I'm currently using a 5DII and the 17-40mm F/4 for star pics...the quality is not great. Having to use an ISO of 3200 @ 15 - 30 sec F/4. At these exposure times, I get star trails. Does anyone have any lens recommendations, Canon or third-party ? I'm really looking for something under $1500
I would think the 24 f/1.4 is your best bet. It's a 3 stop difference, so times go from 15-30 seconds to 2-4 seconds (or thereabout). The 20 f/2.8 or 24 f/2.8 are only 1 stop differences, so you're still looking at 7.5-15 seconds. The 28 f/1.8 is a little over 2 stops, so you get slightly less than 4-8 second exposures.
If you don't mind manual focus, you can find a wealth of 24mm and 28mm f/2 lenses.
Though, something else to consider is maybe a motorized tripod, much like what telescopes use to track stars.
You might be better off considering a tracking mount rather than a faster lens if your serious about astrophotography. It's cheaper than the lens and you will not be limited to just wide field shots.
A discussion here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/922761
Goes into a couple of the shortcomings of short/fast lenses for astrophotography. If you wat good quality from the 24LII, stop down to F/2.8.
If you are photographing star fields only then an astro mount and stopping down ordinary/cheaper wide lenses is the way to go.
If like me, however, you like photographing stars and terrestrial objects in the same shot you will need a fast wide. I've used the Sigma fast wides, Olympus 28mm f2, Nikkors 28mm f2 AIS and 28mm f1.4, Canon 24L Mk1 and Canon 24L Mk2.
To be honest finding a new, affordable fast wide is a very challenging task. On the 5D2 even the top of the range 24L f1.4 Mk 2 struggles with sharpness and extreme coma until f1.8, though as has been pointed out already the lens really needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for critical work - large sample image at this aperture (5D2/8 secs/ISO3200) here:
For your present budget I would have thought you could easily get a 24L Mk1 and this would be better than your existing zoom, but on stars the Mk 1 did have shocking chromatic aberrations. I think your best bet would be the Canon 24L Mk2 but not living in the US I don't know what it costs over there. Yes, on the 24L Mk2 you need to stop down to f2.8 to defeat the coma for critical work, but on a 5D2 at high ISO and a few seconds exposure that is very feasable IMHO, and the Mk2 lens has wonderful CA correction.
Thank you for the replies. I have been thinking about getting the Zeiss ZE 21mm F/2.8 even though it is a bit out of my budget at the moment. Do you think that lens would perform well here?
@ David: thanks for the info. How well do the Sigma lenses compare to the Canon ones? I hear conflicting reviews on the Sigma wides.
@ ngc7789: Stunning images Now if only I could shoot like that! The tracker will have to wait though
I can add that the Canon 28mm f/1.8 is "usable" at f/2.8 for night shots with a mix of terrestrial subjects with stars in the background.
It still suffers from minor distortion of the stars i.e. "bat wings" in the extreme corners at f2.8 but it's not too bad, the chromatic aberrations clean up pretty well after correction and it's considerably cheaper than the 24mm f/1.4.
I get great results with my Samyang 14mm. The lens is f/2.8 but based on my exposure times I think its t-stop is a bit faster than that (probably owing to its simple construction and lack of coatings). Coma is well controlled.
djflan wrote:
Snapsy, I love the clarity there. Where did you shoot these?
Lake Tahoe, on the Nevada side. Light pollution is very low here. There are places around the lake where you can can't even see your hand in front of you.
You're getting star trails during a 15s exposure at 17mm? I could swear I usually get static stars with those exposure parameters and focal lengths = to 17 on FF. Do you mean that your stars move a little when viewed at 100% crop, or that you actually look at an uncropped image and notice star trails?
I thought I wanted a faster wide lens for night photography, but I've instead relied on post-processing. I blast the noise in LR3 and then blend separate exposures of the foreground and background in photoshop. My stars look good to me, but perhaps in a large print they wouldn't do.
