# Is the ultimate astro lens coming? Another RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM mention [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 8, 2020)

> I have been told to expect a “world’s first” wide-angle zoom lens from Canon in the next few months, the official announcement date and shipping date are unknown at this time.
> The source claims that a Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM is currently being tested by select photographers. We’ve seen a patent for such a lens in the past and I have heard mentions of this lens a few times over the last year or so.
> There are a couple of other crazy lens designs I’ve heard about that I hope to let you all know about soon.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## mkush (Sep 8, 2020)

First!

I'd buy it... if it doesn't cost what I think it's going to cost.


----------



## jjj120 (Sep 8, 2020)

That lens would be super cool, but what would be the pricetag on that?!


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 8, 2020)

Holy shit... how heavy will this be?!
2-3kg?! And a price of 3-5k€!?
You don’t need 1,4f for Astro... better less coma etc.
hopefully with filter rear mount! (or body clip in filters)


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 8, 2020)

Again some heavy weight lifting champion needed, too? 


jjj120 said:


> That lens would be super cool, but what would be the pricetag on that?!


Far above 4k?


----------



## amorse (Sep 8, 2020)

I can't even imagine what that will cost. This transition to RF is getting more expensive for me by the CR post.


----------



## jjj120 (Sep 8, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Far above 4k?


Shit, that's really expensive. But you are probably right...


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 8, 2020)

I think a prime lens would be more "ultimate"


----------



## leadin2 (Sep 8, 2020)

I’m still waiting for a cheaper wide angle RF lens, bring us the 16-35mm f/4! =)


----------



## BroderLund (Sep 8, 2020)

Yes please! As I shoot a lot of northern lights, a fast shutter is critical to get the fine details in the aurora.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 8, 2020)

jjj120 said:


> Shit, that's really expensive. But you are probably right...


My first though twas $2500USD. But it could be a lot more. I think the EF Sigma 14mm ART lens is $1700 still. It'll look like a steal with the filter adapter and a set of drop in filters for less than the cost of the zoom.


----------



## fiendstudios (Sep 8, 2020)

I want this! Really want it!
Today I'm using 20mm/1.4 and 14mm/1.8 and one lens that can do both.. aswell as faster at 14mm would be awesome for astro and Northern lights-shooting!


----------



## photogreedy (Sep 8, 2020)

Right, as if RF 28-70 F2 is not breaking enough ground.


----------



## toodamnice (Sep 8, 2020)

I really want this lens. I am guessing that it will be at least $3,500usd since the RF 15-35 f2.8L is about $2,200usd now.
I love how Canon is really busy innovating and bringing us great products! Unreal.


----------



## lbeck (Sep 8, 2020)

Sign me up, no doubt. I’d imagine this will be more than the 28-70, I’d guess $3499.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 8, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Holy shit... how heavy will this be?!
> 2-3kg?! And a price of 3-5k€!?
> You don’t need 1,4f for Astro... better less coma etc.
> hopefully with filter rear mount! (or body clip in filters)


How about f/1.4 and low coma characteristics?


----------



## 1D4 (Sep 8, 2020)

jjj120 said:


> That lens would be super cool, but what would be the pricetag on that?!



Over $3,000 US and less than $90,000 US [CR3].


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Holy shit... how heavy will this be?!
> 2-3kg?! And a price of 3-5k€!?
> You don’t need 1,4f for Astro... better less coma etc.
> hopefully with filter rear mount! (or body clip in filters)


Who doesn’t need f/1.4 for Astro? You? Personally, I found f/2.8 to be too slow. I’ll decide what I need/want all on my own. Thanks.


----------



## LensFungus (Sep 8, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> You don’t need 1,4f for Astro... better less coma etc.


Less coma? My wife will put me in a coma if she sees my buying that thing.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Sep 8, 2020)

one kidney or two? which will be the suggested retail price?


----------



## max (Sep 8, 2020)

does it have to be so large now with RF mirrorless??
I though the huge lenses were because of retrofocal design needed because of the flange distance of 44mm in EFs an EF but shouldn't have to be so large in a 20mm flange distance of the RF. Simillar to the Sony E mount.



Maximilian said:


> Again some heavy weight lifting champion needed, too?


----------



## kten (Sep 8, 2020)

with well controlled coma and astigmatism I can see this being very popular regardless of price and weight. Astro is doable with smaller aperatures of course but wider is better in many cases especially not on a tracking mount like some widefield images which oft include a lot of landscape features/foreground. Also indoor when not on tripod and so on it could be handy. I don't need such a fast uwa myself but I can see many who'd kill for this.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 8, 2020)

amorse said:


> I can't even imagine what that will cost. This transition to RF is getting more expensive for me by the CR post.



If you don't use that today, you don't need that tomorrow  Get the superb 15 - 35 f/2.8 or adapt one of the EF options.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 8, 2020)

max said:


> does it have to be so large now with RF mirrorless??
> I though the huge lenses were because of retrofocal design ...


Of course I don't know. And I did a pure guess. But...

The RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM weights 840 g and has a filter diameter of 82 mm and is a f/2.8 lens.
The EF 11-24mm f/4L USM weights 1180 g has a diameter of 108 mm and is a f/4 lens.
The patent shows a quite long lens (formula 191,1 mm minus flange 20 mm) with 16 elements.
The front element is quite big and thick and surely not made out of plastic.

So even if you don't need a retrofocal design for that f/1.4 you still need a big enough front element to let enough light in without too much dissortion.
If I did read the patent right the first element has an effective diameter of 85.87 mm (bottom of page 5) meaning the glass must be bigger for edge losses and framing.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 8, 2020)

leadin2 said:


> I’m still waiting for a cheaper wide angle RF lens, bring us the 16-35mm f/4! =)


Could be 15-35 f/4 but even 16-35 will do. I’ve been waiting for it since the beginning.


