Milky way lesson

[Ben Egbert]

I plan to learn more about Milky Way photography on the next dark night which is Sept 17th. My goal is to determine which focal length is suitably for my purposes. I will be using the 11-24 for this experiment as it’s the only sub 24 mm I have at the moment. The candidate lens for future use would be Rokinon 14 f2.8, Rokinon 20mm f1.8, Rokinon 24mm f1.4.

I will shoot at each of these focal lengths to see how much of the MW I can include at each FL. I may also shoot at 11mm in case none of these get it all. I see the MW will be in a pretty high arch on that night.

I will be using my 5Dsr as I don’t expect to have my new 5R by then. But I expect I can capture the MW at 30 seconds and ISO3200 on a dark night at the wider focal lengths and ISO4000 20 seconds at 24mm.

I might also do some 5 minute exposure for foreground as well because I have never done this successfully, but have been learning how to set up my camera.

Any suggestions or comments appreciated.

 

[JimFox]

Hey Ben, all 3 lenses are good Milky Way lenses. There are people who use all 3 for MW photography. As Kyle mentioned, you should then consider the 14mm f2.4 version, though it is about $400 more. It’s hard to say if it’s worth double the price though to go from f2.8 to f2.4. But from I have read the quality of the build is worth it.

But that aside, I think it’s a great test for you to decide what “view” you like better. I think this will be a fun experiment.

I will give my main reason for preferring the 14mm field of view over the others, your shutter speed will be able to be a good 5-10 seconds longer with the 14mm. This equates to lower ISO. And despite talk and discussion about ISO Invariance, the lower the ISO I can shoot at night in my book is still better.

You can always crop down from 14 mm to 24mm, but you can’t go the other way short of shooting pano’s.

So I will be interested to see what you decide you like best for a field of view. I have shot at 24mm at night, it’s certainly a viable option too. The 20mm lens I find interesting as it’s wider then 24mm but that Rokinon is pretty fast, faster then the 14mm.

While I have a preconceived bias obviously, I am really interested to see what you find. I wouldn’t be opposed to having a faster lens in my bag for backup purposes. I might look at the 20 or 24mm based on your findings.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Thanks Jim. Actually the 11-24 f4 is still in the running if the 5R is a good high iso camera. But to start I just want to find a desired fl. Now I have to hope all this smoke clears up by then. The place I am going is 8000 ft and has low light pollution. But the sky is not always clear.

 

[JimFox]

For years my Milky Way lens was a 16-35mm f4 lens, so an f4 lens can be used. But I will say after shooting with faster lenses and then at lower ISO's I would not want to go back to shooting with an f4 lens at night unless it was an emergency.

No matter how good the high ISO of a camera you have, being able to shoot at ISO 1600 vs ISO 6400 or ISO 3200 instead of ISO 10,000 is like night and day in terms of quality. So at this point Ben, I would sincerely urge you to take the 11-24mm out of the equation. Since you want to start doing Milky Way photography more, and as you have seen it can be so much fun, you don't want to take away from that fun by having to deal with the higher ISO's you would have to deal with.

But... maybe I am wrong. You might like what you are getting out of the 11-24mm with the new 5R.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Just hate to spend money on a single use lens. But I would certainly want to try a few with the 11-24before making the plunge. I also want the RF 24-105 as my general purpose lens so the mw lens will be competing for those dollars

 

[Jameel Hyder]

It will be a good experiment Ben to figure out what FL works best for you. In my experience, my choice of FL depends on two factors - what part of the ground is in my frame as well as how much of the MW is included. Depending on the location and the time of the year, you will get only part of the MW in your scene. For this reason I have both the 14/2.8 and the 24/1.4 in my bag. I have deliberated on the Sigma 14/1.8 for a while, but my biggest need is a body more suited to night photography than the 5DsR. Hopefully the R5 fits the bill and these lenses work out for that purpose.

If you decide to go the Rokinon route, I believe they now have the native RF mounted lenses out now. The 14/2.8 is also available with AF now almost 2x the cost of the MF lens. Not that one needs AF here anyways.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Thanks Jameel. Not all of the lenses I have found at B&H Are RF mount but I already have an adaptor so it does not matter much.

I often prefer a mw image that features just the core which would be ok at 24mm. But to get the entire arch seems to push even 14mm. Hence my experiment

 

[JimFox]

Jameel makes great points and suggestions. If you really are just focusing on the core of the MW, then a fast 24mm would be great, or perhaps that 20mm.

 

[Kyle Jones]

I've been wanting a fast 20mm lens for a while. Unfortunately, I haven't found one with good coma performance. The sigma is pretty bad. As much as I like shooting the mw at 24mm, I would like to go a touch wider. The problem with the Rokinon 24/1.4 is that it is actually not great wide open. So unless I'm shooting at 14mm, I usually use the Tamron 15-30/2.8. That one is great wide open with great coma performance.

If I was going to buy one lens for night shots, that would be the one.

 

[Ben Egbert]

I wonder about the RF 15-35 f2.8? This is expensive, but it could possible replace the 11-24.

 

[Kyle Jones]

I wonder about the RF 15-35 f2.8? This is expensive, but it could possible replace the 11-24.

My friend Alejandro (he's posted here a few times) has it. Looks great for star shots. I didn't see any coma in his. Expensive though...

 

[Ben Egbert]

Right, I wonder what my 11-24 is worth these days?

 

[JimFox]

I wonder about the RF 15-35 f2.8? This is expensive, but it could possible replace the 11-24.

I loved and still love my 16-35mm, it's my most used lens. I often wish it was just a hair wider. Though I would prefer 14mm, even to go to 15mm and having it be f2.8 instead of f4? That's really awesome in my book.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Right Jim, and I seldom go to 11mm, but my 11-24 is by far the best into the sun lens I have seen, it is nearly flare proof and produces great sun stars. It's also very sharp and free of distortion.

I would not buy another $2000+ wide angle zoom without selling my old one. For the difference in price between what I can get for the old mount 11-24 I might be able to buy a single purpose 14.

So what is the best 14 f2.8? It does not need AF but must be good wide open and have good coma performance? I see the Tamron 15-30 is not available in RF mount.

 

[Kyle Jones]

None (or at least very very few) of the specialty (i.e. non-canon) lenses will be in RF mount.

For 14/2.8 the Rokinon is the best astro lens, although to be honest I always preferred to stop it down a click or two (manual aperture ring) to sharpen things up a bit. All things considered at 14mm, I'd still go with the Rokinon SP 14/2.4. It is still just half the price of the Sigma f/1.8 and it works flawlessly at f/2.8. It also has electronic aperture control (unlike the fully manual f/2.8 version) and electronically connects to the camera which is nice.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Thanks Kyle, I have been reading reviews but your recommendation beats reviews from unknown people

 

[Jameel Hyder]

I often find a single image with the ground and stars hard to do, esp when it is dark. I end up doing the stars close to wide open focused correctly and the ground stopped down at lower ISO and longer shutter and then blend. In that scenario the 24/1.4 works fine for me.

I have been rethinking my 11-24 as well as there is quite a bit of overlap with the 16-35/4.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ok I will add the 14. f2.4 to my wish list. I assume in EF mount