Iceland Again! What lenses for Southcoast, highlands in September|RF 24-105, 2.8L?

I am trying to figure out best lenses to bring with my R8 on my upcoming trip to Iceland in a couple of weeks. Considering purchasing 1-2 RF lenses, since I think this will be my kit for a long time (likely R5 in my future). I only have one RF and it is the 600mm F11. Not for this trip!

I have an adapter for my 70-200 2.8 L (2nd generation.) and 24-105 F4L (I don't love but use a lot due to its versatility.) I don't have a wide angle. Will also bring A PD travel tripod, and my new Drone mini 4 pro.

Considering purchasing a refurbished 24-105 2.8L IS USM - is this a good versatile lens for this trip?

and the 14-35 F4 (or maybe the 16mm, or the 15-35 2.8 ). I will be there and hope to shoot the northern lights.

Thanks in advance!

If it is any help, when I went to Iceland in July 2023, we spent most of the time in the west highlands and fjords and split our time between landscapes and puffins. My photos were made with three lenses primarily: the 14-35mm f4, 24-240 and 100-500. Statistically:

14-35mm: 14%

24-50mm: 22%

51-105mm: 25%

105-240mm: 10%

> 500mm: 29%

Thanks for this tips, and since I will be in mid-late September, I won't have wildlife to shoot. However, hope to have the Aurora borealis to shoot. So now rethinking of just shooting with my EF 24-105 L isII, and purchasing either the RF 15-35 2.8, vs the RF 16mm 2.8 for the night sky and landscapes.

I bought a Pergear manual everything 14mm f 2.8 lens for night sky photography and find it to be a great lens for that and for landscape photography. You might want to consider it instead of the RF 16mm. I've also had good luck with my RF 14-35mm f4 lens for Aurora Borealis photography. I don't think you need as fast an aperture for the Northern Lights as you do for Milky Way photography.

MLK04 said:

I am trying to figure out best lenses to bring with my R8 on my upcoming trip to Iceland in a couple of weeks. Considering purchasing 1-2 RF lenses, since I think this will be my kit for a long time (likely R5 in my future). I only have one RF and it is the 600mm F11. Not for this trip!

I have an adapter for my 70-200 2.8 L (2nd generation.) and 24-105 F4L (I don't love but use a lot due to its versatility.) I don't have a wide angle. Will also bring A PD travel tripod, and my new Drone mini 4 pro.

Considering purchasing a refurbished 24-105 2.8L IS USM - is this a good versatile lens for this trip?

and the 14-35 F4 (or maybe the 16mm, or the 15-35 2.8 ). I will be there and hope to shoot the northern lights.

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

I think I might have replied to your very similar post in the R forum (I think I recognise Iceland & RF 24-105L f2.8).

As per that reply, I think that the f2.8 version is too big, too heavy (and too expensive - not that Iceland has a reputation as a high crime area) for a walk-around lens (compared to the f4 version). I would recommend the f4 version rather - unless you don't mind the extra weight & size (and $).

I would also think it might be getting a bit heavy for a PD travel tripod. I have the Ulanzi "copy"of the PD, not the PD, but it is a fairly lightweight tripod for a lens weighing almost 1500g. I am not sure I would use my Ulanzi with my EF 100-400L ii (similar weight) - I would be using my larger Sirui CF tripod.

I don't know what a "Drone mini 4 pro" is - perhaps a DJI-like quadcopter drone ? I have no idea about Iceland, but many tourist areas (New Zeland, Australia, South America, Antarctica etc) are banning the use of drones, so maybe worthwhile checking if you haven't already.

I have come to a similar conclusion that the 24-105 F2.8 is not necessary. and agree too heavy. However, I only have the EF 24-105 F4 ii with the RF adaptor. For some reason don't love the lens, but use it a lot when I travel. Now I was debating on the 16mm F2.8 vs the 15-35 mm F2.8, as I may want to do night photography, and may benefit from the weather sealing and IS. While keeping in mind, that at some point I will upgrade to the R5 for my Winter olympic shots in 2026!.

MLK04 said:

I have come to a similar conclusion that the 24-105 F2.8 is not necessary. and agree too heavy. However, I only have the EF 24-105 F4 ii with the RF adaptor.

Click to expand...

As per other thread it will work, but bigger, heavier and poorer IQ.

MLK04 said:

For some reason don't love the lens, but use it a lot when I travel. Now I was debating on the 16mm F2.8 vs the 15-35 mm F2.8, as I may want to do night photography, and may benefit from the weather sealing and IS.