----------



## ryebread (Sep 8, 2020)

a 12-24 f2 would be more reasonable. actually even that is cray cray!


----------



## David_E (Sep 8, 2020)

_ ...“world’s first” wide-angle zoom lens_...

So my Canon 8-15mm fisheye isn’t a wide-angle lens??


----------



## amorse (Sep 8, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> If you don't use that today, you don't need that tomorrow  Get the superb 15 - 35 f/2.8 or adapt one of the EF options.


To be fair, no-one uses that today because it doesn't exist today. Today I use a 16-35 and a 14mm prime; but since I've been planning on replacing both for a while now, consolidating to one lens and getting a faster aperture in the process definitely has me interested. If this comes to market I'll definitely be cross shopping this with the 15-35.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 8, 2020)

and then there's the cost of accessories...


----------



## SteveC (Sep 8, 2020)

David_E said:


> _ ...“world’s first” wide-angle zoom lens_...
> 
> So my Canon 8-15mm fisheye isn’t a wide-angle lens??



But this new lens will refract neutrinos so you can do neutrino photography.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 8, 2020)

Exciting, though I'd still prefer the 14-28/2 that was rumored some time ago.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 8, 2020)

David_E said:


> _ ...“world’s first” wide-angle zoom lens_...
> 
> So my Canon 8-15mm fisheye isn’t a wide-angle lens??


That's a F4 right? I think the first they mean is the wide angle zoom at F1.4.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 8, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Exciting, though I'd still prefer the 14-28/2 that was rumored some time ago.



I was waiting for that one too actually...


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2020)

Coma, coma, coma (a play on words from the Brady Bunch's Marcia, Marcia, Marcia)
Poor coma will sink this lens so it would need to be well controlled
Did the patent have AF or manual focus? Are there use cases for AF for this lens? MF should be acceptable with IBIS (eg windy conditions on tripod)
100mm front glass/entrance pupil will put it in the same league/price bracket between the EF200 f2 and the EF300 f2.8 + new release surcharge
Personally, a RF 14mm f1.4 prime would be amazing enough for my wide angle astro-landscapes with f1.8 being more affordable (relatively!)


----------



## addola (Sep 9, 2020)

Canon has the EOS Ra, a camera dedicated to astrophotography. It is reasonable to assume that they'll make lenses intended for that use.

I have no experience with astro, but I think a 14/1.4 prime is more reasonable for size/weight consideration.

I'd use such lens in night life/concert setting, but I can also see it being used for Basketball (under the ring shots). I think a 14-24 f/2, or 14-28 f/2 would appeal to more people as part of an "f/2" trinity.


----------



## samh004 (Sep 9, 2020)

leadin2 said:


> I’m still waiting for a cheaper wide angle RF lens, bring us the 16-35mm f/4! =)


Indeed, I’d be more likely to swap my EF version of this lens for that, than consider ever increasingly priced crazy lenses! Nice as they’ll be.

I wonder if there’s much hope of the EF 100 f2.8L Macro being reproduced and how they will supercharge that out of my price range. The new RF 85 unfortunately doesn’t have as much magnification as I need want.


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2020)

BroderLund said:


> Yes please! As I shoot a lot of northern lights, a fast shutter is critical to get the fine details in the aurora.


What lens do you use now?


----------



## Billybob (Sep 9, 2020)

After buying three RF zooms, I feel like a snake after a huge meal. I need to rest and digest my acquisitions before considering another enormous consumption.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2020)

addola said:


> Canon has the EOS Ra, a camera dedicated to astrophotography. It is reasonable to assume that they'll make lenses intended for that use.
> 
> I have no experience with astro, but I think a 14/1.4 prime is more reasonable for size/weight consideration.
> 
> I'd use such lens in night life/concert setting, but I can also see it being used for Basketball (under the ring shots). I think a 14-24 f/2, or 14-28 f/2 would appeal to more people as part of an "f/2" trinity.


That reasoning falls down when you consider Canon have made Astro versions of their cameras since 2005 with the 20Da yet never felt they needed to make specific Astro lenses. Don’t forget the vast majority of those Astro cameras are attached to telescopes not EF or RF lenses.


----------



## analoggrotto (Sep 9, 2020)

This must be Canon's Statement Lens and middle finger to the doubters. As the EF 50mm F1.0L USM was.


----------



## addola (Sep 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That reasoning falls down when you consider Canon have made Astro versions of their cameras since 2005 with the 20Da yet never felt they needed to make specific Astro lenses. Don’t forget the vast majority of those Astro cameras are attached to telescopes not EF or RF lenses.



Good points!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That reasoning falls down when you consider Canon have made Astro versions of their cameras since 2005 with the 20Da yet never felt they needed to make specific Astro lenses. Don’t forget the vast majority of those Astro cameras are attached to telescopes not EF or RF lenses.


Agreed. That said, sensitivity to Ha is not so important for wide angle astro.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 9, 2020)

If F/1.4 is supposedly "too wide" of an aperture for astro, just wait until the complainers discover "stopping down the aperture to improve image quality.." I know the fixed apertures of the 600 and 800 F/11 are confusing y'all, but come on.

Jokes aside, having a wider aperture means stopping down is even better quality. F/1.4 might be rough for astro, but I bet the F/2 would kick the butt of the 14mm f2.8 at 2.8. 

I think this lens would be incredible and probably make a profit off of high customers, like the 28-70. I think the 11-24mm was great proof that there's plenty of customers that have been spending 6-12K on super telephotos that would easily spend 3-4 grand on "super" non-telephoto lenses. That mentality has gone into the 28-70, and I'm sure this lens would do the same.

