# Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?



## Andy_Hodapp (Apr 28, 2013)

Over the summer I am going to move to Montana, this is great because it means I am only a couple miles away for beautiful locations with almost no light pollution. I have gotten pretty interested in star photography and I really want to capture the Milky Way. I shoot with a Canon 5D MKII and I have a 17-40mm f/4 and 50mm 1.8 that I use when I do photograph the night sky. I have been wondering what would be a good lens to use for capturing the Milky Way, my 50mm seems a bit to long and my 17-40mm seems to slow. I've been thinking about getting a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 because it is wider so I can use a longer shutter speed without getting star trails and faster so I can use a lower ISO. Having it be manual focus wouldn't seem to be that much of a problem if the infinity is well marked. I'm just looking for other peoples inputs on what they think would be a good alterative to my two lens or if one of the lenses I already have would be well suited for this. 
Here are some shots I've gotten why in Hawaii and in Montana, unluckily, it was cloudy every night for 2-5 so I never got a chance to get any Milky Way shots.


----------



## RiceCanon (Apr 29, 2013)

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/


----------



## inter211 (Apr 29, 2013)

Get the 24mm f/1.4L II lens. It is definitely the best lens for Milky Way/night sky shooting. At 1.4, you take in 4 times the amount of light as 2.8. On top of that, 24mm has the perfect FOV for the Milky Way to fill the frame. IMO, there seems to be too much empty space when shooting it at <20mm


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 29, 2013)

A few thoughts....
ISO 1,600 or 3,200 is a reasonable speed, without too much noise for exposures of around 30 seconds, using a lens 21mm or wider (I notice you have a 5D mk2, I have the mk3, so, I'm not sure how the mk2 compares with high ISO).

f2.8 in a lens is what you will need to keep the exposure time down. And here is where the journey starts, to find a lens that has good, wide open sharpness. If you want to do a lot of night shots, I'd suggest hiring the lens first, to give you a taste of what it's capable of.

A manual focus lens can be a good option, as they usually have a hard stop for infinity (most AF lenses don't). Makes it easier to get the focus right, while fumbling in the dark


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 29, 2013)

I feel like you kind of answered your own question, go with the Rokinon 14mm. It's cheap and it's really wide, you can go 40+ seconds on your exposures. Also, I'd try shooting at ISO 3200, even with the Mark II. Make sure your noise reduction is off and use mirror lockup.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 29, 2013)

i think you want the samyang 14mm. I have one that i use for the sort of silly stuff you can do with 14mm, and astro shots. I've yet to aim it at the stars because i've been so busy, but i'm pretty pleased with it for the more earthly shots i've taken with it. 

I took some shots of a wedding couple last night with it. i had to convince them to step closer, closer, closer still. "i swear, i'm not just taking a photo of your belt buckle!"


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Apr 29, 2013)

risc32 said:


> i think you want the samyang 14mm. I have one that i use for the sort of silly stuff you can do with 14mm, and astro shots. I've yet to aim it at the stars because i've been so busy, but i'm pretty pleased with it for the more earthly shots i've taken with it.
> 
> I took some shots of a wedding couple last night with it. i had to convince them to step closer, closer, closer still. "i swear, i'm not just taking a photo of your belt buckle!"



I think you're right, I just have two questions, does the lens have a hard stop at infinity and is it sharp enough wide open?


----------



## Niterider (Apr 29, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > i think you want the samyang 14mm. I have one that i use for the sort of silly stuff you can do with 14mm, and astro shots. I've yet to aim it at the stars because i've been so busy, but i'm pretty pleased with it for the more earthly shots i've taken with it.
> ...



Yepp it does and it sure is performs wonderfully wide open.


----------



## dswtan (Apr 29, 2013)

inter211 said:


> 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


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 29, 2013)

Regarding the title of the post "Best lens.....", it really depends on what "best" you are after.

If its the best priced lens, then, the Samyang would fit the bill. But, its suffers from a lack of edge sharpness (coma) and it has some subtle funky distortion involved (mustache distortion).

If you want the sharpest lens, then a Zeiss, but the price can be a killer.

Personally, I bought a 15mm Zeiss for this type of work, as it's wide (the sky is a big piece of sky-scape), and sharp.

There are some 3rd party lenses that probably fit in between, but I'd always hire and try before buying, IMHO.


----------



## extremeinstability (Apr 29, 2013)

It's not Canon. Probably Samyang or their other brands. Canon is king coma both the 14L II and especially the 24L II. I used both for that....

