jhapeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
TWoK wrote:
The Nikkor 24/1.4 is very sharp, but still has coma at f/1.4. The 28/1.4 is probably better in that respect. What slow lenses were better? Even the slow wides and normals I've used had tons of coma.
What doesn't the Noct do that you title it is a over-hyped? It is close to coma free at f/1.2. As close as any lens I've seen.
Almost any f/2.8 lens from Canon or Nikon does a pretty good job. Off hand, for astrophotography, the Canon 28/2.8, Nikon 28/2.8, Canon and Nikon 50/1.4s, Canon 50/1.2 are all good.
What it comes down to is that most fast lenses are designed to be fast first and free of longitudinal CA and coma-free second. Basically these are trade-offs in lens designs, particularly within constraints of cost that most of us can imagine. In my experience, while many of the ultrafast lenses can be sharp on center, for astrophotography they often display too much sagittal coma or pretty high levels of longitudinal CA, which gives stars nasty little halos of color. The slightly slower lenses have less LoCA and often less sagittal coma, and typically are a fraction of the price.
For normal street shooting, you are right, the Noct is really well-corrected, but for stars its lacking, and it has more LoCA than I can tolerate--think colored rings around the stars.
Does the new Nikon 24/1.4 tighten up in the corners by f/2.8 like the Canon 24L II? I'm intrigued by that lens, and at the moment am all Leica, so going back to DLSR Nikon is more appealing than it was for a while, with the introduction of this lens in particular. Now if only there was a D700x..... 
|
