24mm or 35mm?

[JimFox]

Just thinking out loud a bit thanks to @Kyle Jones thread last week.

You guys know I shoot tons of Milky Way and star photos. My go to lens are 14mm lenses, but with Kyles recent Milky Way image shot at 24mm or maybe it was 35mm, got me to thinking that Rokinon makes a fast 24mm and 35mm. Both are f1.4. Now the 24mm is $100 more then the 35mm, which surprised me. I must not have noticed something on the lenses, I would have just assumed the 35mm would be more expensive.

Any thoughts from those of you who shot at night with either of these focal lengths? I would still shoot at 14mm, but since I have multiple cameras, I could put a 24mm or 35mm on one of the bodies. Just not sure which one would make the most sense.

The 35mm is longer, so will give a tighter shot of the core of the MW, but it will have less DoF then the 24mm, and will also need a faster shutter speed then the 24mm to not have star movement.

So while my thought is that if I am going to go tighter then 14mm on one camera, I might as well make it significant?

The 24mm should be shot at about 20sec max to limit star movement.
The 35mm should be shot at about 12secs max to limit star movement.

So the 35mm would require a lot higher ISO. Now since I don't like (or have never really needed to) stack my night MW images, to go to 35mm, would probably require me to start stacking them as I would probably need to be shooting at ISO 6400 instead of ISO 3200.

So thanks for any thoughts. I may not even do this, but the thought crossed my mind, so I thought I would at least think it through.

And also, any idea why the 24mm is more expensive then the 35mm?

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Jameel Hyder]

I find 24mm provides a good field of view. I use the Rokinon 24/1.4 - a pretty decent lens but definitely not spectacular. The canon 24/1.4 is not an astro lens because of its coma performance - but the choices are limited. I'd think 35mm is too long for MW shots personally - although I should preface that by saying I don't have one and not tried it.

Given that you have a good tracker, the shutter speed is less of a concern but it requires a lot more post processing.

 

[JimFox]

I find 24mm provides a good field of view. I use the Rokinon 24/1.4 - a pretty decent lens but definitely not spectacular. The canon 24/1.4 is not an astro lens because of its coma performance - but the choices are limited. I'd think 35mm is too long for MW shots personally - although I should preface that by saying I don't have one and not tried it.

Given that you have a good tracker, the shutter speed is less of a concern but it requires a lot more post processing.

Thanks Jameel, I am leaning towards a 24mm if I do it I think. But I want to chew on it a bit.

You may have noticed that I have never used my tracker for wide field Milky Way photos, I have mentioned that before. I bought it (both of them) specifically for Deep Space Astro. Maybe I am just too old school, but I like my photos to be all 1 image as much as humanly possible. So I wouldn't use either of my trackers for the MW. And that's just me, if others want to, that's fine with me. It's just how I like to photograph.

 

[Kyle Jones]

24mm is still my favorite for MW photos. Because of the narrower field of view, you need the core to be in the right place in your composition, but it looks bigger when everything works out. I use the Rokinon 24 f/1.4 but stop down to f/2 because the lens really isn't great wide open. I haven't found a great fast lens for astro in the 20-24mm range yet but I keep looking.

I shot this at 24mm with Jim a few years ago. I usually stick to 20s exposures at 24mm.

I bought the Tamron SP 35/1.4 a couple of years ago when it was on sale. It really is a beautiful lens. I've only used it a couple of times for night shots, but it is good wide open and no issues with coma. My recent tracked shot from Montana was with this lens. Shooting at 35mm, f1.4, ISO 3200 and 10s exposures works very well.

This is with the 35mm

And for the comparison, this is the same scene with the 24mm

 

[Kyle Jones]

And for reference, here is a quick edit of an untracked version of my recent image from Montana at 35mm. The sky is 10s at ISO 3200 and the ground is 120s at ISO 800.

All things said, I still believe that different scenes work best at different focal lengths. Having some flexibility in your kit is valuable. The scene below would not have worked at 14mm, although I did have a 14mm lens in my bag (and a 24!).

