I can't comment on Canons as I own a Nikon D3s, but it is exceptional at higher ISO. That is the main reason I bought it. Basically I reckon ISO 64000 is roughly the same as old grainy 1600 ASA film! It goes up to 102,000 bit there's way too much noise.
From my understanding from what I've read the 5DMKII is almost as good ISO wise as the D3s, so using 12800 ISO (stated as its standard and then can be pushed higher) you would still get quality images. I recently used ISO 8000 on some wide field shots and couldn't believe the Milky Way detail and fine grain. You could easily use ISO 3200+ to get what you want I'm sure...
Below is a shot of two 30 sec exposures at ISO 8000 stitched together to make a panorama. I was amazed at how well they stitched too! So depending what you want to do, if it's shots like this you're after you could make 2 or 3 quick shots in a row and stitch them, making sure the stars haven't moved too much by the end of the exposures, thus being able to use a longer focal length lens...
For 3 times the price, and a camera which is a year newer, you would want to hope that the D3s has a better high ISO rating than the 5D Mark II.
H
I'm sure there are a few other things better on it too! Besides, it's a Nikon so it must be better... haha
My point was that the newer high end models of any DSLR range have great high ISO grain nowdays, so you can stop down a lens a little to use it at it's optimum aperture without increasing exposure time compared with older models. Baz will notice a big difference going from the older 400D to the 5DMkII, ISO wise, which could affect his choice of lens.
This is all good info guys and a great range of experience i hear talking.
It all factors in the decision-making process.
Thanks heaps.
I am thinking of the versatility of the 16-35, but basically testing the waters to weigh up the reasoning behind my decision to see if I have made the right one.
I think I will get a lot out of this lens, but it will by no-means be the last one I buy.
I don't have a milky way sample but just generally speaking both my 16-35's (mk1 & mk2) are pretty soft and lack colour and vignette a bit when shot wide.
The sharpness thing is probably pixel peeping yeah - especially at web sizes. When you downsize the image to email/web/flickr sort of sizing it'll be ok, especially after a light unsharp mask.
It probably distorts quite a bit at 16mm as well. I'll have a mount here mid next week so I can try then and send you a full rez file if you aren't in a huge hurry.
I don't have a milky way sample but just generally speaking both my 16-35's (mk1 & mk2) are pretty soft and lack colour and vignette a bit when shot wide.
The sharpness thing is probably pixel peeping yeah - especially at web sizes. When you downsize the image to email/web/flickr sort of sizing it'll be ok, especially after a light unsharp mask.
It probably distorts quite a bit at 16mm as well. I'll have a mount here mid next week so I can try then and send you a full rez file if you aren't in a huge hurry.
That would be great mate! My upcoming purchase is still 6 weeks away.
If it's only really going to be used for web purposes, you may as well save yourself 50% and go with the 17-40mm f/4L USM. It's a sacrifice of a stop, and 1mm on the wide end, but, you gain 5mm on the long end. Consider, also, that good quality (read: expensive) filters typically come in 77mm. The 16-35mm is an esoteric 72mm lens (along with the 200mm f/2.8L II). That is, high quality filters might be a bit more expensive.
I think my landscape images will show you how the 17-40mm performs. Both would be pretty nasty on stars at the edges.
I'm watching this keenly I don't have money for a new lens now but would like it...
I've found my 17-40 F4/L is good but not great:
- not fast enough for meteor shower photos at 800ISO
- not wide enough for a lot of astro stuff I want to do (used to be ok with full frame sensor)
- has distortion on the edges
- is super critical on sharp focus when doing astro stuff - very slightly off and distortions are horrible
Sure you can put the ISO up but that doesn't work well on warm nights (unless you have a 5DmkII apparently ).
I think it was the Orionids shower that I saw lots of meteors but captured few. Someone else with a F/2.8 was catching many more.
Another option is high ISO and Noise Ninja. I didn't have Noise Ninja for the Orionids but now do and it's a life saver, brilliant piece of software that enables at least another stop in ISO. Run it and you more often than not you find yourself saying "wow! amazing! it's .. .just .. perfect! and I didn't even do any tweaking!".
Wish I'd bought a 5DmkII - 7D is too noisy for my liking. .... but Noise Ninja saves me until my budget permits otherwise (ie, several years )
Edit: oh btw, the lens I keep my eye on is the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L ... looks very nice on paper (haven't used one). But then I do wonder.... for astro work how do you keep dew off such a wide lens? becomes largely unusable on dewy nights. Wrapping a dew strap around it would get tricky at best.
I would agree with H here as well....
The 16-35 L has great reviews and would be as sharp as most of the primes, maybe more barrel distortion but than primes....vignetting and sharpness there`s not much difference here...
I`ll second the 17-40 L as a second choice....more barrel distortion and a little slower but a better price...
Both have great results stopped down a few stops......
The 24-70 suffers in resolution ex in the corners....
The 16-35 is as sharp as the primes assuming it's stopped down to at least 5.6 if not 8. My Zeiss 21mm is sharper at 2.8 than my 16-35 is at 5.6. There is also pretty much zero vignetting at 2.8 on the zeiss on full frame.
The 24-70 is a pile of crap. I've had 3 (long story) and they are all rubbish. I keep meaning to ebay my current one as I never use it.
Baz I don't think you will achive your stated goal, IMO the 5DII simply isn't sensitive enough to produce short exposures of the night sky without a significant tradeoff between noise and trailing.
As Humayan points out, long tracked exposures will produce the results you're after, rather than spend cubic dollars on wide and fast you may be better off investing in some lightweight and portable tracking equipment.
That said if you still want fast and wide, as Gavin suggests, dig deep and go for the Canon EF14mm F2.8L, just don't let the minister for household affairs know how much it cost.