problematic coma common to other manufacture's similarly fast 24mm lenses.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=821&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=985&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



For astrophotography, I find that field curvature, coma, and vignetting trump a slight difference in sharpness. I certainly wouldn't call the Rokinon piss-poor at 1.4, it's more than enough for a 4K timelapse, and can be used for star exposures while you drop your ISO and hit f/2.8 or f/4 for your foreground exposure.

Oppositely, Canon fast wides are notorious for practically turning into tilt-shift lenses when elements are misaligned, despite all that L build quality. Not so much the 24 L, but especially the 16-35 and 35 L's...

All in all, I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone for buying the Sigma 24. A bit more coma never hurt your timelapse, or even your still frame, as long as the photo itself is impressive. And sharpness helps you print impressive photos, bigger, much more than low coma does.

So what I'd say is, if you're mainly an astro shooter and already own the Rokinon, think twice before "upgrading" to the Sigma. However if you're a more well-rounded shooter, and find AF / central sharpness useful, then by all means, consider the Sigma. Thirdly, though, if you own the Canon 24 L, well, IMO it's time to sell it. ;-)


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 30, 2015)

Ok, NancyP and Matthew, I am a beginner in astro, and I don't know how to hack into the Hubble feed, as Jrista obviously has (all, please note that this is a joke, so don't flame me!). So here is my question - stacking? How does that work with astro? Macro stacking I understand, but for astro, don't you get star movement?

Regarding the 24 L, yes, selling is my exact intention! Terrible coma. I sold my Sigma 85mm for the same reason, and also because of the stunningly inconsistent AF.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 30, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Ok, NancyP and Matthew, I am a beginner in astro, and I don't know how to hack into the Hubble feed, as Jrista obviously has (all, please note that this is a joke, so don't flame me!). So here is my question - stacking? How does that work with astro? Macro stacking I understand, but for astro, don't you get star movement?
> 
> Regarding the 24 L, yes, selling is my exact intention! Terrible coma. I sold my Sigma 85mm for the same reason, and also because of the stunningly inconsistent AF.



Astro stacking software will perform an automated star alignment....or in the case of comets, can align on the comet. The rest is processing through complex mathematical algorithms to enhance faint detail and reduce background noise.

See Deep Sky Stacker to get started for free.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 30, 2015)

Thank you, East Wind Photography, I will look into Deep Sky Stacker. It sounds perfect for shots taken with a sharp lens. Unfortunately, I live in the SE US where we rarely have clear air. But I will be camping on Mt. Mitchell at around 6400' in elevation in a few weeks, and I hope to get in a few shots.

What setup do you use for astro?


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 30, 2015)

I personally prefer the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 for astro wide angle. No coma wide open and a hard infinity stop, meaning, no fiddling around in the dark for perfect focus. The Zeiss 15mm is also a good one, for that wider view and the reasons mentioned above. While I have the Canon 24mm f1.4, I don't use it for astro, mainly for the issues of coma. Coma can be reduced by stopping down, but not eliminated. On the other hand, the 24mm is a great lens, when not used in astro work


----------



## Matthew Saville (May 1, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> Matthew Saville said:
> 
> 
> > For astrophotography, I find that field curvature, coma, and vignetting trump a slight difference in sharpness. *snip*
> ...



Absolutely true, and we should never lose sight of that. In fact I've seen plenty of gorgeous timelapse montages that took my breath away, which were shot in a horribly mis-aligned Canon 16-35, so bad that you could see the de-focus even in a 1080p file. While I lament those folks' elitism that has led them to never consider another option, or to at least get their precious L glass serviced and brought to factory sharpness, I'm still glad they produced the beautiful content.

Give me an alarm clock, Sun Surveyor etc. on my phone, and a solid tripod, ...and any camera / lens in my hand will do.


----------



## Matthew Saville (May 1, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > I personally prefer the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 for astro wide angle. No coma wide open and a hard infinity stop, meaning, no fiddling around in the dark for perfect focus. *snip*
> ...