 

[JimFox]

24mm is still my favorite for MW photos. Because of the narrower field of view, you need the core to be in the right place in your composition, but it looks bigger when everything works out. I use the Rokinon 24 f/1.4 but stop down to f/2 because the lens really isn't great wide open. I haven't found a great fast lens for astro in the 20-24mm range yet but I keep looking.

I shot this at 24mm with Jim a few years ago. I usually stick to 20s exposures at 24mm.
View attachment 47668

I bought the Tamron SP 35/1.4 a couple of years ago when it was on sale. It really is a beautiful lens. I've only used it a couple of times for night shots, but it is good wide open and no issues with coma. My recent tracked shot from Montana was with this lens. Shooting at 35mm, f1.4, ISO 3200 and 10s exposures works very well.

This is with the 35mm
View attachment 47670

And for the comparison, this is the same scene with the 24mm
View attachment 47671

Thanks for those Kyle. That was a fun time in Joshua Tree!

I think the 24mm is definitely what I am leaning too. I can always crop from 24mm to 35mm if needed. And yeah, I think 20 secs would be it for it.

Since getting the right composition is more important with the narrower field of view, that brings up my latest issue of accurately knowing where North is. I had mentioned in another thread that I have 2 iphones, and when pointing to North for reference, there is about a 10 degree difference between them. My old compass fell apart, and the new one I got to replace it seems to be inconsistent. Maybe I need to look at another compass.

If I wasn't doing timelapses, then it wouldn't be a big deal as I could just set it up once I saw the Milky Way in the sky, but with doing timelapses, once I have placed a camera (right after sunset) I don't want to move it.

 

[JimFox]

And for reference, here is a quick edit of an untracked version of my recent image from Montana at 35mm. The sky is 10s at ISO 3200 and the ground is 120s at ISO 800.

All things said, I still believe that different scenes work best at different focal lengths. Having some flexibility in your kit is valuable. The scene below would not have worked at 14mm, although I did have a 14mm lens in my bag (and a 24!).

View attachment 47674

Yeah, I agree with you with different scenes needed different focal lengths. For example for me, I set up often at Dallas Divide at night, and I have shot it at 14mm, but the San Juan Range is soooooooo tiny at 14mm it doesn't appeal much to me. Where at 24mm, the mountains could actually be a part of the scene rather then these tiny objects at the bottom of the shot.

So good point for the fast longer lens.

@Bob do you have any thoughts?

 

[Kyle Jones]

Thanks for those Kyle. That was a fun time in Joshua Tree!

I think the 24mm is definitely what I am leaning too. I can always crop from 24mm to 35mm if needed. And yeah, I think 20 secs would be it for it.

Since getting the right composition is more important with the narrower field of view, that brings up my latest issue of accurately knowing where North is. I had mentioned in another thread that I have 2 iphones, and when pointing to North for reference, there is about a 10 degree difference between them. My old compass fell apart, and the new one I got to replace it seems to be inconsistent. Maybe I need to look at another compass.

If I wasn't doing timelapses, then it wouldn't be a big deal as I could just set it up once I saw the Milky Way in the sky, but with doing timelapses, once I have placed a camera (right after sunset) I don't want to move it.

I get that - but since I tend to compose for the scene rather than for the MW, it doesn't really matter to me. If the MW doesn't appear in the right place relative to the landscape, then I blew my planning and I won't be happy anyway

 

[JimFox]

I was comparing the Samyang 24mm f1.4 to the Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art lens to see if the extra price is worth it. And then I noticed that Sigma also has a 20mm f1.4 Art lens. So.... something else to figure out.

The Sigma 24m f1.4 is like $850 new, but I found one used on MPB for $450. Perhaps used is a way to go.

 

[Kyle Jones]

Those sigmas are well known for having horrible coma...

If your goal is astro then I'd strongly advise the Samyang over the sigmas. I am still hoping the IRIX 21mm lives up to its advertising. If so, it is the one I want.

 

[JimFox]

Those sigmas are well known for having horrible coma...

If your goal is astro then I'd strongly advise the Samyang over the sigmas. I am still hoping the IRIX 21mm lives up to its advertising. If so, it is the one I want.

I appreciate that Kyle. I had been reading a bit about the coma on the Sigma. Too bad as I get leery sometimes about the build quality of the Samyang. But that may be the route to go with the Samyang.

