Looking for a new Nightscape lens for a Canon EOS R

I am having my EOS R modified so I can finally try that type of camera for nightscape work.

I realised I only have a Sigma Art 14mm F1.4 lens for it plus the 24-105mm F4 RF mount lens.

I have several for the Sony E mount but there is no adapter between Canon RF and Sony E mount.

These are the lenses I am considering:

Sigma Art 28mm F1.4 Canon EF mount.

Sigma Art 24-70mm F2.8 EF mount.

Sigma Art 105mm F1.4 EF mount.

The 105mm lens is spectacular but perhaps a little limited in usage. More of a super wide deep sky imager but an amazing lens.

I believe the 28 1.4 is very good for astro with very little star distortion in the corners and it may make good nightscape lens. 28mm is a nice compromise between aperture and field of view.

The 24-70 gets good reviews for normal usage, I don't know how it is for nightscapes. Anyone using one?

F2.8 is a bit slow but then most F1.4 lenses need to be stopped down anyway so if its OK at F2.8 its not really a problem plus I use a tracker (Fornax Lighttrack ii).

There is a 21mm F1.8 Art. Not sure how good that is but its a good focal length for me.

I am not really that interested in using 50mm 1.4 lenses and doing lots of mosaic work but I could I suppose if its really superior.

Greg.

Hi!

I think that you have nearly all of the usual suspects

Sigma A 14/1.8: A little bit wide and dark, but the best UWA for astro.

Samyang XP 14/2.4: You already have a better 14mm lens. The Samyang is lighter, cheaper and inferior to the Sigma, but still a good astro lens.

Sigma A 21/1.4: I don`t have it because of several bad astro reviews (coma). Check lenstip.com reviews for details. Very useful page for lens comparisons.

Zeiss Distagon 25/2: Is still my standard lens for polar light panoramas. A little bit of coma but only in the extreme corners. Not sure if it is still in production.

Sigma A 28/1.4: Good reviews for astro (low coma) , see lenstip. I will test it once i get it.

Sigma A 35/1.4: Based on whar I read it`s a good astro lens.

Canon 35/1.4 II: My standard lens for milky-way panos. Probably the best 35mm astro lens on the market.

Sigma A 40/1.4: Very good astro reviews (no coma), but heavy and $$$$. OK, not your taste ...

Sigma A 105/1.4: That`s not a lens, that`s a beast! Very nice, very heavy, very $$$$, very low coma. But you need a heavy tracker for it (e.g. Light Track) which you already have. The angle of view is small ...

I assume that you are aware of the good lens info from Clark (https://clarkvision.com/articles/ch...-and-lenses-for-nightscape-astro-photography/ ).

Thanks for that very helpful reply. I am leaning towards the Sigma Art 28mm F1.4.

I have an Art 35 1.4 but I got it in Sony emount which was a mistake as I have both Canon and Sony and a Canon lens works on both but not vice versa.

The 105 1.4 is on my radar but probably next Milky Way season as I also have a Redcat 51, a Pentax 300mm 645 F4 EDIF, and I can always use the 24-105 F4 RF lens in a pinch, just expose longer. Its quite a good lens.

I'll check out the Canon 35mmF1.4 ii L.

Greg.

Astrophotographer 10 said:

Thanks for that very helpful reply. I am leaning towards the Sigma Art 28mm F1.4.

I have an Art 35 1.4 but I got it in Sony emount which was a mistake as I have both Canon and Sony and a Canon lens works on both but not vice versa.

The 105 1.4 is on my radar but probably next Milky Way season as I also have a Redcat 51, a Pentax 300mm 645 F4 EDIF, and I can always use the 24-105 F4 RF lens in a pinch, just expose longer. Its quite a good lens.

I'll check out the Canon 35mmF1.4 ii L.

Greg.

Click to expand...

What about the tamron 35 f/1,4 which is considered as spectacular as the canon ?

Lastest thought, is your sigma able to be converted between mounts, by sigma ?

Hi!

My list of good astro lenses is of course not complete.

