p.1 #1 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
I currently have a 16-35mm f/4 L Is as my widest lens and am trying to figure out whether it would be worthwhile upgrading it to the 16-35mm iii for astrophotography or more worthwhile to buy a dedicated lens for astrophotography. Between the other two lenses, the Sigma is perhaps the best performer, but it's also a whole pound bigger than the Zeiss and the difference of 1mm isn't much. The biggest consideration I am prioritizing is weight. The majority of times I will be doing astro, I will be traveling to places like the likes of Yosemite. Besides whatever lens I bring for astro, I will also be toting around a 5D IV, 24-70mm ii, 100-400mm ii and 16-35mm f/4 if I do not upgrade it for the 2.8 version. If I were to just keep all my equipment in a Pelican case, it porbably wouldn't be much of an issue, but that is not the situation. At any rate, that is why I'm leaning toward the 16-35mm f/2.8 iii, but my research tells me it has four stops of vignetting at the corners at 2.8 and I'm not sure how well simply relying on lens profile corrections in a program like LR could mitigate such. Briefly, the idea of picking up the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 and replacing my 16-35mm f/4 L as my general WA lens crossed my mind to use with my 24-70mm ii, but having to rely on a mf lens in every situation I shoot in is a little offputting.
Ultimately, aside from the consideration of weight, I'm looking to get as a good of a quality lens for astro as possible in tandem. That's mainly why I brought into consideration the SIgma 14mm f/1.8, but good lord is it heavy. So at any rate, thoughts?
p.1 #2 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Have you looked at the Samyang 14mm f2.8? It has a very good reputation for astrophotography and I find that often when I am shooting night skies I must manually focus even with an autofocus wideangle. They also have a newer 14mm f2.4 but it is a much more expensive proposition for what I suspect would be a single purpose lens for you.
p.1 #3 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Lenstip has nice reviews which include coma, an important quality for Astro.
Here's your sigma https://www.lenstip.com/506.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
Look up the others too.
I think the (not mentioned) Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 is a great lens and you should put it on your list. Low coma, fast, sharp, autofocus if you want it, IS, and you can use it as your daytime landscape lens too. It's main drawback, no screw on front filters.
The screw on filter accepting Canon16-35mm III finally has low coma with this iteration, but it is more expensive than the Tamron.
The Samsung/Rokinon 14mm 2.8 prime is very nice but you might have to return a decentered copy or two before you get a nice one. I had one and loved it until the Tamron came out.
All the fast wide lenses (at least for full frame cameras) seem to have a fair amount of vignetting wide open. It's not a big deal if you expose the night sky properly using the camera's histogram.
Aug 04, 2019 at 10:40 PM
Guest
Guest
p.1 #4 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
The 16-35/2.8 III is reported to be atrociously bad for vignetting at 16mm, f/2.8 and especially the combination of both (per Optical Limits, up to 4.6 stops). Guess that would be something to consider. God knows I'm not tempted by that lens and my 16-35/4 is safe.
p.1 #5 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
I actually did some research on vignetting and I think this metric is overblown when it comes to the 16-35mm iii. It does have 4 stops of vignetting at f/2.8m, but the Samyang has 5 and even the Sigma 14mm has 3. The 14mm ii also has 4 and so does the Zeiss 15mm. So it really feels like splitting hairs when it comes to vignetting.
For what it is worth, money is of no object for me in this scenario. I'm mostly looking for the best quality lens possible while keeping my overall weight of equipment down while traveling. I suppose the 16-35mm iii probably is the best choice.
p.1 #8 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Aphotographer9 wrote:
I actually did some research on vignetting and I think this metric is overblown when it comes to the 16-35mm iii. It does have 4 stops of vignetting at f/2.8m, but the Samyang has 5 and even the Sigma 14mm has 3. The 14mm ii also has 4 and so does the Zeiss 15mm. So it really feels like splitting hairs when it comes to vignetting.
