Best lenses for nightscape time lapses

[gregbradley]

I have a Nikon D800E and am looking at what is the best lenses for this sort of work.

I have the 14-24mm F2.8ED which is the best in its class. 30 second shots at ISO6400 seem fairly bright although star trailing is evident especially away from the pole.

I was thinking of 24mm F1.4.

Usually fast lenses suffer from chromatic aberration. I was wanting some suggestions about lenses like this.

Choices are:

Nikon 24mm F1.4 - highly regarded, $2100 expensive.
Zeiss Distagon 21mm F2.8 a bit slow, may have some chromatic aberration but bound to be a lovely sharp lens about $1700.
Samyang 24mm F1.4 about $700-800 seems to get a good review, their 35mm F1.4 got 2nd highest DXO mark for lenses - no mean feat and reviews put it in many ways better than the Zeiss 25mm.
Sigma 24mm F1.4 - I don't know much about this lens but Sigma often comes across as a medium quality lens maker.

Nikon 16mm fisheye F2.8ED. Nice wide field. About $800
Sigma 8mm fisheye - highly regarded in the widefield panorama groups. Super wide. About $800

Others?

Greg.

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

I'm going through the same process. I picked up a 70s vintage Nikkor 24mm f3.5 at a photo swap meet on the weekend, and so far seems to be a remarkably flat, well corrected lens. The 24mm AIS is reputed to be even better, and you can still buy these new. I figured autofocus was probably unnecessary for wide field.
I'm still saving my coin and spouse credits for the 24-120 VR f4 as the workhorse for normal photography.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by alocky

I'm going through the same process. I picked up a 70s vintage Nikkor 24mm f3.5 at a photo swap meet on the weekend, and so far seems to be a remarkably flat, well corrected lens. The 24mm AIS is reputed to be even better, and you can still buy these new. I figured autofocus was probably unnecessary for wide field.
I'm still saving my coin and spouse credits for the 24-120 VR f4 as the workhorse for normal photography.
Cheers,
Andrew.

Some older lenses are likely to be a bargain.

24-120 sounds like a good allround lens. Probably not well suited to astrowork at F4 though. Its a handy focal range. It rates better than the 18-300 which gets various reviews mostly that its very handy but flawed.

Then again carting around a bag full of primes isn't everyone's idea of fun.

The F1.8G series seems good value though. Light, well made, good optics and good allround performance.

I have the new 85mm F1.8G. I like it/don't like it. It can give some odd colours and renditions sometimes and other times super sharp and fabulous bokeh etc. I think I'd rather some Zeiss's. I think they will deliver what I am looking for. Its more than just sharpness curves, vignetting performance etc. Its that rendition/look that is more art than science.

Same with telescope fluorite lenses. They have that X factor very often.

Greg.

[Paul Haese]

Greg I have seen some shots taken by Wayne with the D800E and 14-24. Pretty hard to beat that I think. Stars look good and at 20 seconds for exposure and ISO 3200 there is little if any evident trailing. Stick with that lens.

[gregbradley]

You're probably right Paul. It is the best lens in its category.

A faster lens though gives the opportunity to do shorter exposures for the same brightness. But if its not a good lens then chromatic aberration would be the problem.

Greg.