0.00
#... |
|---|
|
I am interested in getting opinions on good lenses for astrophotography. Here are my favorites so far. I shoot mostly with Nikon so mine are all Nikon lenses or are compatible with them. Feel free mention other makes. Tamron15-30 f2.8 - Full frame for extream wide angles example at f4 http://astrob.in/208631/B Nikkor 20 f1.8G - really nice with small CCD for a wide angle example Ha at f3 http://astrob.in/226376/0/ Nikkor 35 f2D - APS good for milky way shots example at f4 http://astrob.in/237362/0/ Nikkor 85 f1.8D - Full Frame example at f3.5 http://astrob.in/188464/E |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex 135mm f2 . You will find lot of examples here |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| I have seen great stuff from this lens and also the 85mm. Although not every one list the lens settings. I have an 8 mm fish eye from same gang (Opteka) but after two trips in my trunk it developed extreme coma. I am currently evaluating a Zeiss 135 f2 but have only taken it out once at F4 (forget to change to f2) on a adventurer, which had some visible tracking error. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
My favorites: Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 - Nightscapes (DX) https://www.flickr.com/photos/gamaufvisuals/22060976775/ AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.4G - for mosaics and constellations (FX) http://www.astrobin.com/260063/ AF-S NIKKOR 300mm F2.8G ED VR II - for DSO shots (FX) https://www.flickr.com/photos/gamaufvisuals/22338288045/ AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - my workhorse on DX & FX http://www.astrobin.com/259221/ |
0.90
#... |
|---|
|
Canon EF 50 mm f/1,8 STM - stopped down to f/3.5 - f/5 Canon EF 200 mm f/2,8 L II USM - stopped down to f/4 In the past I also used the Canon EF 40 mm F/2,8 STM and the Canon EF 85 mm f/1,8 which were ok for me. As a cheap alternative the Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135 mm f/3,5 is ok at f/5.6 if you got a proper example, very sharp in the center but still showing some color abberations. |
 #... |
|---|
|
Nikon 16mm f/2.8 Nikon 50mm f/1.4 Nikon 300mm f/2.8 Nikon 200mm f/2.8 VR (non-VR is good too). |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| I will add to the Canons listed before the 24mm f/2.8. It is a cheap, fast, fun little lens. |
3.34
#... |
|---|
| My absolute favourite lens is the Samyang 135mm f/2. It has amazing optical properties, for example no visible chromatic abberation, sharp to the edge even at f2. I typically use it at f/2.8 which is still super fast, compared to typical tele zoom lenses. |
11.57
#... |
|---|
Bill Mark: I don't think Sigma has a 15-30/F2.8. It must be Tamron, which I happen to have a copy. It's an excellent lens for ultra-wide long exposures. It can even do astro-landscape despite being "just" F2.8, if coupled with a sensitive camera such as the D8X0 series or D750, Df etc. I do not recommend the 85/1.8D. I have an 85/1.8G, and it has strong color fringes even at F4.0. I believe the 1.8D can only be worse. You may consider the new Tamron 85/1.8 if you are on a budget. It outperforms the Nikon 85/1.8G by a wide margin no matter in resolution or color correction. For 35mm and 50mm, nothing can beat Sigma Art 50/1.4 and 35/1.4. I have both, and both perform excellently on my D800. For ultrawide, the Sigma Art 20/1.4 and 24/1.4 are both good. Generally speaking, I do not recommend any Nikon prime lenses. Nikon has some very good zoom lenses in recent 10 years, but its prime lenses fall significantly behind those offered by Sigma (Art series). If budget is not an issue, you can of course consider the Otus and Melvus series of Zeiss. Most of them are either excellent or outstanding. But they are expansive. Many Samyang/Rokinon lenses are good on paper, but their quality control is a big issue and sample variance can be very large. You will need some luck to get a good copy. You can buy them if the vender has good return/exchange policy. Generally speaking, you want to check the test report on DxOMark and/or lenstip.com and compare similar lenses before you make a purchase. Astronomical pictures on the web can be a mixed bag. I generally don't trust such images, unless they are taken by very experienced astrophotographers. Cheers, Wei-Hao |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
You are correct, it is a Tamron and not a Sigma (I have been thinking to much of Sigma 50 art lens lately). My tolerances for color fringing may be higher, but I find the Nikon 85D OK, the resolution does drop off on FX camera. I guess I will cross off the 85G as a replacement. I have the Zeiss 135 but have not really field tested it as yet. But from what I have seen the Samyang is pretty good.  I like Lenstip for their coma testing using shots of LED's. DXO is very good, but some older lenses are not on their database, they don't have many Samyang either. Kenrockwell although not very technical but has older lenses and is a good second opinion. bill |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| What about the Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED ? |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
What about the Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED ? The lens is OK, I have the "D" version don't know if the manual versions are different. With this lens you need to balance focus and colour fringes. It is reasonably sharp and vignetting is low. The fringing will accentuate the some of the star colours and make them fatter. Jerry Lodriguss in Catching the light as an in depth review of this lens. I have not used this lens much and don't have any pictures posted from this lens on astrobin. Here is a double cluster shot with my lens from the city, it is only 30 seconds at ISO 100. The JPG is straight from camera https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhQFJMfTVr2Fn1_uy9pBPeKRwioe |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Samyang 135mm T2.2 ED UMC Cine |
#... |
|---|
|
The lenses that I use are mostly Canon lenses. The ones that I like are: 35mm f1.4, 135mm f2, 200mm f2.8, and 200mm f1.8. The ones that I am kind of ambivalent about are: Zeiss 85mm f1.4 (Planar) and Cannon 300mm f2.8 (it is not sharp wide open). The ones that I have tried and do not like are: 24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, Canon 85mm 1.2 In general, I use the 135mm - 200mm focal lengths the most. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