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-9-22.htm 24L II

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-3-30.htm 14L II

They both have make you barf wings off points of light. It extends so far in on full frame too. It really has a way of killing the use for star photography. 

1.4 vs 2.8 is so huge though obviously. So with that in mind, I'd think the Samyang 24 F1.4 would be damn tempting to give a whirl. Wider than 24 would be nice though as it actually is limiting on Milky Way even vertical shooting. But of course bye bye F1.4-F2.8

I now have the Zeiss 21 and Samyang 14, neither of which I've done this with yet. Samyang 14 has some hefty vignetting wide open that may not help much. Least it doesn't wing/coma like Canon. I'm actually planning to take it to the Badlands for that soon on a 6D. But really, as you can see from the F1.4 24L stuff there is potential for craziness with high ISOs. If only 1/3 of the frame wasn't winged the hell out. So in the end I'd say taking a 14 Samyang and 24 would be a great idea. The 14 Rokinon version was down to what, $300 or so? 

http://www.lenstip.com/330.7-Lens_review-Samyang_24_mm_f_1.4_ED_AS_UMC_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

Least the Samyang 24 will have noticeably less wingage than the Canon. Too bad it's not the same prices as their 14 lol.


----------



## Apop (Apr 29, 2013)

an adapter and a nikon 14-24 ?


----------



## Frodo (Apr 29, 2013)

The Samyang 14mm f2.8 is probably the best value lens for Milky Way images. 14mm means you capture more of the night sky and it means that 30 second exposures do not produce visible star trails.  Wide open is plenty sharp and better than going to a higher ISO. Lightroom profile corrects both vignetting and the moustache distortion without cropping too much of the image. There is no hard stop at infinity and with some lenses, infinity is way off. In mine it is perhaps only a couple of millimetres on the scale.

Here is a photo of Kapiti Island near my house. 5DII, Samyang 14mm f2.8, 30 sec @2.8, ISO 3200, processed in Lightroom 4.


----------



## Frodo (Apr 29, 2013)

And here is the Milky Way during a hike in New Zealand's South Island. There was quite a bright moon rising which shone on the hills, but not enough to obscure the Milky Way. Note the absence of the yellow light from city lights in the previous photo - we were a long way from city lights!
5DII, Samyang 14mm f2.8, 30 sec @2.8 ISO 3200, Lightroom 4.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 29, 2013)

Nice pics Frodo. I'm hoping to do the same from here (Australia). Unfortunately, either the weather or the full moon (or just past) has stopped me in the past couple of weeks.

Out of interest, how do the corners appear at 100% with that lens?


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 29, 2013)

I live in western Kansas & it is the same here for me, I can drive a few miles & basically have very little to no light pollution at all. I have a 5dIII & I love to do Milky Way shots! As you can see in my signature below I have a few fast lenses for that type of photography. I get some good images with the gear that I have, however I am still looking for the PERFECT lens. I think that I have found it though!! The Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839987-REG/Zeiss_1871766_Distagon_T_25mm_f_2_0.html

What you need in a Milky Way lens is exceptionally sharp wide open, wide to ultra-wide focal length & a fast aperture (f/2.8 or faster). This lens is (in my opinion) the ultimate Milky Way lens!! I'm not alone in that thinking either. I know of another guy that bought this lens just for a trip up North to shoot the northern lights. This conclusion has been probably two years in the making, I'm very serious about my Milky Way photography & I'm out for perfection!


----------



## charlesa (Apr 29, 2013)

Would a 24 mm TS-E II or the 8-15 mm fisheye be good for this type of capture?


----------



## alexturton (Apr 29, 2013)

Using a red car and a blue car?


----------



## risc32 (Apr 30, 2013)

i was looking pretty hard at the zeiss 25mmf2 also, but i found it's not really best at infinity. I read something alluding to that somewhere, i can't recall, but then later i do remember Roger at lensrentals mentioning it a few times. No doubt a very good lens, but astro work might not be in it's design brief. A search of the lensrental site should dig it up if your interested. i know i wasn't about to drop that amount of coin for a MF nonweather sealed f2 lens unless is was unrivaled.


----------



## PixelReaper (Apr 30, 2013)

+1 for Rokinon / Samyang 14mm. I would recommend even without considering what a great value the lens represents. I have owned it and the 14mm L II from Canon. Now I only own the Rokinon / Samyang 

Here's one of the subject you desire shot with my Roki 14mm and the 5DII


----------



## 49616E (Apr 30, 2013)

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 (Apr 30, 2013)

49616E said:


> 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 (Apr 30, 2013)

charlesa said:


> 49616E said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 30, 2013)

the hubble.... ;D ;D


----------



## lilmsmaggie (May 8, 2013)

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.




dswtan said:


> inter211 said:
> 
> 
> > Get the 24mm f/1.4L II lens.
> ...