I've thought about this too. However, I've used a couple of lenses with hard-infinity stops in sub-freezing temperatures, and they always seem to still pull off perfect star sharpness.

It probably has more to do with the mechanical and optical engineering of the lens. A prime that consists mostly of metal and closely aligned elements might simply be good to go in extremely cold / hot weather without losing infinity focus, while a cheaper, more plastic-y lens (especially a complex zoom) might not be afforded such a luxury, mechanically speaking.

All I know is, my freaking Nikon G lenses are extremely difficult to focus on stars. I don't know if any folks here have adapted the Nikon 14-24 to their Canon, like some of my friends have, but seriously focusing on the stars sharply is literally a fraction of a milimeter on both the scale and the focus ring. Comparatively, all you have to do with a Rokinon is rack focus once and then come to a halt near whatever marking is right for the ambient temp, and you're good to go.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 29, 2015)

This is something I've been humming and hawing over for a long time. My first pick was the Samyang 14mm 2.8 and then I was fancying the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8, particularly after reading Dustin Abbott's review. 

My hesitation is that the Samyang or the Tamron would pretty much be a dedicated astro lens. I do mainly landscape shooting and live and die by my GND filters (I currently use the 17-40mm f/4 but am looking to go with the 16-35 f/4 by New Year). I've already got a Lee filter set and the Samyang filter holder and the filters themselves are WAY too big and clunky for me. The same would hold true for any Tamron filter rig. My hesitation with the Tamron is that it's an awful lot of money for a niche lens, but I hesitate to go with the Samyang due to the QC issues. The Samyang QC issues are of particular concern since I do a lot of hiking and cycling, so I need my equipment to be able to take a beating. 

I'd never considered a 24 1.4 or a 35 1.4, but after doing the math, both would give an additional 1.33 and 0.67 stops respectively when shooting wide open (shutter speed adjusted to prevent star trails). I still fancy ultra-wide, though.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 4, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> This is something I've been humming and hawing over for a long time. My first pick was the Samyang 14mm 2.8 and then I was fancying the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8, particularly after reading Dustin Abbott's review.
> 
> My hesitation is that the Samyang or the Tamron would pretty much be a dedicated astro lens. I do mainly landscape shooting and live and die by my GND filters (I currently use the 17-40mm f/4 but am looking to go with the 16-35 f/4 by New Year). I've already got a Lee filter set and the Samyang filter holder and the filters themselves are WAY too big and clunky for me. The same would hold true for any Tamron filter rig. My hesitation with the Tamron is that it's an awful lot of money for a niche lens, but I hesitate to go with the Samyang due to the QC issues. The Samyang QC issues are of particular concern since I do a lot of hiking and cycling, so I need my equipment to be able to take a beating.
> 
> I'd never considered a 24 1.4 or a 35 1.4, but after doing the math, both would give an additional 1.33 and 0.67 stops respectively when shooting wide open (shutter speed adjusted to prevent star trails). I still fancy ultra-wide, though.



I wouldn't just look at it that way. The 1.4 lenses do better if you stop down a click or two. In reality by buying a 1.4 you are buying the ability to sharpen your stars at the same F ratio. Also it may not be much but consider that primes generally offer slightly better light transmission than zooms at the same F ratio. This is due to less optical elements in the path. 

That being said, I just picked up the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART. Does a wonderful job on stars. Wide enough to get good star fields but not so wide that you lose all semblance in nebula.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 5, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> That being said, I just picked up the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART. Does a wonderful job on stars. Wide enough to get good star fields but not so wide that you lose all semblance in nebula.



I am very pleased to hear this! I live in the SE US, so I rarely have clear air, and have not yet been able to use my 35mm Art for astro. But it is quite nice - very sharp, AF is moderately fast and very accurate, and no decentering.

Thanks!

John


----------

