Lense Recommendations for Nikon, Milky Way widefield

[glend]

I have purchased a Nikon D5300 body and didn't bother getting the standard lense kit ( i have never used them on other cameras). So i am looking for at least one lense recommendation, that can serve as a daytime general use and also a wide field AP lense.
:question:

[Steffen]

What's your budget?

[glend]

Up to $800.

[Atmos]

About a fortnight ago I bought a second hand Samyang 14mm F/2.8 off of Gumtree for $350 and it works quite well. Many of the Samyang/Rokinon lens' have at least one aspherical element which makes them very good for their price range for astro work - better coma control generally.

It had first light about two weeks ago.
http://www.astrobin.com/301682/

Samyang have also just released a 14mm F/2.4 (think that's correct) which apparently controls the coma considerably better and has less distortion.

[pfitzgerald]

+1 for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8

[glend]

Nice shot Colin, thanks for the info. Digitial Camera Warehouse has the f2.8 for $547 new, so i could return it if i got a bad one i suppose. The f2.4 is outside my budget.

[Atmos]

For its price I cannot complain. I am not sure whether mine is a good sample or not; it suffers from a fair bit of coma at F/5.6 but it also isn't overly sharp according to Lenstip.com
Mine also has a reasonable amount of longitudinal aberration which can be seen by most of the stars having blue on their tops. The other alternative is that I need to get DXO to remove some of the barrel distortion on each sub BEFORE registering.

Alternatively I could just use it on my D700 and it should look near perfect at F/2.8. I've recently come to appreciate how many aberrations a 12mp FX sensor with high pass filter can cover up :P

[glend]

I decided to buy the Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED from Camerasky in HongKong and save some money ($387 Aud from them). Supposedly Aussie operated, whatever that means, but there is a 14 day change of mind guarantee so that helps convince me to give them a try.

[gregbradley]

Make sure they take returns. The Samyang 14mm is notorious for bad copies. I think they are cheap because Samyang must not test them or check them out. I would check it out as soon as I got it to make sure it was ok or start the returns process if there is a deadline which there would be.

I got one 2nd hand a few months back off ebay and it was useless. I managed to get the seller to take it back. She claimed I was cherry picking but I suspect she was ditching a dud copy which is common with this lens.
Sides and corners were showing really bad coma plus badly out of focus.
I got a Samyang 1.4 once and it was similar. I had to return it and the replacement one was good. The dud one left side of the image would be out of focus whilst the right side was in focus.

But when you get a good copy of the 14 or 24 I believe they are very good and are commonly recommended.

The other competitor is the Irix 15mm F2.4. I ordered one off ebay new for $587 and they take returns.

I've read reviews between it and the Samyang and its better in most regards except one or two where they tie.

I can post back here to say if its any good or not.

The new Sigma Art 14mm F1.8 is getting quite good reviews. Still some coma. I was thinking of this one but its AUD$1959 and in DPReview comparisons the Irix was just as good if not better at F2.4.

The main advantage of the Sigma of course is F1.8 and this allows a lower ISO and lowers noise for the same brightness image.

I am less concerned about that as I mainly stack now anyway to get rid of noise or use a tracker and go longer exposures anyway. Weight and cost for the slight extra performance then of the Sigma is not as valuable to me.

If you want to take casual shots of the Milky Way, say a panorama of 20-30 seconds ISO3200-6400 then the Sigma is the go. You could lower the ISO to 1600 and be just as bright or do shorter exposures and get rounder stars at ISO3200-6400.

Greg.

[glend]

Thanks Greg, as i noted below, the supplier offers a two week change of mind return policy, and i will be testing it as soon as i get it.

My shooting is not so casual, the camera goes into a Teleskop Services DSLR holder and onto my CGX mount. Tracking will not be a problem. Bias and darks will be used. I hope to get first images from the D5300 tonight using a Nikon 55-200mm lense. Downloaded Backyard Nikon today.

[casstony]

How do the f2.8 11-16mm and 11-20mm Tokina lenses compare to the Samyangs mentioned above?

[JA]

Hi Glen,

I would try the AF-P DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens. Yes it's a kit lens, but like its predecessor 18-55 it is remarkably sharp. Tests of prior versions show reasonably well controlled lowa coma, good sharpness across the frame.

Of course you can also try the pricey Sigma 14mm mentioned, I'm not sure it would have lower coma, probably similar. The Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm f2.8 seems like an excellent lens: low coma and reasonably sharp, except for very difficult to correct moustache distortion (not barrel or pincushion, but BOTH) evident on straight edges (not a problem for astro) on images I've seen.

Or go all out for a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 (EDIT: sorry forgot you are NOT full-frame). Low coma, sharp, versatile, low distortion, etc. Remember that any of the modern Nikkor lens will also be corrected in body, where possible, for some lens distortions like chromatic abberation, distortion.