 

[JimFox]

@Kyle Jones have you seen any reviews on the 20mm Sigma f1.4? It’s weird I can’t find any reviews.

Also, one of the popular deep space Astro guys has highly recommended the Sigma 24mm f1.4. Just adding that into the mix.

Have you seen any word on the Irix 21mm on an arrival in the US?

 

[Jameel Hyder]

On Amazon many complaints about coma for the 20/f1.4

 

[JimFox]

On Amazon many complaints about coma for the 20/f1.4

Thanks Jameel, I didn't see those.

 

[Bob]

Yeah, I agree with you with different scenes needed different focal lengths. For example for me, I set up often at Dallas Divide at night, and I have shot it at 14mm, but the San Juan Range is soooooooo tiny at 14mm it doesn't appeal much to me. Where at 24mm, the mountains could actually be a part of the scene rather then these tiny objects at the bottom of the shot.

So good point for the fast longer lens.

@Bob do you have any thoughts?

Jim,
First, let me apologize for the late reply. I am in 2 co-op galleries and it takes up a lot of time.
I tried the Rokinon 14mm 1.4 and was very disappointed because it had a lot of comma and not very sharp lens. I sold that and am now using Sigma 14mm 1.8 with very pleasing results. Comma is a big issue on all theses super wide angle lenses. Since I shoot with a Sony A7R4 I considered the new 14mm Sony 1.8 but I never tried it because the Sigma gave me good results. I did shoot with 24mm 2.8 for a long time but the faster lenses I find are much better and I prefer the wider field of view especially on a 60MP camera which gives you a lot of room to crop. As for the higher iso I always stack my images just to get rid of the noise. Printing larger images on aluminum is very unforgiving and you can clearly see all the noise if you don't stack. Mostly the conditions I use is 3200 iso f2.0 20 sec exposure on 14 mm Sigma then crop to my desire. To me the milky way is the focus and foreground secondary so I do everything I can to get a clean and sharp sky.
Bob

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ok, late to the party because I only did this last night. I got an RF 35 f1.8 macro for reproduction work and thought it might work for night shots. Here is my eval.

1. Too much coma.

2. Not fast enough and too long. I like that the landscapes are larger, but 10 seconds to avoid star streaks requires too high an ISO

I think a 24 f1.4 is what is needed.

 

[JimFox]

Jim,
First, let me apologize for the late reply. I am in 2 co-op galleries and it takes up a lot of time.
I tried the Rokinon 14mm 1.4 and was very disappointed because it had a lot of comma and not very sharp lens. I sold that and am now using Sigma 14mm 1.8 with very pleasing results. Comma is a big issue on all theses super wide angle lenses. Since I shoot with a Sony A7R4 I considered the new 14mm Sony 1.8 but I never tried it because the Sigma gave me good results. I did shoot with 24mm 2.8 for a long time but the faster lenses I find are much better and I prefer the wider field of view especially on a 60MP camera which gives you a lot of room to crop. As for the higher iso I always stack my images just to get rid of the noise. Printing larger images on aluminum is very unforgiving and you can clearly see all the noise if you don't stack. Mostly the conditions I use is 3200 iso f2.0 20 sec exposure on 14 mm Sigma then crop to my desire. To me the milky way is the focus and foreground secondary so I do everything I can to get a clean and sharp sky.
Bob

Thanks so much Bob. It sure sounds like you are busy!

I already shoot with the 14mm f1.8 Sigma, the best Astro lens available in my opinion. My question has to do with choosing either a 24mm or a 35mm for a 2nd or 3rd camera body. I am doing lot's of timelapses of the night sky now, and while I can point the different 14mm lenses different directions on any given night, I wanted to be able to have one camera that is shooting a tighter view of the ground and Milky Way to give that timelapse a different look.

I wouldn't consider a 24mm f2.8. While it's fast enough in general, as you found out, at night it's a whole other story as we need to shoot fast enough to not have the stars move and yet still let in enough light for a good exposure.

I have narrowed it down to a 24mm lens I want to get. The thing I am looking at now is whether it's a f1.4 or f1.8.

 

[JimFox]

Ok, late to the party because I only did this last night. I got an RF 35 f1.8 macro for reproduction work and thought it might work for night shots. Here is my eval.