I personally think this would be an incredible sports lens. I know one of the main clients of the 15-35 f2.8 is sports, and this lens would definitely be sold in droves for sports photogs who already shell out 12 grand for supertelephotos.

A side note, the new tracking AF on the R5/R6 means you could have facial tracking on a remote camera. F/1.4 could be usable even on remotes if the camera is tracking faces.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2020)

max said:


> does it have to be so large now with RF mirrorless??
> I though the huge lenses were because of retrofocal design needed because of the flange distance of 44mm in EFs an EF but shouldn't have to be so large in a 20mm flange distance of the RF. Simillar to the Sony E mount.


Don’t let the experts fool you.  There’s lots on hopes, dreams, fantasies, and speculation passed off as fact.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 9, 2020)

I have put a kidney on Ebay in preparation for a down payment for the lens. Seriously this would be a their most expensive lens yet for RF. Just what they need.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> If F/1.4 is supposedly "too wide" of an aperture for astro, just wait until the complainers discover "stopping down the aperture to improve image quality.." I know the fixed apertures of the 600 and 800 F/11 are confusing y'all, but come on.
> 
> Jokes aside, having a wider aperture means stopping down is even better quality. F/1.4 might be rough for astro, but I bet the F/2 would kick the butt of the 14mm f2.8 at 2.8.
> 
> ...


To be honest, I’m very sure I have never had a lens as sharp as the RF 50/85mm f/1.2L lenses.... at f1.2. RF is a real game changer. Stopping down may not be needed.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 9, 2020)

I would prefer a 14mm prime to a zoom at 2/3 the cost and weight.


----------



## derpderp (Sep 9, 2020)

holy shit. I mean i don't mind handing over my kidney for this. really.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 9, 2020)

I think it'll come in at just under $3K, probably same price as the 28-70


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 9, 2020)

I want a 14-28mm f/2 like the patents mentioned.

This f/1.4 will surely be larger, heavier, and more expensive.


----------



## Serenesunrise (Sep 9, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> one kidney or two? which will be the suggested retail price?


Two kidneys and one arm or a leg!


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 9, 2020)

Will there be automatic inbody barrel distortion fix... Thats what RF mount is for, right?


----------



## Schlotkins (Sep 9, 2020)

Coma and wide open sharpness are obviously important. But deal lord canon you need to work on the vignetting. Everyone thought the Ef 16-35 2.8 iii was bad brought but they you dropped 4.5EV on the rf 15-35. If it vignettes like that who cares about the number on the name of the lens in the corners it’s an f7.1 lens and useless for Astro. 

Just make it huge and perfect for Astro. That’s why the sigma 14 1.8 is great. At f2.2 the vignetting is amazing already!


----------



## fiendstudios (Sep 9, 2020)

BroderLund said:


> Yes please! As I shoot a lot of northern lights, a fast shutter is critical to get the fine details in the aurora.



Dito! I would love a great wide lens that lets in tons of light, like the 20mm f1.4 or 14mm/1.8.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I think it'll come in at just under $3K, probably same price as the 28-70




Well, the current EF 11-24 L f/4 lens by cannon list price is right at about $2999.99.....I can't imagine a faster version of it in the new RF mount would be cheaper than what is arguably it redecessor.

I'd guess at least $4K list price.

cayenne


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 9, 2020)

Schlotkins said:


> Coma and wide open sharpness are obviously important. But deal lord canon you need to work on the vignetting. Everyone thought the Ef 16-35 2.8 iii was bad brought but they you dropped 4.5EV on the rf 15-35. If it vignettes like that who cares about the number on the name of the lens in the corners it’s an f7.1 lens and useless for Astro.
> 
> Just make it huge and perfect for Astro. That’s why the sigma 14 1.8 is great. At f2.2 the vignetting is amazing already!


Exactly. I would rather have a 14mm f~1.4 prime lens that had great sharpness, coma, and vignetting than a zoom that was compromised in one of these factors.


----------



## mccasi (Sep 9, 2020)

What a dream! though a 20mm f/1.4 L would be enough for me


----------



## AJ (Sep 9, 2020)

If you want 21/1.4 right now, you can simply use a narrower fast lens (e.g. 35/1.4, 50/1.4), shoot in a grid pattern, and stitch. A friend of mine uses this technique a lot for shooting the milky way (guided on an astro tracker). Wouldn't work for aurora, though.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 9, 2020)

Schlotkins said:


> Coma and wide open sharpness are obviously important. But deal lord canon you need to work on the vignetting. Everyone thought the Ef 16-35 2.8 iii was bad brought but they you dropped 4.5EV on the rf 15-35. If it vignettes like that who cares about the number on the name of the lens in the corners it’s an f7.1 lens and useless for Astro.
> 
> Just make it huge and perfect for Astro. That’s why the sigma 14 1.8 is great. At f2.2 the vignetting is amazing already!



Is it really that important if the camera fixes it before you even look at the file?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 9, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, the current EF 11-24 L f/4 lens by cannon list price is right at about $2999.99.....I can't imagine a faster version of it in the new RF mount would be cheaper than what is arguably it redecessor.



There's a huge world of difference between an 11-24 and a 14-21 - so much so that I would argue that it covers the difference in speeds between the two lenses which is why I think they'll be the same price.

Of course, the more people post here saying "I'm sure this lens will be $4k or more", the more chance that Canon will take notice and think "yes, maybe we can sell it for that much!"

So, to counter that, I think it'll come out at $349


----------



## Schlotkins (Sep 9, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Is it really that important if the camera fixes it before you even look at the file?