Noticeable star trails > 15 sec. Although, it could be due to lens distortion. I use DxO and Photoshop CS5 for post, but DxO seems to add odd lighting to night shots. Problem is getting a shot with the 17-40L without an exposure > 15 sec. At F4, the lens is soft, but I can't stop down and not expect to get some trails.
I've been wanting the Zeiss for a while now...not just for astrophotography.
I tried the Sigma 24mm and 28mm lenses, admittedly I used them around full aperture which is a harsh test on stars, but I was very unhappy with the results.
I use the Nikon 14-24 on a D700. I know of at least two other professional landscape shooters who swear by this lens on the Canon 1Ds Mark III or 5D Mark II. Here are a few samples from my camera.
Good luck with your decision. IMO, anything faster than f/2.8 is overkill. I prefer the wide field for sky work, so I would dump the 21mm Zeiss from my list. If you want to stay with EF-mount lenses, that Samyang looks like a pretty good way to go.
Have to say I'm very very tempted to get the Samyang. Looking at the metadata in your first image it looks like you used the lens wide open, the lack of coma is very impressive! May I ask if you focussed the lens using Live View or whether you were able to just set "infinity" on your focus scale?
djflan wrote:
I'm currently using a 5DII and the 17-40mm F/4 for star pics...the quality is not great. Having to use an ISO of 3200 @ 15 - 30 sec F/4. At these exposure times, I get star trails. Does anyone have any lens recommendations, Canon or third-party ? I'm really looking for something under $1500
The best way to stay below your $1500 budget may be to keep what you have. How to do that? Use shorter exposure times but stack multiple "under exposed" images into one "properly exposed" composite. Instead of one 30-second exposure, for example, take three 10-second exposures or six 5-second exposures.
Another advantage of image stacking is that random noise in each image will not be in the same place on all layers, and so it will be less visible in the final composite. You can also include a dark frame for reducing noise further.
BrianO wrote:
The best way to stay below your $1500 budget may be to keep what you have. How to do that? Use shorter exposure times but stack multiple "under exposed" images into one "properly exposed" composite. Instead of one 30-second exposure, for example, take three 10-second exposures or six 5-second exposures.
Another advantage of image stacking is that random noise in each image will not be in the same place on all layers, and so it will be less visible in the final composite. You can also include a dark frame for reducing noise further.
An interesting point, but how do you control the movement of the stars in the sky over the course of three 10s exposures? It's surprising how much individual stars can move in that short time.
Most image stacking software that is designed for astro shots has the option to automatically align each of the many images before stacking them. That means that the stars will be aligned and match and then will be combined or averaged properly. That way you get the noise reduction and sensitivity improvements that stacking offers without the need for a equatorial drive system. It also means that any earth terain that is in the shot will not register properly. You can try a hybrid combine to match up the earth terain from one shot with the stars from many shots, but you will have issues near the terain.
An alternative to the aligned astro type stacking is to stack images without any alignment. In that case you get the terain correctly shown, and the stars form the classic star trails, but with very short gaps in the trails depending on the dead time between exposures. That technique allows multi hour star trail shots with a digital camera by combining 5 or 10 minute exposures that do not have too much noise in them.
Have to say I'm very very tempted to get the Samyang. Looking at the metadata in your first image it looks like you used the lens wide open, the lack of coma is very impressive! May I ask if you focussed the lens using Live View or whether you were able to just set "infinity" on your focus scale?
Thanks
I generally never need to visually focus the Samyang because I mostly use it for landscapes and at 14mm there is plenty of room for error. When I first got the lens I manually calibrated the hyperfocal distances for the common f-stops I use and simply spin the focus ring to those memorized points whenever I shoot. I did that calibration at 70F and it has since gotten cold here so I'll probably recalibrate for the winter, though again with the margin of error @ 14mm I don't expect to see much if any difference.
Now if only I could shoot like that! The tracker will have to wait though