The Tamron 35/1.4 is looking pretty impressive. Coma, vignette and weight are very similar to the Canon 35/1.4 II but with a much lower price tag

Based on the rumor Canon is building on a serie of f/1.2 RF prime lenses (e.g. 24/1.4) but if and when they will ever become available and if they will be good astro lenses ....?

As mentioned above the Sigma A 40/1.4 is probably the best astro lens in the normal- and wide-angle domain. It was described as ‘show of force’ from Sigma and is a ‘converted’ lens from the cine line.

There is a lack of a very good astro lens in the 20-25mm range for Canon. The Sony 24/1.4 should be good, but it’s only a Sony ;-) So for the moment the Sigma A 28/1.4 is probably the best available lens next to this interesting focal range (for astro landscape).

Lots of choice.

Recently I got the Sigma ART 24mm 1.4 and it is excellent and razor sharp. Well worth its price.

If you need more FOV, the Samyang 14 is a good option (AF is not needed), not as good as the more expensive Sigma ART 14mm, but still decent.

But these rectlinear very wide angles have the problem that constellations are very distorted in the corners.

'Fishing' these photos makes a more natural look. That can be achieved by 'Filter' => 'Adaptive wide angle' in Photoshop.


Taken in twilight, with Sigma ART 24mm

Here an example which I made last year with the Samyang 14mm from a garden with lots of trees....


18x15 sec stacked. Note Jupiter above the 'pipe' of the Pipe nebula.


Same picture 'fished' looks like an old television screen.

--
Ricoh KR-5 ... Pentax ME Super ... Canon T90 ... ... ... 40d ... 7d ... 6d

Like many of us you shoot a variety of astro images. I've stopped thinking about picking single lenses & instead look at my suite & how they work for both day & night imaging. I want focal lengths that vary by 2x so there's no overlap & it also means there is a noticeable 4x difference in aperture size at the same f ratio.

In Fuji land, that got me to 12-23-50-90mm.

Just a thought,

Oh yes Sigma does have a conversion service. Good tip. I'll chase that up.

The Sigma Art 35 1.4 though is largely a disappointment as its pretty bad in the corners wide open.

I'll look into the Tamron 35 1.4.

Greg.

nighthiker said:

Hi!

My list of good astro lenses is of course not complete.

The Tamron 35/1.4 is looking pretty impressive. Coma, vignette and weight are very similar to the Canon 35/1.4 II but with a much lower price tag

Based on the rumor Canon is building on a serie of f/1.2 RF prime lenses (e.g. 24/1.4) but if and when they will ever become available and if they will be good astro lenses ....?

As mentioned above the Sigma A 40/1.4 is probably the best astro lens in the normal- and wide-angle domain. It was described as ‘show of force’ from Sigma and is a ‘converted’ lens from the cine line.

There is a lack of a very good astro lens in the 20-25mm range for Canon. The Sony 24/1.4 should be good, but it’s only a Sony ;-) So for the moment the Sigma A 28/1.4 is probably the best available lens next to this interesting focal range (for astro landscape).

Click to expand...

Yes it seems that way unless I go for a good 24-70 F2.8 zoom and expose a little longer.

Greg.

mermaidkiller said:

Lots of choice.

Recently I got the Sigma ART 24mm 1.4 and it is excellent and razor sharp. Well worth its price.

If you need more FOV, the Samyang 14 is a good option (AF is not needed), not as good as the more expensive Sigma ART 14mm, but still decent.

But these rectlinear very wide angles have the problem that constellations are very distorted in the corners.

'Fishing' these photos makes a more natural look. That can be achieved by 'Filter' => 'Adaptive wide angle' in Photoshop.


Taken in twilight, with Sigma ART 24mm

Here an example which I made last year with the Samyang 14mm from a garden with lots of trees....


18x15 sec stacked. Note Jupiter above the 'pipe' of the Pipe nebula.


Same picture 'fished' looks like an old television screen.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the defishing tip. The 24 looks to be OK and similar to the 35 1.4 Art but there is a fair amount of corner distortion. The 28 per Lenstip examples, shows fairly round corner stars which is rare.