1. Too much coma.

2. Not fast enough and too long. I like that the landscapes are larger, but 10 seconds to avoid star streaks requires too high an ISO

I think a 24 f1.4 is what is needed.


View attachment 47798

Wow Ben! Love the image. I know it's not perfect, but that is pretty cool seeing the Milky Way that big!

But I think you have come to the same conclusion I have, that a 35mm just requires too short of a shutter speed.

So I have narrowed it down to the 24mm, and either a f1.4 or a f1.8.

Now all of the f1.4's I have looked at, Nikon, Samyang, Sigma all have really soft corners. I guess I could set up and shoot, with the intention of cropping always to lose the corners? Maybe end up with a field of view similar to a 28mm?

All 3 of the f1.4 lens have their pluses and minuses, without really a clear cut winner between them. But.... Nikon makes a f1.8 24mm that stands up really well in terms of IQ against those 3 lenses. Still the same issue with the corners being soft, but the Mid and Center areas on the f1.8 are much sharper then any of the other 3.

In terms of quality it would seem I would need to be shooting any of the 4 lenses at f2.0 to get nice enough corners, so if that's the case I might as well get the f1.8 Nikon?

Now, f1.4 to f1.8 is a whole stop of light I believe. So that's nothing to sneeze at. But I am just not sure I would shoot the f1.4 lenses at f1.4 at night (unless I was intending to crop.

The Nikon f1.8 is only 1/3rd the cost of the Nikon 24mm f1.4. So a huge cost savings. If I went for the Sigma, then it's pretty close in price, maybe $100 less. Now compared to the Samyang it's like $300 more expensive, but in terms of corner sharpness the Samyang was the worst, and then also the build of the Samyang is the worst.

So that's where I am at in my thinking now. My Chase credit card gets 5% back on Amazon purchases, so I won't be buying one until after April 1st, which ever one I choose.

@Kyle Jones any thoughts with the difference between the f1.4 and an f1.8 as I described them? Would it really be possible to shoot the f1.4 lenses at f1.4 do you think? Would cropping in help with the issues of a f1.4 lens?

 

[Kyle Jones]

There are only rare cases where I am happy shooting one of the wide Astro lenses wide open. They tend to get much better stopping down one stop. But, the faster the lens the faster it will be when stopped down!

The Tamron 35/1.4 is beautiful even wide open. I think it works great at 10s and ISO 3200. The Tamron 15-30/2.8 also works great wide open and has the benefit of being a zoom. But it's only f/2.8

I really want something fast in the 20-24mm range. I have the Samyang and it works well enough. But I always stop it down to f/2 and don't fully trust it. I would take it over the Sigma due to the better coma. And frankly it's not much of an investment. I want to see real reviews of the IRIX 20/1.4. If it performs like they advertise, then it's the one I've been waiting for.

And I still like the Rokinon 14/2.4 more than the Sigma 14/1.8. So there.

 

[JimFox]

There are only rare cases where I am happy shooting one of the wide Astro lenses wide open. They tend to get much better stopping down one stop. But, the faster the lens the faster it will be when stopped down!

The Tamron 35/1.4 is beautiful even wide open. I think it works great at 10s and ISO 3200. The Tamron 15-30/2.8 also works great wide open and has the benefit of being a zoom. But it's only f/2.8

I really want something fast in the 20-24mm range. I have the Samyang and it works well enough. But I always stop it down to f/2 and don't fully trust it. I would take it over the Sigma due to the better coma. And frankly it's not much of an investment. I want to see real reviews of the IRIX 20/1.4. If it performs like they advertise, then it's the one I've been waiting for.

And I still like the Rokinon 14/2.4 more than the Sigma 14/1.8. So there.

Ha ha, you blew all your logic with your last line. If you heard an explosion it was my head blowing up as I read that last line.

I had only paid a passing interest in the Irix lenses when they were first released a few years back, but it seems their 15mm one had lots of issues with decentered lenses? So while I like the idea of that 21mm lens from them, what seems like bad QC on their part would concern me.

How is the focusing on the Samyang 24mm? Is it touchy and easy to get out of focus?