Of course! It's not magic - the camera pulls up the exposure in those parts of the frame to remove the vignetting which increases noise. The RF 15-35 2.8 has 4.6EV uncorrected and 2V corrected. So if you shoot 3200ISO, the corners are now like they were shot at 3200->6400->12800->19200 ISO and you still have 2EVs of vignetting to deal with.

And remember vignetting doesn't just affect corners. at 15mm on the RF lens, you lose a stop by the time you get to the APC corners. Here's a comparison to the Sigma at f2:









Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Vignetting


Review vignetting (peripheral shading) test results with f-stop contours for the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens. Compare the results from this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Chris


----------



## cayenne (Sep 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> There's a huge world of difference between an 11-24 and a 14-21 - so much so that I would argue that it covers the difference in speeds between the two lenses which is why I think they'll be the same price.
> 
> Of course, the more people post here saying "I'm sure this lens will be $4k or more", the more chance that Canon will take notice and think "yes, maybe we can sell it for that much!"
> 
> So, to counter that, I think it'll come out at $349



Let's also add that it needs to come with a *2-for-1 coupon* too, to even hope to be remotely successful at launch!!


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 9, 2020)

Schlotkins said:


> Of course! It's not magic - the camera pulls up the exposure in those parts of the frame to remove the vignetting which increases noise. The RF 15-35 2.8 has 4.6EV uncorrected and 2V corrected. So if you shoot 3200ISO, the corners are now like they were shot at 3200->6400->12800->19200 ISO and you still have 2EVs of vignetting to deal with.
> 
> And remember vignetting doesn't just affect corners. at 15mm on the RF lens, you lose a stop by the time you get to the APC corners. Here's a comparison to the Sigma at f2:
> 
> ...



I get the technical side. I'm saying does it have an actual impact, at image sizes that actually get used? Corner resolution is already lower than in the center, I get that astro demands a consistent exposure corner-to-corner, I'm just not convinced that "vignetting + fix" is going to be noticeably different from "less vignetting" on a different lens beyond pixel-peeping.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 9, 2020)

Someone wake me up when we get more info about the 35 f/1.2.


----------



## toodamnice (Sep 9, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Someone wake me up when we get more info about the 35 f/1.2.



I will wake you up when I yell for joy when I get a ship date for my R5! lol


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Someone wake me up when we get more info about the 35 f/1.2.


I'd happily take a 1.4.


----------



## Schlotkins (Sep 9, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I get the technical side. I'm saying does it have an actual impact, at image sizes that actually get used? Corner resolution is already lower than in the center, I get that astro demands a consistent exposure corner-to-corner, I'm just not convinced that "vignetting + fix" is going to be noticeably different from "less vignetting" on a different lens beyond pixel-peeping.



On an 8x10 maybe not. Depends on the difference. 3 stops is a lot. Maybe you could crop the worse away. I remember on my Rokinson 14 2.8 the 4-5 stops of vignetting vs my Nikon 14-24 was very noticeable.

In my astro shooting experience - and perhaps others will disagree - the biggest negative factor on my image quality is high iso noise. A one stop difference is huge (just think of the difference of 2.8 vs 4). I have some shots printed 16x20 and they only work because I stacked 15+ frames. It would be great to get another stop or so of speed. Makes post so much bette.

And with Aurora you can't stack or track so there it's even more critical.

It is also very noticeable if your noise profile is way worse anyway from the center.

Anyway, doesn't matter. Canon will make the lens like they make it. I'm just saying if they are going to make a monster like this, just make it a monster. I'd rather have it 10% bigger and 200g more and have 2-3 stops vignetting in the Sigma 14 1.8.

Chris


----------



## infared (Sep 9, 2020)

I am guessing: $5900. Paying a Sherpa will be additional!


----------



## sobrien (Sep 9, 2020)

* _Breathes a sigh of relief as finally Canon release an RF lens that he doesn’t feel compelled to buy_


----------



## amorse (Sep 9, 2020)

Schlotkins said:


> On an 8x10 maybe not. Depends on the difference. 3 stops is a lot. Maybe you could crop the worse away. I remember on my Rokinson 14 2.8 the 4-5 stops of vignetting vs my Nikon 14-24 was very noticeable.
> 
> In my astro shooting experience - and perhaps others will disagree - the biggest negative factor on my image quality is high iso noise. A one stop difference is huge (just think of the difference of 2.8 vs 4). I have some shots printed 16x20 and they only work because I stacked 15+ frames. It would be great to get another stop or so of speed. Makes post so much bette.
> ....


I'm still using the old Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for night sky - I'm just getting tired of stacking so many frames and having to manually align images in photoshop for it to stack acceptably. That moustache distortion adds so much time to the stacking process for me. 

I'm pretty hesitant to use it for night sky without stacking, unless I'm taking photos of aurora or panorama stitching, so this rumour has some potential in my eyes. I was hoping to replace my 16-35 f/4 with something faster and replace the Rokinon with something faster (or at least with easier to correct distortion) as well, so I'm kind of hoping that the expected trade offs from this lens don't negate it's fit for my use - price and weight being the most obvious ones.


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2020)

amorse said:


> I'm still using the old Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for night sky - I'm just getting tired of stacking so many frames and having to manually align images in photoshop for it to stack acceptably. That moustache distortion adds so much time to the stacking process for me.
> 
> I'm pretty hesitant to use it for night sky without stacking, unless I'm taking photos of aurora or panorama stitching, so this rumour has some potential in my eyes. I was hoping to replace my 16-35 f/4 with something faster and replace the Rokinon with something faster (or at least with easier to correct distortion) as well, so I'm kind of hoping that the expected trade offs from this lens don't negate it's fit for my use - price and weight being the most obvious ones.


