WestTexas Sky wrote:
For astro/Milky Way, you want wide and fast. The Laowa 15/2 would be tempting as it's fast, small and native. Might be a rental. Sigma is a little faster, but much bigger and has worse coma by the reports.
I don't know which reports you are referring to, but your should probably question those sources. The Laowa coma is much poorer than the Sigma when both are at 2.8. See my tests here All four of the Laowas I have tried behaved very similarly.
The Sigma coma is not great wide open at 1.8, but no other lens 14-15mm does 1.8. By the time you get to 2.8 the Sigma coma is excellent wiht only slight coma in the extreme corners of the frame, and even 2.5 (where the next fastest alternative starts) is good. Much better than the Laowa.
The Sigma is way sharper than the Loawa too. See my further tests here
If you go the zoom route, consider adapting the Canon 16-35L III. It's been on the market longer and is much cheaper used or as a rental. From 16-21, they're both excellent. The Sonys I've tried were better at 24, but not not so much better that additional resolution is mind-blowing. At 35, the Canon's noticeably better, but that's probably because Sony has a big consistency issue on the long end of the GM according to Roger at Lens Rentals.
Personally, I'd be content with the Batis so, I'd go with that and whatever wider lens you want.
It seems a lot of people are recommending the 16-35 GM.
For daytime wide-angle landscape photography (f 5.6-8), how much better is the GM than the f4?
I'm in a similar predicament to OP (going to Iceland at the end of Oct). I bought a used 16-35 f4 a while back, and, to be honest, haven't used it once in about six months. Most of the time the Loxia 21 is plenty wide enough for me, and I love the sunstars. Are there really that many places in Iceland that call for 16 mm and wider?
rvh23 wrote:
I don't know which reports you are referring to, but your should probably question those sources. The Laowa coma is much poorer than the Sigma when both are at 2.8. See my tests here All four of the Laowas I have tried behaved very similarly.
Thanks so much for linking this thread - that was a very useful read.
I saw a few astro images with the Sigma and wasn't a big fan of the rendering of the brighter stars - way too many points for my taste. Does that rendering only come in when stopped down to smaller apertures?
Do you think it's worth the price premium over the Laowa?
SDTrojan wrote:
I saw a few astro images with the Sigma and wasn't a big fan of the rendering of the brighter stars - way too many points for my taste. Does that rendering only come in when stopped down to smaller apertures?
Can you provide a link to the images you are referring to? Do you mean the number of arms on the sunstars when you say "way too many points"? I can't imagine the Sigma was stopped down too far if they were astro shots, but on the other hand my star test shot at 2.8 doesn't show pronounced sunstars. I don't see the need to stop this lens down any further than that for astro.
SDTrojan wrote:
Do you think it's worth the price premium over the Laowa?
Absolutely. The Sigma is a phenomenal optic unrivaled by anything else even remotely as wide. The only question you need to ask yourself is whether it's size/weight is an issue in your application.
rvh23 wrote:
I don't know which reports you are referring to, but your should probably question those sources. The Laowa coma is much poorer than the Sigma when both are at 2.8. See my tests here All four of the Laowas I have tried behaved very similarly.
The Sigma coma is not great wide open at 1.8, but no other lens 14-15mm does 1.8. By the time you get to 2.8 the Sigma coma is excellent wiht only slight coma in the extreme corners of the frame, and even 2.5 (where the next fastest alternative starts) is good. Much better than the Laowa.
The Sigma is way sharper than the Loawa too. See my further tests here...Show more →
Really you have done some excellent work in that thread (which I had missed). Very commendable, and illuminating !
rvh23 wrote:
Can you provide a link to the images you are referring to? Do you mean the number of arms on the sunstars when you say "way too many points"? I can't imagine the Sigma was stopped down too far if they were astro shots, but on the other hand my star test shot at 2.8 doesn't show pronounced sunstars. I don't see the need to stop this lens down any further than that for astro.
Sorry, my description was worded poorly. Yes, I meant the number of arms on the sunstars.