Click to expand...

Obviously the RF 16 doesn't have either IS or sealing, and the RF 15-35L is a more versatile landscape lens - but obviously much larger, heavier and many times the price. Either should shoot stars or NL, but the RF 16 has forced corrections (in RAW & JPEG) due to the bad distortion and vignetting.

I am currently weighing up whether to get RF 16 or Pergear 14mm f2.8 fully manual.

MLK04 said:

While keeping in mind, that at some point I will upgrade to the R5 for my Winter olympic shots in 2026!.

Click to expand...

By the time 2026 rolls around there will be cameras with significantly better AF than R5. Some suggest that in many respects the R8 (& R6 ii) has better AF & faster frame rates than R5 right now. By that time it seems likely that R7 ii would be out, and potentially a R6 iii or even R8 ii - who knows ?

Almost any Canon RF lens you buy now for R8 is likely to work even better on whatever (Canon) camera you upgrade to in 2026.

Andy01 said:

MLK04 said:

I have come to a similar conclusion that the 24-105 F2.8 is not necessary. and agree too heavy. However, I only have the EF 24-105 F4 ii with the RF adaptor.

Click to expand...

As per other thread it will work, but bigger, heavier and poorer IQ.

Andy01 said:

For some reason don't love the lens, but use it a lot when I travel. Now I was debating on the 16mm F2.8 vs the 15-35 mm F2.8, as I may want to do night photography, and may benefit from the weather sealing and IS.

Click to expand...

Obviously the RF 16 doesn't have either IS or sealing, and the RF 15-35L is a more versatile landscape lens - but obviously much larger, heavier and many times the price. Either should shoot stars or NL, but the RF 16 has forced corrections (in RAW & JPEG) due to the bad distortion and vignetting.

I am currently weighing up whether to get RF 16 or Pergear 14mm f2.8 fully manual.

Click to expand...

I have both those lenses. The Canon lens is a bit shorter, even with the hood not reversed, less than half the weight, autofocusses and gives full EXIF data. In daylight, using the DxO PhotoLab 7 distortion and lens corrections, the Canon 16mm lens gives almost exactly the same field of view as the uncorrected Pergear 14mm with better geometry (naturally), slightly sharper corners at f/2.8 and definitely sharper in the centre. DPP4 gives even sharper corners but the field of view of a rectangular projection 16mm lens. There's a wider performance gap in favour of the Canon lens at f/5.6. Using a 16:9 crop with DxO will give you an even wider angle view with the Canon lens than you can get with the Pergear lens thanks to the stretching needed to correct barrel distortion.

Having said that, the Pergear lens isn't big or even that heavy, and scale focussing with a hyperfocal distance less than 2½m at f/2.8 for an A4 print and a scale that runs infinity, 7', 2m, 1m, 3', 2', 0.6m etc. is easy. The joke depth of field scale has no connection with reality though. There is a loose bayonet-on filter holder threaded for 82mm filters that stops you using the provided front lens cap (the Canon lens takes 43mm filters and it would be a good idea to buy a Canon or JJC EW65C hood for it to protect the focussing mechanism).

The Pergear lens is much simpler to use for astro. The infinity end stop means I can't fiddle around trying to establish critical focus, it's a direct mechanical focus mechanism rather than focus by wire and I don't need to switch off Retract lens on power off in case it camera goes to sleep and then switch that function back on again so that I can replace the lens cap without forcing the focus mechanism. The Pergear lens has less coma/astigmatism in the corners wide open but I'm still not sure if it gives significantly better results.

Andy01 said:

Andy01 said:

While keeping in mind, that at some point I will upgrade to the R5 for my Winter olympic shots in 2026!.

Click to expand...

By the time 2026 rolls around there will be cameras with significantly better AF than R5. Some suggest that in many respects the R8 (& R6 ii) has better AF & faster frame rates than R5 right now. By that time it seems likely that R7 ii would be out, and potentially a R6 iii or even R8 ii - who knows ?

Almost any Canon RF lens you buy now for R8 is likely to work even better on whatever (Canon) camera you upgrade to in 2026.

Click to expand...

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

I am currently weighing up whether to get RF 16 or Pergear 14mm f2.8 fully manual.

Click to expand...

