Reading mode: Light Dark

Wide angle lens for FF - landscapes vs. astrophoto, northern lights

Go to last post
M

MrMichal

New member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I am struggling a bit with choosing new lens. Main focus should be on landscape photography, where f/4 lenses should do the job just fine. However from time to time I wanna be able to take some Astro shots or Northern lights and in those moments f/2.8 would be definitely better.

I have couple of options and would like to hear what you consider better.

1) TAMRON 15-30 mm f/2,8 SP Di VC USD G2 - cheapest option, but no possibility to attach filters without special holder

2) SIGMA 14-24 mm f/2,8 DG HSM Art - wider angle, supposed to be be very sharp, but more expensive than TAMRON and the same problem with filters

3) CANON EF 16-35 mm f/2,8 L III USM - expensive, reportedly strong vignetting

OR combination of

4) CANON EF 16-35 mm f/4 L IS USM + SAMYANG 14 mm f/2,8 ED AS IF UMC - price still ok, easy with filters but 2 lenses in a bag

I am planning to buy filter systems from LEE or NISI anyway, which would in the end mean only to buy extra holder for first two options, but i am still not sure how difficult is it to take care of "curvy front element" without attached UV filter. Is it complicated to keep it clean in rough conditions?

I can find many reviews of each lens individually - they all seem to be very good (for my needs), but somehow I got stuck in this circle between price, practicality (1 lens vs. 2) and filter related issues

So my question is, what would you do and why? :)

Thank you a lot.

M.
 
Sounds like you are shooting Canon. What body? FF or crop. This info would be helpful for those replying to your request.
 
Skip the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and go straight to the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP premium lens.

I tried Irix 15mm (Firefly & Blackstone) - all 3 copies were flawed, Samyang 14mm f2.8 - just woeful, Sigma 14mm f1.8 - nice but big, heavy and expensive, and found the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP to be the best compromise of IQ, build quality, size/weight and cost.

I also have a 24-105L ii (and now EF 35mm f2 IS) so I just wanted something UWA and fast enough for nightscapes, and the Samyang fills that gap for me.

Colin
 
MrMichal said:
Hey guys,

I am struggling a bit with choosing new lens. Main focus should be on landscape photography, where f/4 lenses should do the job just fine. However from time to time I wanna be able to take some Astro shots or Northern lights and in those moments f/2.8 would be definitely better.

I have couple of options and would like to hear what you consider better.

1) TAMRON 15-30 mm f/2,8 SP Di VC USD G2 - cheapest option, but no possibility to attach filters without special holder

2) SIGMA 14-24 mm f/2,8 DG HSM Art - wider angle, supposed to be be very sharp, but more expensive than TAMRON and the same problem with filters

3) CANON EF 16-35 mm f/2,8 L III USM - expensive, reportedly strong vignetting

OR combination of

4) CANON EF 16-35 mm f/4 L IS USM + SAMYANG 14 mm f/2,8 ED AS IF UMC - price still ok, easy with filters but 2 lenses in a bag

I am planning to buy filter systems from LEE or NISI anyway, which would in the end mean only to buy extra holder for first two options, but i am still not sure how difficult is it to take care of "curvy front element" without attached UV filter. Is it complicated to keep it clean in rough conditions?

I can find many reviews of each lens individually - they all seem to be very good (for my needs), but somehow I got stuck in this circle between price, practicality (1 lens vs. 2) and filter related issues

So my question is, what would you do and why? :)

Thank you a lot.

M.
Click to expand...
I was in a similar position as you and ended up with the relatively new Tamron 17-35. It is a variable apature f2.8-f4 and pretty small and light. So far I am extremly pleased with its performance. The focus ring does turn however when it is focusing which could be a deal breaker for some. It also hast strong vignetting wide open but this is pretty common for UWA
 
Tom59 said:
Sounds like you are shooting Canon. What body? FF or crop. This info would be helpful for those replying to your request.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have put it in the body of my text, to highlight it, but I put that "FF" info into headline. And yes, the idea is to put it on Canon. If money allows preferably on 5D Mark IV
 
Andy01 said:
Skip the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and go straight to the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP premium lens.

I tried Irix 15mm (Firefly & Blackstone) - all 3 copies were flawed, Samyang 14mm f2.8 - just woeful, Sigma 14mm f1.8 - nice but big, heavy and expensive, and found the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP to be the best compromise of IQ, build quality, size/weight and cost.

I also have a 24-105L ii (and now EF 35mm f2 IS) so I just wanted something UWA and fast enough for nightscapes, and the Samyang fills that gap for me.

Colin
Click to expand...
As much as I d love to, i am a bit afraid i am getting on edge with budget. Samyang 14, f/2.8 is approximately 2.5x cheaper. I understand f/2.4 is faster lens, but is there a significant difference in IQ?
 
