Looking through the various manufacturers sites it is quite hard to know which lens is good and which isn't.
I suppose your ultimate use is the key factor to determine a type of lens.
So perhaps that should be defined as best for a Canon 5D (that limits it as its a 35mm sized sensor), for terrestial landscape type images and also for widefield Milky Way type images.
So far talking to the pros at the Malins Awards Phil Hart and Alex the Nikon 14-24 and the Canon 24mm F1.4 seem hot.
Greg,
I am having difficulty working out if you want terrestrial, astro or a combination of both. I firmly believe that the two are chalk and cheese, and that while some use the one lens for both you will eventually get a lens for daytime use and a lens (or lenses) for astro use.
In my case, and I differ from most, I have a Sony DSLR, with a Zeiss 16-80 zoom. Sharp, wide range and all round usefulness. While I haven't tried it at night I simply plonked down about $80 and got a Pentax 6x7 200mm lens for astro use, and supplemented it with a friends 55mm Pentax lens as well.
Zoom lenses are good these days, very good, but astro use and CCD sensors strain even the best, so I opted for primes, designed for HUGE film sizes, and use the sweet spot in the middle.
Gary
Yes you understood it fine, I am after lenses specfically for daytime use (some may do double duty like the Nikon 14-24mm images did very well at the Malins).
Also separately a lens for astro.
Your Pentax 67 - I am interested in the same 55mm F4 and also a 200mm F4 or perhaps a 165mm F2.8. How do you rate them?
The Nikon 14-24 won't be so hot for you with Canon body
I think there would be a lot of people out there who would disagree, the 14-24 Nikon performs very well on Canon with an inexpensive adapter (manual focus and aperture control only with a chipped adapter), apparently a lot of pros are using the 14-24.
Nikon have the wide & mid range zoom very firmly over Canon. The Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 are significantly better than the Canon equivalents.
However this is being pretty picky. It doesn't mean the Canon ones are bad. I think if you want to use the nikon lenses then get a nikon body, sure you can use adapters but you lose your metering last time I looked. This isn't a big deal for landscapes or astro but personally I wouldn't.
Sticking on Canon mount, if you want to use a zoom the Canon 16-35 is very good but only when stopped down a couple of stops. It is poor until about 5.6
Getting more serious, the Canon 24/1.4 is a cracker. Also the 35/1.4 as well - this is one of Canons best, if you took a list of all their lenses the 35 would be in the top 3. The Canon mount Zeiss 21mm is even better than all of them for landscapes in my experience but you lose autofocus - again not a big deal.
This is just my thoughts on using them for land stuff. Haven't used them for astro yet, won't be long though.
....... but astro use and CCD sensors strain even the best, so I opted for primes, designed for HUGE film sizes, and use the sweet spot in the middle.
Gary
Spot on .
I believe large format lenses offer the best price/performance ratio for astrophotography (6x9 - Hasselblatt, Mamiya or Zenit 80 or similar), without compromising the resolution on smaller sensors, including "full frame" 24x35mm.
I think the Nikon 14-24 and the Zeiss 21mm ZE Distagon are the top of the crop in terms of WA lenses on a FF body.
The Canon 14mm F2.8L II and the 24mm F1.4II and the TSE 24mm are also excellent the last one not so hot for astro due to the slower aperture.
I'd also consider the old CZJ Flektogon 20mm F2.8 and the Zuiko 24mm F2.8 lens.
My personal experience is that lens variation from copy to copy can be even bigger than the difference from one brand to the other. A 17-40 F4L can be worst or better than a 16-35 F2.8L depending on which copy you get. So I'd strongly suggest you to try try and try.
One thing I like about the Nikon 14-24 , the CZJ and the Zuiko is that the manual aperture control gives you instant DOF preview in live-view that's nice in terrestrial landscapes.
Greg,
I reckon they are great, certainly cost effective. What I really liked though was the back focus that exists by their very nature. With a "35mm designed lens" you have about 45mm give or take. Try fitting a CFW etc in there. Hard, or impossible.
Medium format however has heaps of space, that sealed it for me. Try some of the Hasselblad lenses if your pocket allows. In my case the 55/4, and the 200/4 both work as good as I can.
Gary
Nikon have the wide & mid range zoom very firmly over Canon. The Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 are significantly better than the Canon equivalents.
