Lets discuss lenses for Canon R series Night use.

[JimFox]

All of this talk about that 14mm f2.4 had me looking to see if I should order one too.

I know I already have 2 lenses that are 14mm, but you know you can never have too many.... But in the end, reality set in and I didn't buy one, but I tell you it was tempting as I haven't really bought a new lens in a while, and I guess I had an itch....

 

[Ben Egbert]

All of this talk about that 14mm f2.4 had me looking to see if I should order one too.

I know I already have 2 lenses that are 14mm, but you know you can never have too many.... But in the end, reality set in and I didn't buy one, but I tell you it was tempting as I haven't really bought a new lens in a while, and I guess I had an itch....

I used my stimulus money for this. I guess I could have waited for the next one which would have put the Sigma into the picture, but I have at least one more lens to buy. Either the 800 f11, or a 2X extender. The 2X extender would give me 800 f11 with my 100-400, and the 800f11 is really sharp and light.

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Good choice - I would go that route as well if I didn't already have the 2.8 version. Mine works fine - no decentering issues and the infinity setting is good. I just turn the focusing to the infinity setting for astro work and I get pin sharp stars. The 24/1.4 on the other hand, though it doesn't have decentering issues, I had to tape the focus ring after focusing on a bright star and it stays there since I only use it for astro.

Btw the sale that B&H is advertising isn't a sale at all. Amazon's regular price is the same as B&H sale price and has been that price for a while.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ok, the lens arrived. I did my brick wall test and it does not seem to be decentered. I shot it at f2.4, f4 and f8 on the 5DSR and the R5. It has a lot of vignetting and distortion, more than the 11-24 by far. But after optics correction has been applied, the two lenses look pretty similar and both are very sharp.

Now for a clear night sky to try a star shot with it.

 

[Mike Lewis]

Sorry I missed this. I have owned the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 (manual focus version) and now own the Rokinon 24mm f/1.4. The 14mm f/2.8 was OK, but I had trouble getting a 'good' copy and wanted something even faster. The 24 f/1.4 is fast, but for a lot of things I found 24mm not wide enough, and also it needs to be stopped down to about f/2 to really feel OK about the corners IMHO. I was planning on buying the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 after using a friend's copy, but then when I jumped to the R family I thought perhaps Sigma or even Canon might make something comparable to that in a native RF mount. So far that has not happened though. I am on the fence about pulling the trigger on the existing EF mount lens or waiting. If someone else comes out with an f/2 or faster lens that controls coma well in the same ~$1600 price range especially if it is an RF mount lens I will probably buy it, otherwise at some point I will grab the EF mount Sigma 14mm f/1.8. It is a very big chunk of glass though I will say that

ML

 

[Kyle Jones]

I like the field of view of a 24mm lens for the MW - it can highlight the best portions of the sky better than 14mm (at least for me). I have the Rokinon 24/1.4 and completely agree that it has to be stopped down to give good performance. I'm in the market for a replacement and am willing to pay for it. So far I haven't found anything in the 20-24mm range that is faster than f/2 with great coma performance so I am still waiting.

I am hoping to try my Tamron 35/1.4 at Lake McDonald in a month or so.

 

[Ben Egbert]

So far I am licking my 14 f2.4 Rokinon. but have had few chances to try it. The one star circle I did was pretty sharp. I use my 24-70 f2.8 for that focal length range. It's pretty good wide open.