Reading mode: Light Dark

wide angle lens for astrophotography

Go to last post
M

mpe

Leading Member
Messages
506
Solutions
1
Reaction score
186
Location
UK
Please recommend a wide angle (14-35 mm) lens for astrophotography. It should have as flat field as possible, low coma and astigmatism.

I currently use Nikkor 24-70 2.8G and find it pretty bad at FX corner at 24mm due to astigmatism and aberration (see the attached pictures). My second lens is venerable Zenitar fisheye 16/2.8, but it also needs to be stopped down to get acceptable results (strong coma).

My candidates are
  • Nikkor 14-24/2.8G
  • Nikkor 24/1.4G
  • Nikkor 20-35/2.8D
  • Nikkor 20/2.8D
  • Nikkor 14/2.8D






 
mpe said:
Please recommend a wide angle (14-35 mm) lens for astrophotography. It should have as flat field as possible, low coma and astigmatism.
Click to expand...
Of course, those are conflicting requirements. Wide-angle lenses are notorious for field curvature and corner coma/astigmatism.
mpe said:
My candidates are
  • Nikkor 14-24/2.8G
  • Nikkor 24/1.4G
  • Nikkor 20-35/2.8D
  • Nikkor 20/2.8D
  • Nikkor 14/2.8D
Click to expand...
You can immediately cross the 14/2.8D and 20/2.8D off your list. I've used both; the 14mm has extreme field curvature (which is actually useful in some situations, if you have, for example, nearby terrestrial objects in the periphery of your astrophotos which you would like to have in-focus), and the 20mm has serious corner astigmatism and CA even on a DX camera. I no longer own either of those lenses.

The 14-24 is surprisingly good across the field, but since I do not have a 24/1.4 for comparison, I will stop short of recommending which of those two would be superior for your application.
 
I'm thinking of buying an wide angle lens also for astrophotography, but has to be a prime. I've been using my 35mm and 50mm primes but sometimes I need a wider lens, and when I tried my Sigma 17-70mm and pointed the camera upwards (and not necessarily vertically), the lens creeps easily and ruins the shot. The 17-70mm is very nice regarding coma and other CAs though.

I'll probably add the Nikkor 20mm or 24mm to my kit but I'm not sure yet how good they are optically for that purpose.

Jose Rocha

http://olhares.aeiou.pt/jplacebo
 
Zoom creep is not an issue for Nikon's professional lenses. However, I think it can be easily solved by using a piece of electrical tape for night shooting.

Anyway. Thank you for your advices. I think I will be deciding between 14-24/2.8G and 24/1.4G. I am inclined to the zoom as I could imagine much more use for it also in day photography than the prime. The 24/1.4G is also noticeably more expensive.

I've found a coma/astigmatism test of 14-24/2.8G (in polish)

http://www.optyczne.pl/103.7-Test_obiektywu-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_14-24_mm_f_2.8G_ED_Koma_i_astygmatyzm.html

According to that there is still some coma, but nothing bad.

Do you know about similar review of 24/1.4G?
 
--You must be a brand snob or something since you are prefering a Nikon zoom with all definciency's you are looking to avoid and not even considering other brand that maybe a out flat better lens. New Tokina is a optical marvel with distorion levels that are 3-4X better than Nikon and rest of optics as good or better than Nikon. There are no full tests yet of it so you may like to wait but take a look at first reports. Its a ground braking lowest distortion lenses zoom in that range ever made by any lens maker.
Mironv
http://mironv.smugmug.com/
 
mironv said:
--You must be a brand snob or something since you are prefering a Nikon zoom with all definciency's you are looking to avoid and not even considering other brand that maybe a out flat better lens. New Tokina is a optical marvel with distorion levels that are 3-4X better than Nikon and rest of optics as good or better than Nikon. There are no full tests yet of it so you may like to wait but take a look at first reports. Its a ground braking lowest distortion lenses zoom in that range ever made by any lens maker.
Click to expand...
For astrophotography I couldn't care less about distortion. Not even the absolute sharpness impress me. What I need is low coma and astigmatism, low field curvature and preferably also low chromatic aberration.

A couple of years ago I had Tokina 11-16/2.8 (on DX camera) and borrowed also their 12-24/4. I was never happy with its corner performance and coma. It had to be stopped down significantly to show acceptable results. Perhaps for landscapes these lenses are fine.