MrMichal said:
  1. MrMichal wrote:
Tom59 said:
Sounds like you are shooting Canon. What body? FF or crop. This info would be helpful for those replying to your request.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have put it in the body of my text, to highlight it, but I put that "FF" info into headline. And yes, the idea is to put it on Canon. If money allows preferably on 5D Mark IV
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw that after I posted! Dumb azz me! Was going to suggest the Tokina 11 20 if it was crop but moot point now. Sorry.
 
previously I mostly used canon 14 II. but I sold that lens when I upgraded 16-34 F4 to 16-35L III which I then used the III for a couple of years. yes it has pretty strong vignetting but it can mostly be corrected in post.

last month for the new moon I rented the sigma 14 f1.8 and I have to say it ruined me for anything slower. files are much easier to edit with greater detail when you get the proper exposure at a low ISO. I loved the sigma so much I just picked up a mint copy on ebay and i'm headed for dark skies this weekend. I also missed the 14mm focal length for landscapes.

and while I love my 16-35L III i'm toying with the idea of selling it and getting the f4 IS again. to me IQ is "identical" and I really would prefer a lighter, cheaper lens with IS now that I've got what I consider the best MW lens for canon.



--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/
 

Attachments

  • 3961944.jpg
    3961944.jpg
    151.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
you need to read many reviews. the Samyang f2.8 will probably be fine based on your experience and expectations. you can always upgrade later.
 
the Tamron 17-35 has the softest corners I have ever seen on any FF lens. don't you turn AF off when shooting astro?
 
I've wrestled with this too, and came to the conclusion that an f/2.8 lens is not the answer. It's far better to go for two lenses - the 16-35/4L IS, and with the money saved vs the 16-35/2.8 III, buy a fast prime. For general use the relatively small, light and affordable f/4 lens is ideal, and when you need a fast lens f/2.8 is not fast enough.

I'm only half way through doing that - I have the 16-35, but not yet the prime. To be honest I've been dragging my heels on that because I'm not sure I would be happy with the cheaper options such as the Samyang, and the lens I really want, the Sigma 14/1.8, is expensive and rather specialist. Also there is now another complication - the RF mount. In theory a fast ultrawide lens designed for mirrorless should be optically better and probably smaller too - it could even cost less. If such a lens exists by sometime next year, along with the expected high res EOS R body, that could be the killer combination. I'm reluctant to spend serious money on a high price fast prime today if I can get something much better by being patient. The wait could be a long one, but in the meantime the 16-35/4L IS covers most of my needs superbly well.
 
that all makes sense but a couple of things. if you've ever shot MW with an f2.8 lens you will be floored by the sigma 14, which is also a great lowlight and landscape lens. of course it's huge and expensive.

I paid $1100 for my mint copy which also came with dock. I figure I got 10% off because I again had the sigma scheduled to rent for the upcoming new moon -- about $120 for a week -- and now I don't need it. I rented the sigma last month and I got the best results ever and I knew I had to have the lens, and I also knew I could never shoot MW at F2.8 again. I can easily recoup most if not all of my money on this lens in the future should a better (RF) option become available.

--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/
 
Last edited:
MrMichal said:
Andy01 said:
Skip the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and go straight to the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP premium lens.

I tried Irix 15mm (Firefly & Blackstone) - all 3 copies were flawed, Samyang 14mm f2.8 - just woeful, Sigma 14mm f1.8 - nice but big, heavy and expensive, and found the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP to be the best compromise of IQ, build quality, size/weight and cost.

I also have a 24-105L ii (and now EF 35mm f2 IS) so I just wanted something UWA and fast enough for nightscapes, and the Samyang fills that gap for me.

Colin
Click to expand...
As much as I d love to, i am a bit afraid i am getting on edge with budget. Samyang 14, f/2.8 is approximately 2.5x cheaper. I understand f/2.4 is faster lens, but is there a significant difference in IQ?
Click to expand...
There is if you're planning to have buildings in your pictures. The f/2.8 Samyang has the strongest moustache distortion I've ever seen. I tried one on a full-frame camera in a shop and it made me feel queasy. The f/2.4 is supposed to have quite plain barrel distortion which is quite easily to straighten out. It's twice the price but definitely better made and better value for money.
 
MrMichal said:
Andy01 said:
Skip the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and go straight to the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP premium lens.

I tried Irix 15mm (Firefly & Blackstone) - all 3 copies were flawed, Samyang 14mm f2.8 - just woeful, Sigma 14mm f1.8 - nice but big, heavy and expensive, and found the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP to be the best compromise of IQ, build quality, size/weight and cost.

I also have a 24-105L ii (and now EF 35mm f2 IS) so I just wanted something UWA and fast enough for nightscapes, and the Samyang fills that gap for me.

Colin
Click to expand...
As much as I d love to, i am a bit afraid i am getting on edge with budget. Samyang 14, f/2.8 is approximately 2.5x cheaper. I understand f/2.4 is faster lens, but is there a significant difference in IQ?
Click to expand...
In addition to the comments above about the f2.8 lens' awful distortion pattern (which is OK for astro, but problematic for daytime landscape shooting), the major problem with the older cheaper lens (f2.8) is that the QC reputation is just awful.