The difference in price will be a 10x or 15x one. Why not try to save 1.3 stops by using the Sigma 14mm 1.8?
See its review at:






Sigma A 14 mm f/1.8 DG HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com


Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.




www.lenstip.com


----------



## cayenne (Sep 9, 2020)

amorse said:


> I'm still using the old Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for night sky - I'm just getting tired of stacking so many frames and having to manually align images in photoshop for it to stack acceptably. That moustache distortion adds so much time to the stacking process for me.
> 
> I'm pretty hesitant to use it for night sky without stacking, unless I'm taking photos of aurora or panorama stitching, so this rumour has some potential in my eyes. I was hoping to replace my 16-35 f/4 with something faster and replace the Rokinon with something faster (or at least with easier to correct distortion) as well, so I'm kind of hoping that the expected trade offs from this lens don't negate it's fit for my use - price and weight being the most obvious ones.



You might try out a more dedicated piece of stacking software, like Helicon Focus.<P>
It seems to work VERY well for me doing focus stacking.....they have a 30 day free trial, so might be worth your while to audition it.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## amorse (Sep 9, 2020)

cayenne said:


> You might try out a more dedicated piece of stacking software, like Helicon Focus.<P>
> It seems to work VERY well for me doing focus stacking.....they have a 30 day free trial, so might be worth your while to audition it.
> 
> HTH,
> ...


Thanks for the suggestion - I'll give it a go! This lens always struggles with stacking but does fine in stitching panos. Hopefully this works as an intermediate solution - the ~20 minutes of manual tweaking per frame for the stack gets pretty discouraging when the number of frames gets over 8!


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 9, 2020)

Lot's of budding astronomers here...lol


----------



## amorse (Sep 9, 2020)

tron said:


> The difference in price will be a 10x or 15x one. Why not try to save 1.3 stops by using the Sigma 14mm 1.8?
> See its review at:
> 
> 
> ...


The Sigma is a really good alternative, honestly. I've been thinking about that lens since it launched but never pulled the trigger because I've also wanted to reduce the number of lenses I'm carrying when camping. I find that I'm doing landscape astrophotography mostly while camping, and replacing the Rokinon with the Sigma would drastically improve image quality, but also take up more bag space and increase my carry weight - it would work perfectly well, but it is a trade off. 

Typically I've been bringing the Rokinon 14 and a Canon 16-35 f/4 (plus a 24-70 and 70-200), but if I can replace those wide lenses with one wide/fast zoom then I can potentially increase image quality and reduce the number of lenses. On the other hand, the price will definitely be an issue and the weight will likely be more than I'm already carrying, so this won't likely be a perfect fit either. Until this rumour though, I was expecting to just go for the RF15-35 and see if it stacks more efficiently, but considering that I can't really travel much at the moment, I'm not in a huge rush to solve the problem and can wait for some final details to decide what is the best fit.

Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## infared (Sep 9, 2020)

amorse said:


> The Sigma is a really good alternative, honestly. I've been thinking about that lens since it launched but never pulled the trigger because I've also wanted to reduce the number of lenses I'm carrying when camping. I find that I'm doing landscape astrophotography mostly while camping, and replacing the Rokinon with the Sigma would drastically improve image quality, but also take up more bag space and increase my carry weight - it would work perfectly well, but it is a trade off.
> 
> Typically I've been bringing the Rokinon 14 and a Canon 16-35 f/4 (plus a 24-70 and 70-200), but if I can replace those wide lenses with one wide/fast zoom then I can potentially increase image quality and reduce the number of lenses. On the other hand, the price will definitely be an issue and the weight will likely be more than I'm already carrying, so this won't likely be a perfect fit either. Until this rumour though, I was expecting to just go for the RF15-35 and see if it stacks more efficiently, but considering that I can't really travel much at the moment, I'm not in a huge rush to solve the problem and can wait for some final details to decide what is the best fit.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion!


Hmm....I mentioned above that a Sherpa would be additional...hmmm...are your rates reasonable? You sound like the right guy! ...This thing, if it’s real...will be a monster! LOL!


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2020)

amorse said:


> The Sigma is a really good alternative, honestly. I've been thinking about that lens since it launched but never pulled the trigger because I've also wanted to reduce the number of lenses I'm carrying when camping. I find that I'm doing landscape astrophotography mostly while camping, and replacing the Rokinon with the Sigma would drastically improve image quality, but also take up more bag space and increase my carry weight - it would work perfectly well, but it is a trade off.
> 
> Typically I've been bringing the Rokinon 14 and a Canon 16-35 f/4 (plus a 24-70 and 70-200), but if I can replace those wide lenses with one wide/fast zoom then I can potentially increase image quality and reduce the number of lenses. On the other hand, the price will definitely be an issue and the weight will likely be more than I'm already carrying, so this won't likely be a perfect fit either. Until this rumour though, I was expecting to just go for the RF15-35 and see if it stacks more efficiently, but considering that I can't really travel much at the moment, I'm not in a huge rush to solve the problem and can wait for some final details to decide what is the best fit.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion!


You almost read my mind. I was thinking of suggesting you the16-35 2.8 to consolidate 14 and 16-35 f/4 !!

I have many UWA lenses because I got them as soon as they became available and then didn't want to part with the other ones!

Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (it has a hard stop at infinity!)
Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (that was a bargain bought used in perfect condition using many lenses I didn't want as part exchange).
Canon 16-35 4L IS (finally a travel uwa zoom with excellent IQ. I part-exchanged the old non-is 24 2.8 for that)
Canon 16-35 2.8L III (Because I wanted 2.8!!!!!!!! But it has huge vignetting)
Canon 11-24 f/4 (I used it less than I thought. And t is very big!)
Sigma 14mm 1.8
Canon RF 15-35 2.8L IS (because it has IS and I want to use it at church and museum interiors)
It has the same vignetting as the 16-35 2.8L III
So many overlaps!