----------



## s2kdriver80 (May 8, 2013)

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 (May 8, 2013)

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 (May 9, 2013)

lilmsmaggie said:


> 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 (May 9, 2013)

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 (May 9, 2013)

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 (May 9, 2013)

RiceCanon said:


> 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 (May 9, 2013)

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. 





extremeinstability said:


> lilmsmaggie said:
> 
> 
> > She uses many of Canon's UWA and WA lenses including the 24 1.4L to photography the night sky.
> ...


----------



## LOALTD (May 10, 2013)

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 (May 10, 2013)

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 (May 10, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> 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.



LOALTD said:


> 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
> ...



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 (May 10, 2013)

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.




noisejammer said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


----------



## westr70 (May 10, 2013)

RiceCanon said:


> 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 (May 10, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> 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 (May 10, 2013)

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






westr70 said:


> RiceCanon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## CarlTN (May 10, 2013)

lilmsmaggie said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



Thanks for even more useful info!


----------



## LOALTD (May 11, 2013)

Mr Bean said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Awesome! Thanks for the great info!


----------



## noisejammer (May 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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.


Hi Carl - 
I respect Roger C's knowledge. Nevertheless, LR did a test to find the best lenses for the D800E. Per LR's test the 25/2 is the sharpest lens they have at that focal length... In a different blog post, Roger comments that it may not be the best choice for landscape use. These comments are not consistent with one another. I've also compared RC's results with Lloyd Chambers (www.zeissguide.com - you pay for what you get) and Lloyd's at odds with Roger's assessment.

I guess the only way to check this rigorously is to piggyback my 5D2 and a couple of lenses on my (Tak) mount, focus carefully and shoot some images. Predictably, Toronto will be getting wall-to-wall rain all weekend (and I just realised my camera is still at Canon.)

So it's time for navel gazing.... 

I'm generally quite loath to believe what manufacturers claim - measurements are adverts and the conditions are carefully chosen for maximum effect. Subject to this caveat, here's the spec sheet.... http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/distagont225.html.

When stopped down to f/4, the 25/2 is supposed to achieve better than 70% contrast (at 40 lp/mm over an 36 mm diameter disc.)

Translation - At f/4, this lens can reproduce 40 x 36 = 1440 off-to-on-to-off transitions with a contrast of at least 70% over the width of a 135 sized sensor. Mild sharpening in pp can easily improve the contrast if needed. 

Stars are essentially points. Assume visible light and f/4, then the smallest disc possible is about 2.4 microns fwhm. Thanks to AA filters, our cameras can really only resolve about 2 pixels, or say 12 microns. Camera lenses don't need to be diffraction limited. This is why I can afford them.

Anyway - the 25/2 easily allows resolution of about 2880 transitions in 36 mm, or 80/mm. This means the resolution width is 12.5 microns. Now the camera can only see 12.5 microns so the 25/2 lens is capable of filling the camera's resolution over the 36 mm disc with 70% or better contrast...

Focusing to this level is achievable - motion of the lens through 10 microns on either side of focus degrades resolution by ~20% . A good loupe and magnified live view make it easy. 

For astrophotography - it pays to focus the lens at about halfway to the edge. This helps to deal with focal plane curvature.

Ok - to close my comments on this - If you study the corresponding data sheet for the 21/2.8 http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_slr/distagont2821.pdf, you will notice that the 25/2 at f/4 is about comparable with the 21/2.8 at f/5.6. If the 21/2.8 lens is legendary, it is (IMO) barely in the same league as the 25/2, 50/2 and - going by reports - 135/2.


----------



## extremeinstability (May 11, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> 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 own the 21 and have at least one example on this page I posted the other day here. http://www.extremeinstability.com/2013-5-4.htm Second page has full sized crops of several lenses.

Extreme corner crop here at full size 20,000 ISO on 6D. http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/2013/2013_05_04_50971zeiss20000rightcorner.jpg Some coma on just the brightest stars.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (May 12, 2013)

So, I've narrowed it down to the Rokinon 35mm 1.4 and the Rokinon 14mm 2.8, I believe that I would be able to get more use out of the 35mm for full body portraits, some landscape and the Milky Way. I've found both for the same price of $350 and the 35mm just seems like it would be better for me. If anyone has anything to add about the 35mm I would love to know.


