24mm or 35mm?

Ben Egbert

Forum Helper
Staff member
My thoughts on edge quality. I have found that if you use lens correction in Photoshop, the corners are boosted so much to prevent vignetting that you need to turn that feature off and let the vignetting happen. The rest of the image then responds decently to NR correction. I add vignette to the image at the end anyway, so not much loss. That is how I processed the above image.

I will consider any lens between 18 and 24 that is fast enough (f1.4) and has good coma. In the meantime, my 15-35 f2.8 works fine at the wide end with the usual 30 seconds, Iso 3200. I will show the one I did Saturday morning later in the landscape forum.
 

Kyle Jones

Moderator
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?
The Rokinon is smaller, lighter, cheaper and has better coma. The Sigma is faster. I have both, I always grab the Rokinon...

The focus on the Samyang 24 is a little touchy and it does sometimes slip out of focus while shooting. That's part of why I don't fully trust it. I've gotten better with it over time though.

My thoughts on edge quality. I have found that if you use lens correction in Photoshop, the corners are boosted so much to prevent vignetting that you need to turn that feature off and let the vignetting happen. The rest of the image then responds decently to NR correction. I add vignette to the image at the end anyway, so not much loss. That is how I processed the above image.

I will consider any lens between 18 and 24 that is fast enough (f1.4) and has good coma. In the meantime, my 15-35 f2.8 works fine at the wide end with the usual 30 seconds, Iso 3200. I will show the one I did Saturday morning later in the landscape forum.
I'm with you Ben. I'll run distortion correction but don't run the vignette correction. It pushes too hard and a vignette looks good anyway. That's also part of why I usually stop down. A lot of the vignette goes away.

That RF 15-35 is a good performer.
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
The Rokinon is smaller, lighter, cheaper and has better coma. The Sigma is faster. I have both, I always grab the Rokinon...

The focus on the Samyang 24 is a little touchy and it does sometimes slip out of focus while shooting. That's part of why I don't fully trust it. I've gotten better with it over time though.



I'm with you Ben. I'll run distortion correction but don't run the vignette correction. It pushes too hard and a vignette looks good anyway. That's also part of why I usually stop down. A lot of the vignette goes away.

That RF 15-35 is a good performer.
I have never had a f1.4 lens, so what's the difference in terms of light between a 1.4 and a 1.8? Would it allow the ISO to drop from 6400 to 3200? Or 3200 to 1600?

But then you did say you don't shoot it at f1.4 anyway, but I imagine you tried it at f1.4?

My thing with the Samyang is from reading a bunch of reviews on the Nikon 24mm f1.8 it is a lot sharper then the Samyang 24mm f1.4. So I am heavily leaning towards the Nikon 24mm f1.8. But... I am still totally open to another lens,
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
My thoughts on edge quality. I have found that if you use lens correction in Photoshop, the corners are boosted so much to prevent vignetting that you need to turn that feature off and let the vignetting happen. The rest of the image then responds decently to NR correction. I add vignette to the image at the end anyway, so not much loss. That is how I processed the above image.

I will consider any lens between 18 and 24 that is fast enough (f1.4) and has good coma. In the meantime, my 15-35 f2.8 works fine at the wide end with the usual 30 seconds, Iso 3200. I will show the one I did Saturday morning later in the landscape forum.
What are you referring to in terms of edge quality?

I never ever use the Lens Correction tool in Photoshop. So that's not an issue for me.

And in ACR, you can adjust the vignette separately. I always go -45 on the vignette on my 14mm lenses in ACR. I do it there, because I never liked losing so much of the image from the Lens Correction tool. I wanted to be in total control of when I lose edges.
 

Ben Egbert

Forum Helper
Staff member
I mean edges and corners. Most of my lenses are good wide open at the edges (acceptable) but soft in the corners and have vignetting.
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
How did you correct for the softness? Or did you just leave it there? You mentioned adding vignetting back in, was that to help cover up the corner softness?
 

Ben Egbert

Forum Helper
Staff member
I do some sharpening and that covers my needs. but I don't care about the corners so much. I need the vignetting for the sky, I sometimes fade the lower corners a bit..
 

Kyle Jones

Moderator
I have never had a f1.4 lens, so what's the difference in terms of light between a 1.4 and a 1.8? Would it allow the ISO to drop from 6400 to 3200? Or 3200 to 1600?

But then you did say you don't shoot it at f1.4 anyway, but I imagine you tried it at f1.4?

My thing with the Samyang is from reading a bunch of reviews on the Nikon 24mm f1.8 it is a lot sharper then the Samyang 24mm f1.4. So I am heavily leaning towards the Nikon 24mm f1.8. But... I am still totally open to another lens,
I've never really researched the Nikon lenses since I don't shoot Nikon. The one lens I'd want that I can't use is the Sony 24mm. Oh well.