For what it is worth, money is of no object for me in this scenario. I'm mostly looking for the best quality lens possible while keeping my overall weight of equipment down while traveling. I suppose the 16-35mm iii probably is the best choice....Show more →
, the Samyang has 5 stops of vignetting. Is there some mythical Samyang 14 f/2.8 no one else has heard of? Back in the real world it's a minor -1.2EV, I know I have the lens.
p.1 #9 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Pixel Perfect wrote: , the Samyang has 5 stops of vignetting. Is there some mythical Samyang 14 f/2.8 no one else has heard of? Back in the real world it's a minor -1.2EV, I know I have the lens.
5 stops would be essentially black and ludicrous to think such a design would be produced.
Well, since you are clearly uneducated on a lens that you already have, I'll just quote the source directly for you here. "This lens has an f/2.8 aperture, but with approximately 5 stops of vignetting in the corners, the entire frame is not benefiting from this feature. While this lens ranks among the strongest vignetting lenses available, it is not much worse than the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 with 4.5 stop. The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 has 4 stops and the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II has about 3.5 stops of peripheral shading at this aperture," (The Digital Picture).
p.1 #10 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Aphotographer9 wrote:
Well, since you are clearly uneducated on a lens that you already have, I'll just quote the source directly for you here. "This lens has an f/2.8 aperture, but with approximately 5 stops of vignetting in the corners, the entire frame is not benefiting from this feature. While this lens ranks among the strongest vignetting lenses available, it is not much worse than the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 with 4.5 stop. The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 has 4 stops and the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II has about 3.5 stops of peripheral shading at this aperture," (The Digital Picture).
p.1 #11 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Aphotographer9 wrote:
Well, since you are clearly uneducated on a lens that you already have, I'll just quote the source directly for you here. "This lens has an f/2.8 aperture, but with approximately 5 stops of vignetting in the corners, the entire frame is not benefiting from this feature. While this lens ranks among the strongest vignetting lenses available, it is not much worse than the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 with 4.5 stop. The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 has 4 stops and the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II has about 3.5 stops of peripheral shading at this aperture," (The Digital Picture).
p.1 #12 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
This thread sure is a fine illustration for the dysfunctional nature of this subforum, where people come to fight, not to help each other out. A guy asks a reasonable question, a couple of others offer substantive responses, and then the bickering starts.
p.1 #13 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
Aphotographer9 wrote:
I currently have a 16-35mm f/4 L Is as my widest lens and am trying to figure out whether it would be worthwhile upgrading it to the 16-35mm iii for astrophotography or more worthwhile to buy a dedicated lens for astrophotography. Between the other two lenses, the Sigma is perhaps the best performer, but it's also a whole pound bigger than the Zeiss and the difference of 1mm isn't much. The biggest consideration I am prioritizing is weight. The majority of times I will be doing astro, I will be traveling to places like the likes of Yosemite. Besides whatever lens I bring for astro, I will also be toting around a 5D IV, 24-70mm ii, 100-400mm ii and 16-35mm f/4 if I do not upgrade it for the 2.8 version. If I were to just keep all my equipment in a Pelican case, it porbably wouldn't be much of an issue, but that is not the situation. At any rate, that is why I'm leaning toward the 16-35mm f/2.8 iii, but my research tells me it has four stops of vignetting at the corners at 2.8 and I'm not sure how well simply relying on lens profile corrections in a program like LR could mitigate such. Briefly, the idea of picking up the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 and replacing my 16-35mm f/4 L as my general WA lens crossed my mind to use with my 24-70mm ii, but having to rely on a mf lens in every situation I shoot in is a little offputting.
Ultimately, aside from the consideration of weight, I'm looking to get as a good of a quality lens for astro as possible in tandem. That's mainly why I brought into consideration the SIgma 14mm f/1.8, but good lord is it heavy. So at any rate, thoughts? ...Show more →
Something to keep in mind if you plan on using filters, the Canon 16-35 III will be the friendliest, as the lens is not bulbous or with a fixed hood, that the others will have
p.1 #14 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
IndyFab wrote:
Something to keep in mind if you plan on using filters, the Canon 16-35 III will be the friendliest, as the lens is not bulbous or with a fixed hood, that the others will have
Yep, so one has to keep in mind to factor in the cost of a filter adapter and large filters for the other lenses, if desired.