I have done astrophotography mainly with 14mm 2.8L II and last year with Sigma 14mm 1.8

I liked the results (I think I had a little flare when there was the moon (not full of course) in the sky even when it wasn't visible in the frame. But when I shot at the lights at home I didn't see any flare!)

A 14 2.8 is small and can be put almost everywhere in a bag. By the way both 14mm lenses I have have much less vignetting than the 16-35 and the 15-35 zooms.

P.S By the way I can't travel either. Also there is the issue with light pollution. And the astronomik filters do not work well with fast lenses (they mention less than f/3 for FF cameras which practically limits them to f/2.8 lenses!)


----------



## lbeck (Sep 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> To be honest, I’m very sure I have never had a lens as sharp as the RF 50/85mm f/1.2L lenses.... at f1.2. RF is a real game changer. Stopping down may not be needed.



+1 for the 50 1.2

It’s razor sharp wide open, stop down a few and it’s simply ridiculous.


----------



## 20Dave (Sep 10, 2020)

amorse said:


> Thanks for the suggestion - I'll give it a go! This lens always struggles with stacking but does fine in stitching panos. Hopefully this works as an intermediate solution - the ~20 minutes of manual tweaking per frame for the stack gets pretty discouraging when the number of frames gets over 8!



There are other astro image processing apps out there such as PixInsight, Astro Pixel Processor, and DeepSkyStacker (free) that are excellent for stacking and automatically align the images. It won't help for quickly changing phenomena like an Aurora, but for Milky Way panoramas and other star photos, they can be very powerful. Admittedly, I haven't used them for panoramas that include a (moving) horizon, but I use PixInsight quite a bit for astrophotography. Stacking hundreds of images is easy.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Lot's of budding astronomers here...lol


Splitting hairs.....
An astronomer is a scientist in the field of astronomy who focuses their studies on a specific question or field outside the scope of Earth. They observe astronomical objects such as stars, planets, moons, comets and galaxies – in either observational (by analyzing the data) or theoretical astronomy. Examples of topics or fields astronomers study include planetary science, solar astronomy, the origin or evolution of stars, or the formation of galaxies. Related but distinct subjects like physical cosmology, which studies the Universe as a whole

There are astronomers in the group but they are into deep field astronomy (Ha/filtered spectrum, telescope mounted, long exposure/ EQ mounts, cooled sensors). This lens would mostly suit astro-landscapers to include earthly foreground elements for context and relatable interest.

Then again, the first thing that everyone does with a big white is shoot the moon


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2020)

20Dave said:


> There are other astro image processing apps out there such as PixInsight, Astro Pixel Processor, and DeepSkyStacker (free) that are excellent for stacking and automatically align the images. It won't help for quickly changing phenomena like an Aurora, but for Milky Way panoramas and other star photos, they can be very powerful. Admittedly, I haven't used them for panoramas that include a (moving) horizon, but I use PixInsight quite a bit for astrophotography. Stacking hundreds of images is easy.


Are there any free stacking programs for Mac? Starstax is the only one I know and I don't think that it stacks wide angle shots well ie the stars in the corners of wide angle shots


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 10, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Splitting hairs.....
> An astronomer is a scientist in the field of astronomy who focuses their studies on a specific question or field outside the scope of Earth. They observe astronomical objects such as stars, planets, moons, comets and galaxies – in either observational (by analyzing the data) or theoretical astronomy. Examples of topics or fields astronomers study include planetary science, solar astronomy, the origin or evolution of stars, or the formation of galaxies. Related but distinct subjects like physical cosmology, which studies the Universe as a whole
> 
> There are astronomers in the group but they are into deep field astronomy (Ha/filtered spectrum, telescope mounted, long exposure/ EQ mounts, cooled sensors). This lens would mostly suit astro-landscapers to include earthly foreground elements for context and relatable interest.
> ...



Same goes for astrologers.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 10, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Are there any free stacking programs for Mac? Starstax is the only one I know and I don't think that it stacks wide angle shots well ie the stars in the corners of wide angle shots



There are free ones for Mac, but there are a lot more for PC users. CloudyNights.com is a good source/forum to learn more.


----------



## amorse (Sep 10, 2020)

infared said:


> Hmm....I mentioned above that a Sherpa would be additional...hmmm...are your rates reasonable? You sound like the right guy! ...This thing, if it’s real...will be a monster! LOL!


Ha, I'm very expensive and mediocre at the job haha. Usually my pack weight for camping/photography is in the territory of 55-70 lbs, so if I can cut a few pounds here or there or reduce the number of things I need to keep track of, I'm all ears! Unfortunately with the camera gear being the lion's share of the weight, the choice is bring less or spend a lot more. Since I'm already mapping out a transition from EF to R mount, I'm trying to weigh my options (pun intended) for the best fit. 

But yes, this may cut out a lens, but I'm not sure the total weight will come down, so it may not be a perfect match. We'll see!


----------



## amorse (Sep 10, 2020)

20Dave said:


> There are other astro image processing apps out there such as PixInsight, Astro Pixel Processor, and DeepSkyStacker (free) that are excellent for stacking and automatically align the images. It won't help for quickly changing phenomena like an Aurora, but for Milky Way panoramas and other star photos, they can be very powerful. Admittedly, I haven't used them for panoramas that include a (moving) horizon, but I use PixInsight quite a bit for astrophotography. Stacking hundreds of images is easy.