The ones that I have tried and do not like are: 24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, Canon 85mm 1.2 Thanks for insight on some poor lenses also. bill |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Rokinon 135mm f/2. The sharpest lens I ever tried, you can't go wrong on it. Unless lenses from sounding names brands this 500$ Rokinon bargain is sharp corner to corner even at f/2, at f/2.8 there is virtually no field distortion. Color rendition is also excellent, it is a jewel this lens. Just check this forum for pictures made with it and no words are needed anymore. Clear skies, Miroslav |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
I use the Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED exclusively with my Nikon d7100 (DX) and found that spherical abberration is limited at the edges since the camera is not a full frame. However, there is still some abberration at the edges that is not symmetrical from the center. I suppose each lens will differ. However, I found the best f-stop to be f/5.0 but focusing for that perfect pin point sharp pixel is extremely dependent on air temperature. One micro off from infinity and the game is over. It takes a lot of effort to get a great integrated image and may not be worth the purchase. Chromatic abberration is not a problem. |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Interesting thread. I like to shot wide fields with phptographic lenses. I have no experience to evaluate critically the lenses I have used so far but I had a good feeling with Pentax DA* 200mm and now I own a Leica APO Telyt 180mm f3,4. Also a good lens is the Pentax K 55mm f1,8 |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
Three big thing I look for coma - want nice round stars all the way to the edge of the frame. Colour correction - no pink or violet fringes around stars. Glaring - no faint halos around stars. although halos can be due to pour seeing or filters. Hope this helps.  |
1.20
#... |
|---|
|
I agree with Carlos, the Samyang or Rokinon 135mm lens is incredibly sharp and fast. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
my favs are Nikon 300mm F4.5 ED IF http://www.astrobin.com/full/274920/0/ http://www.astrobin.com/full/274930/0/ and Nikon 80-200 F2.8 just starting out in astrophotography but prefer using lens and camera instead of my newtonian telescope |
0.00
#... |
|---|
| hi there, does anyone has any idea about Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 and Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD these lenses? I am gonna buy Canon 760D and one of these lenses, any recommendation? thanks in advance. |
4.82
#... |
|---|
hi there, does anyone has any idea about Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 and Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD these lenses? I am gonna buy Canon 760D and one of these lenses, any recommendation? thanks in advance. Even though I don't have any experience with these lenses, in general, this class of zoom lenses are far from ideal for astrophotography. Optical abberations such as comma or CA. might lower your final outcome significantly. I recommend you to check lens review sites and comparisons to make your decision: LensTip, Photozone and The-Digital-Picture are fine resources. I personally wouldn't recommend those lenses. In case your are going to use the lens exclusively for astroimaging, I strongly recommend Nikon manual lenses, their AI and AI-S lineups. Especially the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm f/2.8 are well known for their build quality, sharpness and are great choices for astro. I own the 105, and, for the price paid, it's hard to beat. These lenses can be bought in good condition used by the same amount as the Tamrons you quoted. They're manual-everything though (only a problem to daylight photo perhaps). The already mentioned Rokinon 135/2 is also a great choice, although more expensive. If you intend to use the lens in a day-to-day "regular" photography basis, AF is strongly recommended. In this case, prices go up quite rapidly, and, while perhaps out of your budged, a good 70-200mm may be a very nice choice. I own Tamron's 70-200 pre-VR lens, and, although it's AF is far from top quality, it is a good all-rounder, and my primary "teelscope" for astrophotography. Canon's 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) is also a great choice. What are your intended uses? Are you going to use an EQ mount? And, as far as value for money and what you're willing to pay, only you can decide! BTW, you can check my gallery or contact me for more info on the lenses, especially the Tamron 70-200 and Nikon 105, as I own them. Regards, Gabriel |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Dear Gabriel, Thanks for your long and very comprehensive message. My intended use is for deep sky astrophotography on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer mount. I havent bought anything yet but I am planning to buy Canon 760D and one tele zoom lens for now, towards the summer I am planning to buy a wide angle lens also for wide field and milkyway photography. I already use some equipment that I dont own myself (my brother's). He has Nikon D7200 and Nikon D7100 and Sigma 50-100 f/1,8 and Tokina 11-16 f/2,8 lenses I have done great things with this set up. Now I wanna have my own equpiments. I definately will check your gallery and contact you more for more info. I think I will be buying things january, I d appreciate some links for lenses so I can check where I can find this/these lenses here in Turkey. Best Regards Mustafa |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Dear Gabriel I guess I found the Nikon lens you mentioned, would you please have a look at it? http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/EQ_TESTS/NIKON_180MM.HTM Moreover like I said above I am planning to buy Canon 760D would that be easy to mount this lens with a Canon using an adapter? Tamron 70-200 mm seems more expensive than Nikon lens am I right? Best Regards Mustafa |