The cheaper initial price, may not be much less than the Canon in the end
p.1 #15 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
The Zeiss 15mm is my personal favorite lens that I have ever used for astrophotography.
But I also only ever tried 3. I used a Canon 24mm f/1.4 II for a few years, than a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 III
I just the love the manual focus on the Zeiss 15mm, it has a hard stop at infinity, so you turn it as far to the right as it goes, and boom the stars are in focus. With the Canon lenses, I was always playing around trying to get the stars in focus.
p.1 #16 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
DustinLevine wrote:
The Zeiss 15mm is my personal favorite lens that I have ever used for astrophotography.
But I also only ever tried 3. I used a Canon 24mm f/1.4 II for a few years, than a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 III
I just the love the manual focus on the Zeiss 15mm, it has a hard stop at infinity, so you turn it as far to the right as it goes, and boom the stars are in focus. With the Canon lenses, I was always playing around trying to get the stars in focus.
Did you have the fixed hood removed, thats my only grip with the Ze15, cant use filters holders, but great for astro, and normal shooting.
How did the 16-35mm f/2.8 III perform, and on the upside its friendly for filter holders ?
p.1 #17 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
IndyFab wrote:
Did you have the fixed hood removed, thats my only grip with the Ze15, cant use filters holders, but great for astro, and normal shooting.
How did the 16-35mm f/2.8 III perform, and on the upside its friendly for filter holders ?
Yes, I had the hood removed! Makes putting filters on soooo much easier.
I changed the Canon 16-35mm III for the Zeiss 15mm for 2 reasons. One, as others have said, the vignetting was ridiculous. Not a problem for regular shooting at low ISO's, a single click in Camera Raw, and it is gone. But for astrophotography, when pushing files a lot while editing mixed with High ISO's, I always had terrible, noticeable noise in the corners.
And two, I noticed I was probably shooting my 16-35mm 90% at 16mm. So I thought it made sense to just have the prime. It is slightly wider, and was the fastest, widest prime I knew of at the time that without a bulbous front element that takes front screw-in filters.
That all being said, I am lusting after the still yet to be officially announced Canon RF 15-35mm IS. It is supposedly supposed to go up for pre-order before the end of August.
If it comes in at $2,500....or below (Which I doubt), I am selling my Zeiss 15mm and ordering that new lens immediately. I have never been an early adapter of a new lens, but if the other RF lenses are any indication of what I hope it can be, I want that lens!
I believe the 16-35mm Version 3 debuted at $2250 if my memory is correct, so I am assuming this new lens will have a higher price tag.
So if you decide you want a Zeiss 15mm, I will have one for sale hopefully in less than 2 weeks. Haha
p.1 #18 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
The Sigma is much better for astro work, as far as vignetting goes. If you're shooting full frame, then any f2.8 lens with more than 3 stops of vignetting is a no-go, IMO. The Sigma is over a stop faster overall and with less vignetting wide open.
If you want a zoom, then the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 is probably THE best astro zoom lens that can be used on EF mount.
When it really comes down to it, the UWA lenses with flatter front elements always give up too much vignetting control over the bulbous types of lenses. Anything that can ever take a screw-on filter is likely to be bad for astro work in terms of light gathering in the edges and corners. Flatter front elements only start working well with vignetting once the focal length goes up a bit, in which case one can also use stitching for their UWA astro work.
p.1 #19 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
another vote for the Samyang 14mm f2.8
Aug 17, 2019 at 04:33 AM
Guest
Guest
p.1 #20 · For Astro- 16-35mm iii, Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or Zies 15mm f/2.8
There is also the new Sigma 14-24/2.8 https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1053-sigma1424f28art
2.7 stops of vignetting at 14mm f/2.8, but already 0.9 stops less if you zoom out to 16mm or stop down to f/4. Plenty sharp too, from the looks of the it.
P.S. Lenses with 5 stops of vignetting do exist. Case in point: Sony 24-105 (at 24mm f/4 and with correction disabled).
, the Samyang has 5 stops of vignetting. Is there some mythical Samyang 14 f/2.8 no one else has heard of? Back in the real world it's a minor -1.2EV, I know I have the lens.