Thanks, I'll have a peek! A software solution would be a welcome one - the distortion on the rokinon is really challenging for stacking in most software I've tried, but for panoramas I've found PTGui was able to figure it out. Thanks again


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> There are free ones for Mac, but there are a lot more for PC users. CloudyNights.com is a good source/forum to learn more.


They suggested Starry Landscape Stacker which is ~USD50 from the Mac app store. There is a trial version which I will try but it is a lot for occasional use.
One interesting comment was 
"There is no stacking software that can handle the geometric displacements across the field shooting a 14mm lens beyond 5-8 images....it's impossible..It's not the coma that's the problem. You need to shoot a pano with a ~35mm lens, stack, and reduce to size.... "


----------



## infared (Sep 10, 2020)

amorse said:


> Ha, I'm very expensive and mediocre at the job haha. Usually my pack weight for camping/photography is in the territory of 55-70 lbs, so if I can cut a few pounds here or there or reduce the number of things I need to keep track of, I'm all ears! Unfortunately with the camera gear being the lion's share of the weight, the choice is bring less or spend a lot more. Since I'm already mapping out a transition from EF to R mount, I'm trying to weigh my options (pun intended) for the best fit.
> 
> But yes, this may cut out a lens, but I'm not sure the total weight will come down, so it may not be a perfect match. We'll see!


I am old...so...for FF Star-chasing my car just has to be near by ....I don’t mind sleeping in it ...as long as I get the photo!


----------



## David_E (Sep 10, 2020)

If it costs less than about $25k, you’re going to get a lot of distortion at the edges—elongated stars—at wide apertures.


----------



## juststeve (Sep 10, 2020)

From reading the patent, lens length is slightly over 200 mm and width of the first element is about 86 mm (plus or minus a few tenths of a mm). That is getting in to the size range of the EF 11-24/4. Expect the weight to be similar.

Interestingly, there is also a 12-20/2 listed in the patent. Similar in size. These are all RF lenses.

The patents are very detailed and include curvature formulas for the aspheric elements. That front element is quite spectacular. Apparently, a key element is the second to the last, element OE. It is of a resin material and said to be quite difficult to manufacture. Being sandwiched between two glass elements is said to stabilize it. Similar to the goo of the 35/1.4 L ii?


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 10, 2020)

The front element of the lens has a strange looking flat section in the center and then curves away. Any idea what that’s about?


----------



## Surab (Sep 10, 2020)

Hi there, have you ever heard new rumors about that 10-24mm F4 L?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Lot's of budding astronomers here...lol


Except they keep making vague predictions. I prefer to call them astrologers.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2020)

Is anyone else glad they can see uses for this lens beyond Astro? Honestly, Astro isn’t even one of my check boxes.  Vignette? I love vignette!


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 10, 2020)

Try a engine to rotate the camera like the earth... to get better results.
I got bored by this 14mm f/2.8 pictures, the resolution is not good enough. For stars you need the absolute entry pupil - 14mm/2.8 is 5mm like the one in your eye. Even this 14mm f/1.4 will be "only" 10mm.
You see much more stars with a 35mm/2 (17,5mm pupil) with rotation so you can expose for more than 10seconds. Its quite good for milky way anyway - yes you don't get a 100° degree angle / band of the milky way, but quite enough for great results.

14mm:

__
https://flic.kr/p/HGTYgZ
35mm:

__
https://flic.kr/p/Q8zpgA
135mm:

__
https://flic.kr/p/2c3iJYn

With 135mm f/2 (67mm pupil!) this is shocking how much stars you can see forming the "cloudy band".


----------



## juststeve (Sep 10, 2020)

And even better, an RF 85/1.2 has an entrance pupil of just under 71 mm. An RF 35/1.2 wound be quite tempting too. Oh the temptation. Oh the bank account ruination.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Is anyone else glad they can see uses for this lens beyond Astro? Honestly, Astro isn’t even one of my check boxes.  Vignette? I love vignette!



I said it in my last comment, but I really think a big selling point for a lens like this would be sports. Most sports photogs I know swear by the 16-35 and 14-24 f/2.8, and this would be a whole two stops faster. At the end of a football game, you could put this over your head with the flip-down screen and shoot hail-mary shots at F/1.4 

I recently saw a tutorial on using AF face detection focus on a remote camera to take F/1.4 portraits of foxes, and I was totally blown away. You could totally use a 14mm f/1.4 with facial tracking to take crazy f/1.4 bokeh shots from behind a basketball backboard or from the racetrack in track and field events, and end up with wide shots that actually have beautiful bokeh.


----------



## juststeve (Sep 11, 2020)

H. Jones: Having had a similar job many, many years ago, I would have sold my soul to the Devil for such a lens. To be able to insert your lens (and by default, the viewer) in to the scene, yet blur out the background enough to abstract the details, would be wonderful. Night skies would be an added benefit. Of course, I would have had to take a second mortgage on my soul to buy a couple of R5's.


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 11, 2020)

mkush said:


> First!
> 
> I'd buy it... if it doesn't cost what I think it's going to cost.


I will buy it if it does cost what it is going to cost! Pre-order here I come! I don't even have my R5 yet! 

Bob


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I think it'll come in at just under $3K, probably same price as the 28-70


I think that is a dream.


tron said:


> The difference in price will be a 10x or 15x one. Why not try to save 1.3 stops by using the Sigma 14mm 1.8?
> See its review at:
> 
> 
> ...



I have that lens and would happily pay 2x the current cost of the Sigma 14mm f1.8 (or a bit more) for the Canon rumored lens if is has decent control of comma, CA, etc. As mentioned previously the extra light is always welcome as it allows you to lower ISO or stop down to eliminate comma. 