Here's an image I saw with an example.
In this particular image it's the moon, but I was wondering if this ever happens with brighter stars/planets.
Like you said, I imagine wide open they'd be less prominent.
rvh23 wrote:
Absolutely. The Sigma is a phenomenal optic unrivaled by anything else even remotely as wide. The only question you need to ask yourself is whether it's size/weight is an issue in your application.
Thanks again for the feedback and for the testing you've done. Very helpful in making a choice.
Thanks for the link. My guess is that it may be a composite with the moon (and perhaps foreground too) taken stopped down (maybe a lot specifically to get the sunstar effect). The Sigma doesn't have particularly pronounced sunstars in general.
Not sure I have seen enough by anyone to determine the best 14 or 15mm wide angle for astro. The Sigma does not look good at all at f/1.8 to me. The Laowa is weak at f/2. If you have to stop down to f/2.8 I think most people would be better off just using the classic Samyang 14/2.8 for the $260 it sells for and spending the difference between it and the Sigma on travel.
The newer Samyang 14/2.4 looks like it might be the best compromise of size, weight and cost. But again, I have not seen enough samples to make that call.
Glad the Sigma works for you. Might have to rent one for a trip sometime.
rvh23 wrote:
I don't know which reports you are referring to, but your should probably question those sources. The Laowa coma is much poorer than the Sigma when both are at 2.8. See my tests here All four of the Laowas I have tried behaved very similarly.
The Sigma coma is not great wide open at 1.8, but no other lens 14-15mm does 1.8. By the time you get to 2.8 the Sigma coma is excellent wiht only slight coma in the extreme corners of the frame, and even 2.5 (where the next fastest alternative starts) is good. Much better than the Laowa.
The Sigma is way sharper than the Loawa too. See my further tests here...Show more →
SDTrojan wrote:
It seems a lot of people are recommending the 16-35 GM.
For daytime wide-angle landscape photography (f 5.6-8), how much better is the GM than the f4?
I'm in a similar predicament to OP (going to Iceland at the end of Oct). I bought a used 16-35 f4 a while back, and, to be honest, haven't used it once in about six months. Most of the time the Loxia 21 is plenty wide enough for me, and I love the sunstars. Are there really that many places in Iceland that call for 16 mm and wider?
Thanks so much for linking this thread - that was a very useful read.
I saw a few astro images with the Sigma and wasn't a big fan of the rendering of the brighter stars - way too many points for my taste. Does that rendering only come in when stopped down to smaller apertures?
Do you think it's worth the price premium over the Laowa? ...Show more →
I used to have the 16-35/f4 lens which is good but is not at it's best right into the corners especially at the wider end and doesn't even sharpen up when stopped down to f8. This will only really be noticed if you are a pixel peeper. The GM is excellent in this respect plus it is weather-sealed and of course f2.8. I have also used it for astro work though that really isn't my field. All in all the GM is just one of the best all- rounders
WestTexas Sky wrote:
The newer Samyang 14/2.4 looks like it might be the best compromise of size, weight and cost. But again, I have not seen enough samples to make that call.
I initially also considered the Samyang 14/2.4 as an alternative to the Sigma, but realized that once you add an adapter for Sony, you are pretty much at the same size/weight lens as the native mount Sigma. Also, if you stop the Sigma down to 2.4 to match the Samyang I doubt many would object to its coma.
I tried 4 copies of the cheap Samyang 14/2.8 some years ago and gave up in disgust. Probably left me with some bias against that company's lenses.
Hi all, finally I am bringing the following lenses:
- Sigma 14mm f1.8 (Rented, as long as a Nisi filter holder, a 150mm light pollution, a 6 stop and 10 stop ND)
- Zony 16-35mm f4 (Borrowed by a job peer)
- Sony 24-105mm f4
- Sony 70-200mm f4
The following lenses, thought I have them, I am unsure if I am bringing them:
They told me this one is not enough for Iceland winds, on top of that, I am also interested in a panorama ball head. What is your take regarding this topic?