However this is being pretty picky. It doesn't mean the Canon ones are bad. I think if you want to use the nikon lenses then get a nikon body, sure you can use adapters but you lose your metering last time I looked. This isn't a big deal for landscapes or astro but personally I wouldn't.
Sticking on Canon mount, if you want to use a zoom the Canon 16-35 is very good but only when stopped down a couple of stops. It is poor until about 5.6
Getting more serious, the Canon 24/1.4 is a cracker. Also the 35/1.4 as well - this is one of Canons best, if you took a list of all their lenses the 35 would be in the top 3. The Canon mount Zeiss 21mm is even better than all of them for landscapes in my experience but you lose autofocus - again not a big deal.
This is just my thoughts on using them for land stuff. Haven't used them for astro yet, won't be long though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Spot on .
Good tip - a Zeiss 21mm, I'll add it to the list to check.
Greg.
I believe large format lenses offer the best price/performance ratio for astrophotography (6x9 - Hasselblatt, Mamiya or Zenit 80 or similar), without compromising the resolution on smaller sensors, including "full frame" 24x35mm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luigi
I think the Nikon 14-24 and the Zeiss 21mm ZE Distagon are the top of the crop in terms of WA lenses on a FF body.
The Canon 14mm F2.8L II and the 24mm F1.4II and the TSE 24mm are also excellent the last one not so hot for astro due to the slower aperture.
I'd also consider the old CZJ Flektogon 20mm F2.8 and the Zuiko 24mm F2.8 lens.
My personal experience is that lens variation from copy to copy can be even bigger than the difference from one brand to the other. A 17-40 F4L can be worst or better than a 16-35 F2.8L depending on which copy you get. So I'd strongly suggest you to try try and try.
One thing I like about the Nikon 14-24 , the CZJ and the Zuiko is that the manual aperture control gives you instant DOF preview in live-view that's nice in terrestrial landscapes.
A few more names of lens to check out. Thanks very much for this hard to find info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbeal
Greg,
I reckon they are great, certainly cost effective. What I really liked though was the back focus that exists by their very nature. With a "35mm designed lens" you have about 45mm give or take. Try fitting a CFW etc in there. Hard, or impossible.
Medium format however has heaps of space, that sealed it for me. Try some of the Hasselblad lenses if your pocket allows. In my case the 55/4, and the 200/4 both work as good as I can.
Gary
The 55/4 and 200/4 you refer to are the Pentax 67's? Do you get a lot of chromatic aberration?
There are aftermarket Nikon to EF adapters (I don't believe these include any optics like some other adapters) so there is no real reason why a Nikon 14-24 cant be used on a Canon DSLR body , you'll just not be able to use automatic focus and auto appature and will just run the camera in Manual mode. NO GREAT DRAMA in astroimaging.
Yes you understood it fine, I am after lenses specfically for daytime use (some may do double duty like the Nikon 14-24mm images did very well at the Malins).
Also separately a lens for astro.
Your Pentax 67 - I am interested in the same 55mm F4 and also a 200mm F4 or perhaps a 165mm F2.8. How do you rate them?
Greg
I picked up off EBAY a very nice Sigma 50-150 f2.8 APO for Canon EF not so long ago , not had it on the stars much yet,but a few test images I took with it on the 40D were very nice. Pinpoint sharp stars everywhere.
I'm also darned impressed with some test images I took with another EBAYed lens I picked up not long after , a Tamron AD2all SP 300mm f2.8 LD with a custom made AD2all-EF adapter. Again very sharp stars everywhere in my test images.
Another nice lens that is worth looking for is a Soligor 135 f2 , if you can find one with either an OM PK, or Nikon mount even better (no lens in the EF adapter), I've one that I found on EBAY that has an FD mount so my adapter has a lens in it, but it is still a very nice astrolens (works out about 200mm f3 with the adapter) and while it's not LD or APO or L class, it still process nice focus on stars with very little aberation.
I been told by some folks in the USA that their old Nikon manual focus f2.8 zooms are great performers on a Canon DSLR.
Not all of us have the money to spend thousands on Canon Prime Lens and L type Zooms. And they ARE PRICEY , even more so here with usual distributor ripoff margins that are customary here.
. 