In summary, I would go to a camera store with your D5300 body and try the Nikon Nikkor 18-55 f3.5 AF-P not the older AF-S version. Take some shots and go home and review. You could also carefully try to test for coma in store with some tiny bright light at the frame centre and then another shot reframed with the same tiny light at the frame edge/corner and compare the 2 shots for typical coma. Also make sure you try it with your D5300 running the most up to date firmware. Sure f3.5 isn't the fastest on the block, but you're not paying 100s or 1000s more for a f/1.4, but it is a sharp lens and for something to try and have as a general lens, probably OK.

Best
JA

[gregbradley]

For a Nikon:

24-70 F2.8ED is good.

AIS 105mm F2.5 is very good and very cheap.

14-24 is very good but expensive and heavy

Nikkor 180mm F2.8 ED is quite good, a bit of chromatic aberration wide open but if you stopped it down it would clean up.

Nikkor 85mm F1.8g a ton of CA.Would need to be stopped down a lot.

Greg.

[Atmos]

Having used a Nikkor 85mm F/1.8G, I wouldn't recommend it. Even at F/4 the CA is pretty bad although the star shapes are reasonable. It is purple CA so both red and blue being out.

The Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D is dirt cheap and significantly better. Has better star shapes and any blue bloat is all but gone by F/4.

[glend]

Sadly i have had to cancel my order for the Samyang 14mm. The supplier, CameraSky kept jerking me around on availability, they promise a 5-7 day processing window, but after two working weeks still had no ETA on it. So i cancelled and asked for a refund. I am reassessing now, but will probably wait.:shrug:

[Camelopardalis]

That's a lucky escape Glen...a mate of mine up here bought a camera from them a few months back and it was a dud, took months for them to concede there was a problem and RMA...

[sil]

Just buy a proper Nikon lens. The holy trinity (12-24, 24-70, 70-200 all f2.8) are all good lenses and essentially mostly what pro photogs end up using anyway. the 105 macro is awesome too and what I used mostly on body for my photography and later astrophotography. The 50mm can be good too. can you define what you are calling widefield ? what are the shots you want? The nikon 12-24 is probably the lense you are looking for and worth saving to get rather than wasting money on the inferior brands and upgrading anyway later on.

[Steffen]

The 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye Nikkor is a very nice wide field (all-sky) lens, if you want to give that sort of thing a shot. I find it very useful for daytime photography, too, you just have to watch what you're doing ;)

[glend]

For now i just have the 55-200 f4.5 ED DX VR (the new version) and it seems a pretty good lense. I might check out the 24-70mm f2.8. I am not interested in ultra wides.

[Star Hunter]

My array is Nikon 8 -15 fisheye, Sigma 8/3.5 fisheye, Nikon 14-24/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8. Lenses under a grand, are useless for AP. Coma, and CA haunt them. Like with any telescope, its the eyepiece that makes the difference. Quality has its price.

[sil]

:thumbsup:

Yep,budgeting sounds nice but you're never going to get the results you expect. The three nikon lens are called the holy trinity for a ^&****^ good reason, anything less you're just wasting time and money, you'll be wanting to upgrade later anyway. Decades of experience and development and quality improvements mean both Nikon and Canon make great products that win meaningful awards and are used the the top photographers (not just people who buy a camera and declare themselves photographers).

[Atmos]

A lot of the Samyang lens' are under a grand and are heralded for their AP goodness.

[glend]

Beware of grandiose statements that can't be backed up.

[gregbradley]

I have had several widefield lenses for MIlky Way widefield.

If your intention is a Milky Way bow nightscape then that needs a slightly wider lens.

If you intend to use a tracker or put your camera on a telescope mount then almost any lens will work depending on how wide you want to go. The wider the less resolution.

For widefield on a tripod and not tracked type Milky Way widefield choices seem to be:

1. Nikon 14-24 f2.8 very good, heavy, expensive and corner performance may have been surpassed now.

2. Zeiss 15mm F2.8 expensive not sure about corner performance.

3. Samyang 14 2.8 there are several versions of this lens now. There is an AF F2.4 version and a Premium quality version. Not sure if any different.
Samyang lenses are a lottery. A lottery you are likely to lose. They have no QC it appears and you often need to return and get a new copy to end up with a decent lens. I have had a 14 .28 that was useless and a 24 1.4 that was useless. Both had to be returned. I got a good 24 1.4 2nd time.

4.Irix 15mm F2.4 Firefly and Blackstone. The 2 versions are the same optically but the firefly is cheaper, lighter and made of polycarbonate. The Blackstone is mag alloy. The Firefly is the one I chose recently.
I will be testing it tonight so I can make a comment probably tomorrow.
Initial impressions are its well built. It has a click on the focus ring at infinity and I have read infinity is correct so that's helpful if true.

5. Sigma 35 1.4 Art and 14mm F1.8 Art. The 35 1.4 Art is about the only lens I have heard of that is useful wideopen at F1.4. Its 35mm though so not very wide. The 14 1.8 is probably the new king of widefield but its expensive at around AUD$1950.

6. Tokin 11-16 I have seen some good images with this one but come to think of it they may have been APSc lenses.

7. Samyang 12mm F2 for APSc. I have one of these for my Fuji XT2. Its a good cheap little lens, a fair bit of chromatic aberration wide open but correctable in processing.