I would be surprised if Tokina 16-28/2.8 would be better than Nikon's 14-24/2.8. But I would be the first buyer if it was.
 
mpe,

Why not consider 35.4G it is designed for astro purpose:

Link to sample from Nikon's site

 
mironv said:
New Tokina is a optical marvel with distorion levels that are 3-4X better than Nikon and rest of optics as good or better than Nikon. There are no full tests yet of it . . .
Click to expand...
Most of us would wait for those "full tests" before making such spectacular statements.
 
mironv said:
New Tokina is a optical marvel with distortion levels that are 3-4X better than Nikon and rest of optics as good or better than Nikon. There are no full tests yet of it . . .
Click to expand...
mironv is notorious at coming up with an inferior third party lens when somebody ask for a lens. The reason for this can just be guessed about.
 
Bob GB said:
mironv said:
New Tokina is a optical marvel with distortion levels that are 3-4X better than Nikon and rest of optics as good or better than Nikon. There are no full tests yet of it . . .
Click to expand...
mironv is notorious at coming up with an inferior third party lens when somebody ask for a lens. The reason for this can just be guessed about.
Click to expand...
--Inferior is a last batch of nikon lenses with distortion level OK for 1992 at most not 2010. 16-35VR 16-85VR is a joke. 14-24 pushes other optical aspects well so I will let it slide on distortion. 24-120 is just so so. Just wait and see.
Mironv
http://mironv.smugmug.com/
 
Hi!

I've never done formal astrophotography, so I'll pose this as a question:

How is the 28 1.4?

I could only find one picture of mine using the 28 1.4 for stars, and it was taken on a rickety tripod at f/1.6. Some of the fainter stars seem pretty good, but the brighter objects have "problems".

Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
10s f/1.6 at 28.0mm iso3200



Best Regards,

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
 
I've had good experiences with 2:

14-24 is phenominal - even at 14mm wide open at the corner of full frame there is no coma - star images are points.

25mm/f2.8 Zeiss. At extreme corners of full frame wide open there is some coma, but only at the extremes.

--
-Kent

Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.kentjoostenphotography.smugmug.com
 
RBFresno said:
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
10s f/1.6 at 28.0mm iso3200
Click to expand...
Could you please post 100% crop from the corner of you photo.
 
mironv said:
--Inferior is a last batch of nikon lenses with distortion level OK for 1992 at most not 2010. 16-35VR 16-85VR is a joke. 14-24 pushes other optical aspects well so I will let it slide on distortion. 24-120 is just so so. Just wait and see.
Mironv
http://mironv.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
I think in contemporary optics designers have always to do a trade off between corner sharpness (field curvature) and geometrical distortion.

In fact the lens design is full of trade offs. Want wide angle with sharp corner - sacrifice distortion. Want both - increase number the elements (sacrifices contrast, size, weight and cost).

There is nothing like free beer.
 
mironv said:
mironv said:
16-35VR 16-85VR is a joke.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Also OT, I wouldn’t be this harsh re 16-85 distortion. Nothing close to jokes assuming comparisons, actually not bad and practically no need to worry in most applications (field curvature would sound different) shooting raw. Then you obviously mean 16-35 on fx or else you got less than half of distortion compared to not bad 16-85 which is a remarkable.

The said Tokina looks very interesting and ‘her’ gun is loaded heavily. I was thinking in this direction as well but choice is too obvious for me. Tokina has no difficulties to outgun Nikon in general.

My impression is OP needs practically attested tool of specialized property at specialized task and in that quest doesn’t really care about brands but the achievement.

Hynek

--



http://www.sunwaysite.com
 
I have used Nikon 14-24 for 30 sec f2.8 tripod shots, and I have been impressed by the results. I have also used 24-70 2.8 and been impressed with it as well. If you have lightroom you can use lens profiles to correct 'distortion'.

Compared to shooting this type of photo in film days w/ 35/1.4 AI and 20/2.8 AIS the results are much better. Those lenses were pretty much unusable wide open, stars in the corners and edges looked like the proverbial sea gulls.

Here is an example from D700 14-24 30 sec @ 2.8 from fixed tripod, slight star trailing exists. I have been pondering the purchase of an AstroTrac to allow longer exposures. Photo taken in Sierras looking down on Sacramento Valley.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PHXAZCRAIG
You have a 14-24 F2.8 - do you need wide primes?
2
Replies
24
Views
690
Michael Benveniste
Michael Benveniste
M
The ultra wide angle dilemma
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
851
Mephistopheles26
M
H
24-120s bad corners at wide angles
2 3
Replies
40
Views
628
Hayden N
H
S
Mimicing a wide angle with a standard zoom pano vs. wide angle lens?
Replies
11
Views
636
Hilifer
Hilifer
F
Asking for suggestions for wide angle DX lens
Replies
14
Views
866
Kenster63
Kenster63

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top