Greg.

tradesmith45 said:

Like many of us you shoot a variety of astro images. I've stopped thinking about picking single lenses & instead look at my suite & how they work for both day & night imaging. I want focal lengths that vary by 2x so there's no overlap & it also means there is a noticeable 4x difference in aperture size at the same f ratio.

In Fuji land, that got me to 12-23-50-90mm.

Just a thought,

Click to expand...

Yes definitely and that is what I currently have for Sony - 14, 21, 35, 55, 85.

But for Canon I currently only have 14mm. So 28, 50, 105 would work for me.I probably wouldn't use the 50mm much so 14, 28, 35 and 105 would do it.

I also have some Pentax 6x7 lenses so a Canon adapter may enable those but not sure if they are in the same performance league as these others.

I have the Pentax 67, 55mm 4.5, 75mm 4.5, 165 2.8 and 300mm f4. I also have the Pentax 645 300mm F4 EDIF which is more like a telescope. Also a Redcat 51 in both Sony and Canon mount.

Greg.

Astrophotographer 10 said:

Thanks for the defishing tip. The 24 looks to be OK and similar to the 35 1.4 Art but there is a fair amount of corner distortion. The 28 per Lenstip examples, shows fairly round corner stars which is rare.

Greg.

Click to expand...

That is just the effect of rectilinear wide angles. Obviously it is much less than 14mm, but still there. You have to enlarge the image a lot to see it actually so I don't care.

Astrophotographer 10 said:

nighthiker said:

Hi!

My list of good astro lenses is of course not complete.

The Tamron 35/1.4 is looking pretty impressive. Coma, vignette and weight are very similar to the Canon 35/1.4 II but with a much lower price tag

Based on the rumor Canon is building on a serie of f/1.2 RF prime lenses (e.g. 24/1.4) but if and when they will ever become available and if they will be good astro lenses ....?

As mentioned above the Sigma A 40/1.4 is probably the best astro lens in the normal- and wide-angle domain. It was described as ‘show of force’ from Sigma and is a ‘converted’ lens from the cine line.

There is a lack of a very good astro lens in the 20-25mm range for Canon. The Sony 24/1.4 should be good, but it’s only a Sony ;-) So for the moment the Sigma A 28/1.4 is probably the best available lens next to this interesting focal range (for astro landscape).

Click to expand...

Yes it seems that way unless I go for a good 24-70 F2.8 zoom and expose a little longer.

Greg.

Click to expand...

f/2.8 would be too slow for me nowadays, even that I use a tracker. And zooms will hardly ever have the same quality as a prime. I see the advantage of a zoom to reduce the load (travel, hiking), budget and number of lenses. OK, I do lot's of polar light panoramas where speed is king. Tracking doesn't really help there.

nighthiker said:

Astrophotographer 10 said:

nighthiker said:

Hi!

My list of good astro lenses is of course not complete.

The Tamron 35/1.4 is looking pretty impressive. Coma, vignette and weight are very similar to the Canon 35/1.4 II but with a much lower price tag

Based on the rumor Canon is building on a serie of f/1.2 RF prime lenses (e.g. 24/1.4) but if and when they will ever become available and if they will be good astro lenses ....?

As mentioned above the Sigma A 40/1.4 is probably the best astro lens in the normal- and wide-angle domain. It was described as ‘show of force’ from Sigma and is a ‘converted’ lens from the cine line.

There is a lack of a very good astro lens in the 20-25mm range for Canon. The Sony 24/1.4 should be good, but it’s only a Sony ;-) So for the moment the Sigma A 28/1.4 is probably the best available lens next to this interesting focal range (for astro landscape).

Click to expand...

Yes it seems that way unless I go for a good 24-70 F2.8 zoom and expose a little longer.

Greg.

Click to expand...

f/2.8 would be too slow for me nowadays, even that I use a tracker. And zooms will hardly ever have the same quality as a prime. I see the advantage of a zoom to reduce the load (travel, hiking), budget and number of lenses. OK, I do lot's of polar light panoramas where speed is king. Tracking doesn't really help there.