Many people do end up with an acceptable lens, but may try 3-4 copies before getting one worth keeping. Common issues are bad decentreing and inaccurate infinity focus (the same issues that I encountered with the Irix lenses). It is a real lottery. There is also many reports of the lenses deteriorating relatively quickly - IQ etc dropping off over a few years due to (much faster than normal) wear and tear.

My f2.4 XP was the first lens copy I tried and it was fine - noticeably sharper in daylight shooting (I took my 6D ii to a local shop and spent time trying and shooting with every UWA they had), a completely "normal" (and easy to correct) distortion pattern which was much less obvious uncorrected than the f2.8. The build quality is much better (as it should be given the price difference), metal barrel etc. The focus ring is nice an smooth. It also communicates fully with a Canon body, aperture adjusted from the body, and full exif reported, unlike many of the f2.8 lenses.

IMO it was VERY nearly as good as the Sigma 14mm f1.8 Art in IQ, and much smaller, lighter and cheaper - obviously MF not AF.

Personally I do think that it is in a completely different league to the f2.8 and worth the extra money, especially if you are planning to use it for daytime landscape shooting. I think that the f2.8 is probably OK if;
  • you are mostly wanting an "after dark" lens.
  • you can buy it from a seller with a great no-cost returns policy (you will probably return a couple at least).
  • it is going to be a fairly infrequently used lens.
  • budget is extremely tight.
If, however, you plan to use it frequently, and regularly during the day, and/or the returns policy is not great, and you can swing the extra dollars (if you are considering a 5D iv, you are not excessively budget constrained), then the f2.4 lens is a far better option.

Colin
 
Last edited:
ed rader said:
the Tamron 17-35 has the softest corners I have ever seen on any FF lens. don't you turn AF off when shooting astro?
Click to expand...
Yes of course I use MF for Astro but the OP said he wanted to do more than astro. Have you looked at the sample gallery here? I find them plenty sharp but maybe I am just not as picky as you are.
 
Tmjc said:
ed rader said:
the Tamron 17-35 has the softest corners I have ever seen on any FF lens. don't you turn AF off when shooting astro?
Click to expand...
Yes of course I use MF for Astro but the OP said he wanted to do more than astro. Have you looked at the sample gallery here? I find them plenty sharp but maybe I am just not as picky as you are.
Click to expand...
I owned the lens waaay back in the day when it was considered a gem. it was my WA for my 20d and a f2.8 alternative to the 17-40L before there were and efs alternatives other than the original 18-55. later when I got the 5d I again purchased the 17-35 and that's when I saw how poor it was on FF. like I said worst I have ever seen even stopped down.

i'm particular but that lens is terrible on FF and there are now many better choices for cropped sensors.
 
a07f5ce52d69456b83b91f54ac77aaed.jpg

c359e06cb66344f3938f875b74055800.jpg

Go with the 16-35 f/2.8L III, you will not be disappointed, it is a great performer and IMO great value for money. I had the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 and it was actually very good optically except for the moustache distortion already mentioned.

I ended up selling it because it is manual focus only and in my case, I wasn’t using it at all except for rare occasions when I wanted to. It is pretty much limited to Astro photography in my mind.

I provided two samples for you to look at, the second photo I accidentally bumped the focus off slightly, so the stars won’t look completely in focus but for northern lights, sometimes you can get away with that if that’s your focal point.

--
I just got in to photography and I love the artistic and technical aspect of it.
 
Last edited:
ed rader said:
Tmjc said:
ed rader said:
the Tamron 17-35 has the softest corners I have ever seen on any FF lens. don't you turn AF off when shooting astro?
Click to expand...
Yes of course I use MF for Astro but the OP said he wanted to do more than astro. Have you looked at the sample gallery here? I find them plenty sharp but maybe I am just not as picky as you are.
Click to expand...
I owned the lens waaay back in the day when it was considered a gem. it was my WA for my 20d and a f2.8 alternative to the 17-40L before there were and efs alternatives other than the original 18-55. later when I got the 5d I again purchased the 17-35 and that's when I saw how poor it was on FF. like I said worst I have ever seen even stopped down.

i'm particular but that lens is terrible on FF and there are now many better choices for cropped sensors.
Click to expand...
 
ed rader said:
of course the sigma has about a 1 stop advantage and that is a huge for astro.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

I just could not justify the extra spend (about 50-60% premium over Samyang f2.4, which was already a 60% premium over the Irix 15mm Firefly I bought and had to return), and the extra weight and size (I was traveling to New Zealand's South Island's dark sky reserve and didn't want something that almost rivalled my 100-400L ii for size & weight) - all for my relatively occasional use - I also have a 24-105L ii and M5 +11-22mm, so general WA landscapes were reasonably well covered with zooms.

Colin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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