Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 08-08-2017, 10:35 AM
sil's Avatar
sil (Steve)
Not even a speck of dust

sil is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Hunter View Post
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.


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).
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-08-2017, 11:54 AM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is online now
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 5,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Hunter View Post
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.
A lot of the Samyang lens' are under a grand and are heralded for their AP goodness.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-08-2017, 12:16 PM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW
Posts: 5,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Hunter View Post
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.
Beware of grandiose statements that can't be backed up.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:53 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:40 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW
Posts: 5,045
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:44 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-08-2017, 02:02 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
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.
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?te...wu&test_ob=486

Coma & Astigmatism ....
http://www.lenstip.com/486.7-Lens_re...and_bokeh.html
Best
JA
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-08-2017, 02:11 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-08-2017, 02:23 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
It certainly does have potential. My only concern is I'll be using it with an adapter (its the Canon mount version).
Is that with a Metabones speedbooster /focal reducer adapter to mirrorless or ...?

best
JA
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-08-2017, 04:03 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA View Post
Is that with a Metabones speedbooster /focal reducer adapter to mirrorless or ...?

best
JA
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-08-2017, 05:34 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-08-2017, 06:14 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-08-2017, 06:45 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
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.
That in conjunction with 50+% more light - We have a new King - Sign me up

Best
JA
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:46 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Irix 15mm 8 secs F2.5 ISO6400 A7r2.jpg)
204.4 KB30 views
Click for full-size image (Irix 15mm 10 secs F2.4 ISO3200 A7r2.jpg)
198.1 KB40 views
Click for full-size image (Irix 15mm 10 secs F2.8 ISO6400 A7r2.jpg)
204.6 KB60 views

Last edited by gregbradley; 09-08-2017 at 09:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-08-2017, 09:46 AM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,452
Given you're using a full-frame and it looks like a ripper, looks like it'd be a sure thing on APS-C
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-08-2017, 04:49 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis View Post
Given you're using a full-frame and it looks like a ripper, looks like it'd be a sure thing on APS-C
My wife has an A6000. I could try it on that but yes I imagine it would do extremely well.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher 2018 Catalogue
Advertisement
Interest Free Finance
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
SkyWatcher WiFi Adaptor
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement