Does anyone here have any experience ( or maybe just opinions ) using this lens for night sky / Milky Way photography? Are there important differences between this lens and the equivalent Voigtlander lens?
Thanks for your thoughts.
I believe the Z-mount version has essentially the same optics, just adjusted for the different filter stack thickness. Regarding the Voigtlander, that review indicates "The Voigtländer VM 28mm 1.5 Nokton looks worse at f/2.0, but better at f/4.0." For sharpness, neither lens really looks like they do well at mid-frame or in the corners until f/2.8 and f/5.6, respectively.
Ouch !!! Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree...it's happened before.
So what would your recommendations be in the 24-30mm range?
Perhaps I should mention that I am shooting with a Z9, for whatever that might be worth.
RoamingScott wrote:
There are suspicions that Thypoch did NOT account for sensor thickness differences on Z for what it's worth.
I wouldn't use either the Thypoch or Nokton for astro, as said above.
Interesting. Can you direct me to where those discussions have taken place? I've been strongly considered getting this lens (or the 35 1.4) for street/lightweight travel.
EDIT: This post on Fred's Thypoch 28mm 1.4 review thread (and a follow-up from the same user later in the thread) seems to indicate that they may adjust the optical designs that are originally developed for M-mount and later made for mirrorless mounts to account for filter stack thickness:
pesto wrote:
Ouch !!! Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree...it's happened before.
So what would your recommendations be in the 24-30mm range?
Perhaps I should mention that I am shooting with a Z9, for whatever that might be worth.
Native options are unfortunately limited, but the best ones are:
20mm f/1.8S (wider than you're looking for, I can vouch that it is excellent though)
35mm f/1.8S (longer than you're looking for, extreme corners can be an issue)
14-24mm f/2.8S
24-70mm f/2.8S
Possibly the new 24-70mm f/2.8S II (probably hasn't been tested thoroughly enough at this point)
The 24mm f/1.8S is the poorest performing of the 1.8S primes and is a step below the rest of the bunch. The 35 is also a bit of an underperformer compared to the 20/50/85.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I am not entirely committed to staying with native lenses although the 20mm is a possibility even though it is a bit wider than I had in mind. I have the 14-30 and 24-120, both of which are excellent but I would like something a bit faster. I have read so many positive notes on the Thypoch and the Voigtlander that I was surprised to see the negative remarks above.
pesto wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I am not entirely committed to staying with native lenses although the 20mm is a possibility even though it is a bit wider than I had in mind. I have the 14-30 and 24-120, both of which are excellent but I would like something a bit faster. I have read so many positive notes on the Thypoch and the Voigtlander that I was surprised to see the negative remarks above.
Keep in mind that astrophotography is probably the most demanding thing you can shoot when it comes to lens aberrations and lens resolving power. A lot of it depends on how in-depth you want to get with this type of photography and how high your standards are. You can certainly use the Thypoch and Voigtlander for this purpose, but if you pixel peep you may be disappointed. Those two lenses are great for most general purposes but aberration correction and corner performance are probably not their strongest areas. Most importantly, use what you can afford and have fun with it!
Some samples of my astrophotography with the 20 1.8S:
Thank you for your thoughts and the very nice images as well, those are very interesting. Quite obviously, this is a new venture for me so we shall see how far it will take me. Perhaps I should give more thought to the Nikor 20mm as I do not see an attractive choice in the 28mm range at this point.
Thanks again.
Yes, they were both taken at f/1.8. I'd be happy to upload some 100% crops at the center, mid-frame, and corner if there's interest. Any lens is going to have resolution variation from center to corner.
Wezre wrote:
Yes, they were both taken at f/1.8. I'd be happy to upload some 100% crops at the center, mid-frame, and corner if there's interest. Any lens is going to have resolution variation from center to corner.
Sure. We are comparing the Nikkor to the Simera though, both of them having resolution variation from center to corner
Did you notice any coma in the corners of pictures taken @ f/1.8? I think this info could be of some interest to @pesto@.
Ripolini wrote:
Sure. We are comparing the Nikkor to the Simera though, both of them having resolution variation from center to corner
Did you notice any coma in the corners of pictures taken @ f/1.8? I think this info could be of some interest to @pesto@@.
I actually have a copy of the Thypoch 28mm 1.4 arriving today. I don't know when/if I'll be able to test it for astrophotography, but I'd be happy to shoot other comparison photos of the two lenses.
Wezre wrote:
I actually have a copy of the Thypoch 28mm 1.4 arriving today. I don't know when/if I'll be able to test it for astrophotography, but I'd be happy to shoot other comparison photos of the two lenses.
We would be grateful if you could share pictures and comments about the Simera here. TIA.
Since this thread is specific to astrophotography with the Thypoch, I suggest using the previous thread(s) for general samples. I've had the Thypoch with me on a trip and was able to take some photos with it yesterday. I'll share them at the link you provided when I've had a chance to process them (possibly today, if not then within the next couple of days).
EDIT: Well, the best laid plans...turns out in my haste to setup a custom settings bank for unchipped MF lens shooting, I left one of my front custom buttons set to activate DX crop (I usually have it set that way for wildlife). I then unknowingly hit it at some point and didn't notice, so several of the RAWs are cropped to APS-C.
RoamingScott wrote:
You might wanna adjust your min shutter speed down when using it, you can get away with WAY slower than 1/250 with the Z8.
I don’t disagree, but many of the shots I was taking that day either included people moving or were taken from a moving boat. The church interior shot maxed out the ISO and I certainly could’ve used a slower shutter speed there. I don’t think the other shots really would’ve benefitted. I often shoot in manual mode with auto ISO but the added time I spent focusing and tinkering with the aperture meant I was shooting aperture priority.
Overall, I enjoyed the experience and the build quality of the lens is really nice with one or two exceptions. The hood doesn’t lock in place that well. I found it was relatively easy to bump the lens hood out of the locked position and have it rotate slightly. The lens mount cap is also odd in that you have to use the one that comes with it. The standard Nikon caps don’t attach tightly. The focus and aperture rings are very nice to use. I can see how the lens would fit nicely with the Zf, ZR, or even my Z7ii. It feels a bit small on the Z8, but I appreciated the light weight.
Zach, thank you for posting all of these images, this has been very helpful. I have been a bit distracted from this topic recently but am now working my way back into it. Have you used this Thypoch lens at all for night sky images?
Thanks again.
pesto wrote:
Zach, thank you for posting all of these images, this has been very helpful. I have been a bit distracted from this topic recently but am now working my way back into it. Have you used this Thypoch lens at all for night sky images?
Thanks again.
No astro opportunities with it yet. I’m heading to Scandinavia soon and will bring it with me, but will be in cities where the light pollution will probably prevent any opportunities. I may be able to shoot some nighttime cityscapes which could give an idea of the coma performance.