8. Nikon has a 20mm F1.8 I think it is. A newish lens that I read was good.

9. Laowa 15mm F2. Just about to start shipping now after a long delay. To be proven, it may be OK but I would wait for in the field reviews. Its about US$649. They also make a 12mm F2 but I'd written that one off as too much perspective distortion and coma in the corners wide open. So unless you treat it like a fisheye and keep it level it would make stitching a panorama harder.

10. For a Sony camera the Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8. Pretty much a perfect lens, almost no CA or coma wide open and no distortion. But its 21mm.

11. Tokina Firin 20mm F2 It gets some good reviews. Not 100% sure. Its $1028 at Digidirect.

So for under $1000 potentially the irix 15mm F2.4 is about the best. I can post if my copy is any good or not. I did read a review between it and the Samyang 14 2.8 and it was better on several counts. Also in a DPReview comparison between the Sigma Art 14 1.8 and the Irix the Irix seemed as good or close to it from F2.4 on. So unless htt F1.8 is worth it there may not be too much of an advantage from the Art lens. The Art lens is also very large and heavy so it you do use a portable tracker like a Vixen Polarie it will still work but its now near the limit.

12. I used a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 often and it was fine at 24mm and F2.8. Of course its a workhorse lens and for me pretty much covers the range of focal lengths I would chose 90% of the time. 2nd hand probably more like $1400?

Greg.

[glend]

Yes Greg, my intention was Milky Way bow. I have an excellent tracking mount and a strong TS DSLR camera holder that attaches to the Losmandy clamp.

My attempt to buy the Samyang 14mm f2.8 fell apart after the reyailer could not deliver one.

I will have a look at some of your suggestions, thanks.

[gregbradley]

I will be testing the Irix 15mm F2.4 firefly tonight and can post it here.
It cost AUD$587 off ebay.

Its Swiss designed and Korean made.
It can also take filters at the back.

Greg.

[JA]

Hi Greg,

It looks like a cracker, especially given its aperture - the coma is very well controlled especially given it's an f2.4. Here is a test of the Blackstone version which has exactly the same optics as the Firefly only with a full metal lens body....

Full Review....
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=486

Coma & Astigmatism ....
http://www.lenstip.com/486.7-Lens_review-Irix_15_mm_f_2.4_Blackstone_Coma__a stigmatism_and_bokeh.html
Best
JA

[gregbradley]

It certainly does have potential. My only concern is I'll be using it with an adapter (its the Canon mount version).

The Sigma Art 14mm F1.8 has significantly worse performance on a Sony full frame using the Sigma MC 11 adapter than with Canon mount on a Canon 5DSr.

Hopefully my Metabones adapter is up to it.

Greg.

[JA]

Is that with a Metabones speedbooster /focal reducer adapter to mirrorless or ...?

best
JA

[gregbradley]

No just the Metabones Canon smart adapter for Sony Emount.

One thing already the lens says F2.4 but it won't go down below F2.5. I presume that's a firmware issue with the Metabones (its an older Metabones adapter).

Greg.

[JA]

Hi Greg,
It may have something to do with the camera being able to be set in 1/2 stop versus 1/3 stop exposure increments, since f2.4 is not in the standard 1/3 stop exposure series, but is on the standard 1/2 stop exposure series f1, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.4, 4 etc..... Maybe the camera menu settings can help, I know Nikon has the option of 1/2 or 1/3 stop exposure increments, not sure about Sony.

Either way, it isn't much, f2.4 or f2.5

Best
JA

[gregbradley]

Ah that may be it.

I just took it outside and did a quick test. It looks like a winner.
F2.4 has some slight coma in the corners but less than Nikon 14-24 at F2.8. At F2.8 it has very little.

The F2.4 seems to make a fair bit of difference. It seems brighter than I recall the 14-24.Remarkably the focus ring clicks at infinity and that is in
fact perfect focus at infinity. Wow, that's the first lens ever that did that. Also you can lock the focus ring (another ring further out locks it in place). So focus is a snap.

Its light. The petal hood though is a bit hard to understand. I'll have to read the manual as in one position it gets in the road of the lens. Not clear.

Overall it seems an excellent lens.

Greg.

[JA]

That in conjunction with 50+% more light - We have a new King - Sign me up

Best
JA

[gregbradley]

I checked the EV steps and you are absolutely correct. I switched it to .5Ev and there was the F2.4.

I went outside and imaged again. Still looks respectable but with noticeable blue chromatic aberration on the brighter stars (Samyang 12mm F2 does that).

I'd say that is still useable with reducing the chromatic aberration in Lightroom.

Here's some samples from tonight. I am pretty happy with this. Considering also I would almost for sure be using this lens for overlapping panoramas that little bit of coma in the corner is going to be cropped out by the overlaps.

For AUD$587 it seems to be providing a fairly large slice of the Sigma Art performance. Still, I'd like to try out that Sigma for myself (its $1959 and a whole lot heavier).

Greg.

[Camelopardalis]

Given you're using a full-frame and it looks like a ripper, looks like it'd be a sure thing on APS-C :thumbsup:

[gregbradley]

My wife has an A6000. I could try it on that but yes I imagine it would do extremely well.

Greg.