Click to expand...

I agree primes usually rule ut some zooms really bridge a large part of the gap. hey almost always F2.8 though.

I find F2.8 fine with the Zeiss Loxia 21. It has virtually no distortion in the corners at F2.8 so it just needs a bit more exposure time.

I just looked up the reviews of the Tamron 35mm F1.4 USD. Wow, its getting amazing reviews and its half the price of the usual F1.4 lenses.

There's been some good suggestions already, I think it depends on what your shooting style is and what your composition is. These days I've found myself gravitating towards the 24 to 28mm range for doing very large full arch milky way panoramas, as we move into a more vertical milky way time of year (for us in the northern hemisphere) I'll switch back to my Sigma Art 40mm and longer focal lengths to do more close-in compositions of the core. I've used countless lenses for Nightscape photography now so I have a fairly good idea of what is really good and what is just...ok.

For wide angle (anything wider than 35mm):

The Sigma Art 28mm is very good, probably the best in the "wider than 35mm" department that I've used, almost no coma, no LoCA, and insanely sharp edge to edge. I used it in Iceland and got very good results.

The new Nikon 24mm f1.8s (I know your Canon, so not helpful), very sharp, almost no coma, LoCA is gone by f2.2.

Sony 24mm GM, same as the Nikon, slightly less sharp.

Sony 20mm f1.8, slightly sharper than the Sony 24mm GM, use it with my Sony A7s for timelapse now.

Honestly the step down from the Art 28mm to "everything else" at focal lengths wider than 35mm is fairly noticeable, at least from my testing and looking at reviews. The Canon options are even less abundant, at least the new Nikon 24mmS is a very good option for Nikons and Sony now has 2 good options with their 24mm GM and 20mm, I haven't seen many great Canon options though.

In the 35mm to 50mm range you now have quite a few options:

The buck starts and stops with the Art 40mm, it's the best lens wider than 100mm bar none, no coma, no LoCA, INSANELY sharp corner to corner with no falloff. It's big, it's heavy, it takes practice if your using a tracking mount, but there isn't a lens better right now.

The Tamron 35mm f1.4, I just sold this lens because I couldn't rationalize having it at the same time as the Art 40mm, which I'll never sell. The Tamron had just a tiny amount of LoCA that was gone by f1.8, but it also has zero coma and was insanely sharp corner to corner, best 35mm on the market.

Canon has it's 35mm II, it's a great lens, but it'll set you back in the $$$ department much more so than the Tamron or Sigma.

Sigma Art 35mm f1.2, the new one for Sony e-mount is also spectacular, has slight coma wide open, but gone by f1.8, slightly less sharp than the Tamron.

Nikon 50mm f1.8s, my copy was crap, I sold it, my girlfriend's copy is great, very sharp with little to no coma and slight LoCA that's gone by f2.2. The copy to copy QC for the new Nikon S lenses is...frustrating. If you get a good copy it's a very good 50mm.

There's a number of other 50mm's out there from Sigma, Canon, etc, almost all have a tradeoff of some sort (either poor coma, poor LoCA, or sharpness falloff) which you have to consider.

Above 50mm I think you should consider a few lenses:

Sigma Art 85mm, up there with the Art 40mm in terms of sharpness, coma control, and LoCA, also huge and heavy, kind of wish I hadn't sold my copy as it was incredible.

Sigma Art 105mm, probably the only lens better than the Art 40mm in every department.

Zeiss 135mm Apo Sonar and Rokinon 135mm, both are absolutely awesome, I love my Rokinon 135mm and it'll probably be another one of those "never sell" lenses if you get a great copy.

Some great tips there - thank you Eric I appreciate your experience with these.

I was aware of the Sigma Art 40mm being very good but also very large, heavy and expensive but it sounds like its worth it.

The Art 28 or the Tamron 35 are appealling. I can sell my Art 35 1.4 to help fund it. The Art 35 1.4 has had its uses but the coma is quite bad.

The quality of a lot of new lenses are definitely next level.

An Art 105 is on my wish list.

Greg.