1.4 to 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop. You can save quite a bit of ISO with that. Unfortunately with a lot of fast wide lenses, it seems like that last stop is only in the middle of the frame. The vignetting just gets worse in the corners.

I've never shot the Samyang 24 at 1.4. From everything I've seen, stopping down to f/2 improves sharpness and vignetting a lot. So I do that. I do want a lens in that range I can shoot wide open. So if the Nikon is good at 1.8 then I'd say go for it.

But nothing is free. From the reviews I've seen, it doesn't handle coma that well. https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24mm-f1-8g/2
 

Jameel Hyder

Moderator
Staff member
For my Rokinon 24/1.4, I have taped the focus ring for infinity (it is not at the infinity mark). I only use it for night. And yes stopping down to f2.0 is necessary.

The big lens makers (Canon, Nikon, Sigma, ...) have not prioritized coma and their lenses do well with other usage. Their distortion correction is much better (Rokinon/Samyang has significant distortion but doesn't matter with MW).
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
I've never really researched the Nikon lenses since I don't shoot Nikon. The one lens I'd want that I can't use is the Sony 24mm. Oh well.

1.4 to 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop. You can save quite a bit of ISO with that. Unfortunately with a lot of fast wide lenses, it seems like that last stop is only in the middle of the frame. The vignetting just gets worse in the corners.

I've never shot the Samyang 24 at 1.4. From everything I've seen, stopping down to f/2 improves sharpness and vignetting a lot. So I do that. I do want a lens in that range I can shoot wide open. So if the Nikon is good at 1.8 then I'd say go for it.

But nothing is free. From the reviews I've seen, it doesn't handle coma that well. https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24mm-f1-8g/2
Thanks Kyle, I had read that review but somehow had skipped over the page saying it had Coma issues, though the reviewer also stated that all of those 24mm lenses have it. So maybe it's not a big deal.

The one thing I have been seeing is there seems to not be any perfect fast 24mm. Each one has it's own issues it seems.
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
For my Rokinon 24/1.4, I have taped the focus ring for infinity (it is not at the infinity mark). I only use it for night. And yes stopping down to f2.0 is necessary.

The big lens makers (Canon, Nikon, Sigma, ...) have not prioritized coma and their lenses do well with other usage. Their distortion correction is much better (Rokinon/Samyang has significant distortion but doesn't matter with MW).
Thanks Jameel. How is the Coma on the Rokinon? Is it noticeable?
 

Kyle Jones

Moderator
I shared an image from the Rokinon earlier in this thread... But you're right, none of the choices are really perfect. Except maybe the Sony (and I can't use that one)
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
I just had this thought.... I would probably using the 24mm on D810 which is 36mp. I could instead just use a 14mm on it and run it in DX mode which turns the effective field of view to that of a 21mm lens... It's then the equivilent of around 16 or 18mp. Which isn't bad. 24mp is kind of the low standard these days, but it's close...

It also has a 1.2 crop mode which results in a 25mp image... that could cut off the corners enough that the worst parts of any of the 24mm lenses would be gone.
 

Bob

Well-Known Member
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.
Jim,
If your down to a 1.4 vs 1.8 I don't think it matters a whole hell of a lot which one to select. Having said that I would select based on price. Just my thoughts.
Bob

PS I still prefer the wider angle lens. I really like the 14mm. I even consider a 12mm but I suspect comma is really bad on that wide of a lens.
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
Jim,
If your down to a 1.4 vs 1.8 I don't think it matters a whole hell of a lot which one to select. Having said that I would select based on price. Just my thoughts.
Bob

PS I still prefer the wider angle lens. I really like the 14mm. I even consider a 12mm but I suspect comma is really bad on that wide of a lens.
Thanks Bob on your thoughts between f1.4 and 1.8.

I totally agree with you that I prefer the wider lens, the 14mm Sigma is my go to Milky Way lens and I would be lost without it. For Nikon, I don’t know if any wider option, but if there was an 11 or 12mm fast lens, I would jump on it.

The 24mm would only be as an alternative lens. I already use 3 cameras with 2 of them being 14mm at night. The 24mm or 35mm wouldn’t be to replace a 14mm, but to add an alternative composition since I am doing so many Milky Way Timelapses for my YouTube channel. I just want something to mix it up. And as Kyle has shown, it’s nice sometimes to have a tighter view of the Milky Way.

Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob

Kyle Jones

Moderator
I just came across a review of the IRIX 21/1.4. Looks like coma isn't great wide open so it doesn't appear to be the lens I have been looking for.

 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
Wow Kyle, thanks for that link. I guess I won’t hold out for that. For now I picked up a Samyang 14mm f2.8 Mk2. I like the focus locking ring on it. It’s too bad it took me 3 copies before I found a good one. So even though it’s a newer version of their 14mm their QA hasn’t improved.
 
Top Bottom