A zoom would also be awesome as you don't always want to shoot at 14mm. I also have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 and it is great for tighter shots of just the galactic core, etc. The ability to compose between these two ranges would be awesome. 

I shoot next to a Nikon shooter that has the 14-24mm f2.8. I am jealous of his ability to zoom and compose and he is jealous of my ability to lower ISO or shot duration to get a similar shot. Aren't we all jealous of what we don't have. I sent him this article and he said he might switch camera manufacturers for this lens. He has shot Nikon for 30 years! 

I don't shoot Aurora (but planned to before Covid and still hope to) but I can imagine it would be quite helpful for that as well. 

Bob


----------



## tron (Sep 12, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> I think that is a dream.
> 
> 
> I have that lens and would happily pay 2x the current cost of the Sigma 14mm f1.8 (or a bit more) for the Canon rumored lens if is has decent control of comma, CA, etc. As mentioned previously the extra light is always welcome as it allows you to lower ISO or stop down to eliminate comma.
> ...


I guess we always want what we do not have. Can I ask you your impression on Sigma. As I have already written I have seen flare from moon (not 100% of course but I do not remember details) while that not being on frame. But when I shot lights at my house I didn't see any! Strange! Maybe it had to do with the angle of the light and that big bulbous element...


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 12, 2020)

tron said:


> I guess we always want what we do not have. Can I ask you your impression on Sigma. As I have already written I have seen flare from moon (not 100% of course but I do not remember details) while that not being on frame. But when I shot lights at my house I didn't see any! Strange! Maybe it had to do with the angle of the light and that big bulbous element...


I like mine for astro (basically the only thing I use it for). Pretty good control of comma and not too bad vignetting for a 14mm f1.8. Easily corrected in post. I have gotten bad flare on the few occasions I have used it with the sun out if the sun is anywhere near frame. As you said the bulbous lens is a major attractant of flare. My MW shots are all done without any moon out as it tends to significantly wash out the MW. I haven't tried it at night with the moon in frame but will have to see if that causes flare next time I am out when the moon is out. 

Otherwise I love the lens. I use it with my 5DSR and shoot it stopped down a bit to f2.4 or so. That allows me to shoot 30 seconds at ISO 3200 or lower and stack bright and dark images to get pretty good pinpoint stars in Starry Tracker. My most used astro lens by far and I will be adapting it to the R5 until Canon comes up with something better (if ever). I also have the Sigma 24 f1.4 and love that lens for tighter shots. I stop it down to f1.8 and shoot it at 20 seconds at ISO 3200 and it works like a charm. Both are quite good lenses from Sigma. I wish Canon would take this UWA, very fast lens market serious. Nikon and Sony both have great offerings in this space natively and Canon has nothing to compare. 

Bob


----------



## TominNJ (Sep 13, 2020)

Interesting discussion. I’ve been shooting with a Rokinon 14/2.8.

one facet of astro work that I haven’t seen mentioned is that larger apertures make it easier to manual focus. Trying to use live view on my 5D4 and magnifying to get the best focus isn’t easy. I’m going to have to look at that Sigma.

i really hope Canon makes a great astro lens whether it’s this zoom or a wide fast prime


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 13, 2020)

TominNJ said:


> Interesting discussion. I’ve been shooting with a Rokinon 14/2.8.
> 
> one facet of astro work that I haven’t seen mentioned is that larger apertures make it easier to manual focus. Trying to use live view on my 5D4 and magnifying to get the best focus isn’t easy. I’m going to have to look at that Sigma.
> 
> i really hope Canon makes a great astro lens whether it’s this zoom or a wide fast prime



The Sigma isn't any easier to focus in live view per se. I typically can focus on Jupiter so know I am getting infinity and the MW in focus but if I am using a foreground or light painting then I will use my flashlight to focus on a foreground object or if there is any stationary object that is partially lit I will use that to focus nearer than infinity. My friend shoots Nikon (D850 and Z7) and it is able to focus check/confirm with the Z7 EVF if we light paint and we have a flashlight on for focusing. That is pretty nice. 

Bob


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 13, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> The Sigma isn't any easier to focus in live view per se. I typically can focus on Jupiter so know I am getting infinity and the MW in focus but if I am using a foreground or light painting then I will use my flashlight to focus on a foreground object or if there is any stationary object that is partially lit I will use that to focus nearer than infinity. My friend shoots Nikon (D850 and Z7) and it is able to focus check/confirm with the Z7 EVF if we light paint and we have a flashlight on for focusing. That is pretty nice.
> 
> Bob



If I want to photograph (or even just view objects with my telescope) that are dim or maybe not even visible to the human eye, I first focus manually on the moon fist, or the most biggest brightest object in the sky, such as Jupiter. Those objects are easier to focus on. Then lock focus and move on to my main target.


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 14, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> If I want to photograph (or even just view objects with my telescope) that are dim or maybe not even visible to the human eye, I first focus manually on the moon fist, or the most biggest brightest object in the sky, such as Jupiter. Those objects are easier to focus on. The lock focus and move on to my main target.
> 
> View attachment 192765



Agreed. I typically am shooting MW with no moon present so as not to wash out the MW, but Jupiter tends to be a bright enough focusing target to see and use.


----------



## Johnw (Oct 10, 2020)

This is my dream lens, it could replace 3 Sigma lenses I already have.

Sigma 14 1.8
Sigma 20 1.4
Sigma 14-24 2.8


----------



## pforkes (Dec 23, 2021)

This topic seems to have gone very quiet.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2021)

pforkes said:


> This topic seems to have gone very quiet.


It is well over a year old. That is like 10 years in forum time.


----------