----------



## archiea (May 12, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> Over the summer I am going to move to Montana, this is great because it means I am only a couple miles away for beautiful locations with almost no light pollution. I have gotten pretty interested in star photography and I really want to capture the Milky Way. I shoot with a Canon 5D MKII and I have a 17-40mm f/4 and 50mm 1.8 that I use when I do photograph the night sky. I have been wondering what would be a good lens to use for capturing the Milky Way, my 50mm seems a bit to long and my 17-40mm seems to slow. I've been thinking about getting a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 because it is wider so I can use a longer shutter speed without getting star trails and faster so I can use a lower ISO. Having it be manual focus wouldn't seem to be that much of a problem if the infinity is well marked. I'm just looking for other peoples inputs on what they think would be a good alterative to my two lens or if one of the lenses I already have would be well suited for this.
> Here are some shots I've gotten why in Hawaii and in Montana, unluckily, it was cloudy every night for 2-5 so I never got a chance to get any Milky Way shots.



How about one of these? (well you did ask for the best!!!!) ;D


----------



## serendipidy (May 12, 2013)

archiea said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > Over the summer I am going to move to Montana, this is great because it means I am only a couple miles away for beautiful locations with almost no light pollution. I have gotten pretty interested in star photography and I really want to capture the Milky Way. I shoot with a Canon 5D MKII and I have a 17-40mm f/4 and 50mm 1.8 that I use when I do photograph the night sky. I have been wondering what would be a good lens to use for capturing the Milky Way, my 50mm seems a bit to long and my 17-40mm seems to slow. I've been thinking about getting a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 because it is wider so I can use a longer shutter speed without getting star trails and faster so I can use a lower ISO. Having it be manual focus wouldn't seem to be that much of a problem if the infinity is well marked. I'm just looking for other peoples inputs on what they think would be a good alterative to my two lens or if one of the lenses I already have would be well suited for this.
> ...



Does it come with a hood and carrying case?


----------



## archiea (May 12, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> archiea said:
> 
> 
> > Andy_Hodapp said:
> ...



Here's a case, but I hear its been discontinued... ;D


----------



## serendipidy (May 12, 2013)

LOL ;D

I couldn't afford it anyway.


----------



## LOALTD (May 13, 2013)

extremeinstability said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Awesome! Thanks for the links!

I've noticed your images look SIGNIFICANTLY less noisy than mine (taken on a 5D Mk III), what kind of noise-reduction are you using, if any? A lot of your ISO 20k images look better than my 6400 images! (such as this one: http://500px.com/photo/33608607) Are you just using LR's chroma noise reduction?

Great website, love the analysis, super-helpful!


----------



## extremeinstability (May 14, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Awesome! Thanks for the links!
> 
> I've noticed your images look SIGNIFICANTLY less noisy than mine (taken on a 5D Mk III), what kind of noise-reduction are you using, if any? A lot of your ISO 20k images look better than my 6400 images! (such as this one: http://500px.com/photo/33608607) Are you just using LR's chroma noise reduction?
> 
> Great website, love the analysis, super-helpful!



Thanks. If you look at the second page linked on there those full size examples have zero noise reduction done other than color. I tried to do some on the smaller sized versions but pretty much it wasn't helping any of them and making them look worse, so most of those don't even have any sized down. But the full sized crops on the second page were left alone to show the noise/lack of noise. Pretty amazing sensor up in those extreme ranges. But a lot of it can just be the scene. Like if you have any haze or fog it will obviously show noise a lot quicker. THis was very clear and so also there are a lot more stars too and that added detail tends to hide noise/make it appear better.


----------



## CarlTN (May 14, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Very interesting. I seem to recall Roger's main complaint was that it got too soft closer to wide open at f/2 (I could be remembering wrong). The test at f/4 is fine for f/4...are you saying you do shorter-than-40-second exposures at or around f/4, and just let the noise take its terrible effect?

Can I assume that you are saying the 25 f/2, would be sharper at f/2.8, than the 21mm lens at f/2.8? 

The reason I would buy or use either the Zeiss 21 or 25, would be to shoot at wider aperture than f/4...to capture the Milky Way with a minimum of motion and minimum noise. Longer exposure "star trail" photography does not interest me as much.

The only picture of mine that's ever been published was of the Milky Way, shot three years ago with an older Sigma 17-70 on a crop body. The editor commented on the star sharpness I achieved, but thankfully gave me a pass on the noise.


----------



## tomms (May 14, 2013)

I use a 14-24 Nikon on a 5d iii body, since autofocus is not an issue this is IMO the perfect lens


----------