I have both those lenses. The Canon lens is a bit shorter, even with the hood not reversed, less than half the weight, autofocusses and gives full EXIF data. In daylight, using the DxO PhotoLab 7 distortion and lens corrections, the Canon 16mm lens gives almost exactly the same field of view as the uncorrected Pergear 14mm with better geometry (naturally), slightly sharper corners at f/2.8 and definitely sharper in the centre. DPP4 gives even sharper corners but the field of view of a rectangular projection 16mm lens. There's a wider performance gap in favour of the Canon lens at f/5.6. Using a 16:9 crop with DxO will give you an even wider angle view with the Canon lens than you can get with the Pergear lens thanks to the stretching needed to correct barrel distortion.

Having said that, the Pergear lens isn't big or even that heavy, and scale focussing with a hyperfocal distance less than 2½m at f/2.8 for an A4 print and a scale that runs infinity, 7', 2m, 1m, 3', 2', 0.6m etc. is easy. The joke depth of field scale has no connection with reality though. There is a loose bayonet-on filter holder threaded for 82mm filters that stops you using the provided front lens cap (the Canon lens takes 43mm filters and it would be a good idea to buy a Canon or JJC EW65C hood for it to protect the focussing mechanism).

The Pergear lens is much simpler to use for astro. The infinity end stop means I can't fiddle around trying to establish critical focus, it's a direct mechanical focus mechanism rather than focus by wire and I don't need to switch off Retract lens on power off in case it camera goes to sleep and then switch that function back on again so that I can replace the lens cap without forcing the focus mechanism. The Pergear lens has less coma/astigmatism in the corners wide open but I'm still not sure if it gives significantly better results.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the summary. Have you had your opportunity to test the two lenses side by side in un-tracked astro yet ;-)

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

I am currently weighing up whether to get RF 16 or Pergear 14mm f2.8 fully manual.

Click to expand...

I have both those lenses. The Canon lens is a bit shorter, even with the hood not reversed, less than half the weight, autofocusses and gives full EXIF data. In daylight, using the DxO PhotoLab 7 distortion and lens corrections, the Canon 16mm lens gives almost exactly the same field of view as the uncorrected Pergear 14mm with better geometry (naturally), slightly sharper corners at f/2.8 and definitely sharper in the centre. DPP4 gives even sharper corners but the field of view of a rectangular projection 16mm lens. There's a wider performance gap in favour of the Canon lens at f/5.6. Using a 16:9 crop with DxO will give you an even wider angle view with the Canon lens than you can get with the Pergear lens thanks to the stretching needed to correct barrel distortion.

Having said that, the Pergear lens isn't big or even that heavy, and scale focussing with a hyperfocal distance less than 2½m at f/2.8 for an A4 print and a scale that runs infinity, 7', 2m, 1m, 3', 2', 0.6m etc. is easy. The joke depth of field scale has no connection with reality though. There is a loose bayonet-on filter holder threaded for 82mm filters that stops you using the provided front lens cap (the Canon lens takes 43mm filters and it would be a good idea to buy a Canon or JJC EW65C hood for it to protect the focussing mechanism).

The Pergear lens is much simpler to use for astro. The infinity end stop means I can't fiddle around trying to establish critical focus, it's a direct mechanical focus mechanism rather than focus by wire and I don't need to switch off Retract lens on power off in case it camera goes to sleep and then switch that function back on again so that I can replace the lens cap without forcing the focus mechanism. The Pergear lens has less coma/astigmatism in the corners wide open but I'm still not sure if it gives significantly better results.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the summary. Have you had your opportunity to test the two lenses side by side in un-tracked astro yet ;-)

Click to expand...

No, that's why I haven't decided yet.

What about replacing your EF 24-105 F4 with the RF version (F4)? It is noticably better than the EF variant, and also quite a bit smaller and lighter, especially because you lose the adapter.

It might grow on you more than the EF lens did, and you've already admitted that you use it quite a lot for traveling.

You could probably pick up either the pergear or canon 16mm and still come out cheaper and lighter than you would with the 24-105 F2.8

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

I am currently weighing up whether to get RF 16 or Pergear 14mm f2.8 fully manual.

Click to expand...

I have both those lenses. The Canon lens is a bit shorter, even with the hood not reversed, less than half the weight, autofocusses and gives full EXIF data. In daylight, using the DxO PhotoLab 7 distortion and lens corrections, the Canon 16mm lens gives almost exactly the same field of view as the uncorrected Pergear 14mm with better geometry (naturally), slightly sharper corners at f/2.8 and definitely sharper in the centre. DPP4 gives even sharper corners but the field of view of a rectangular projection 16mm lens. There's a wider performance gap in favour of the Canon lens at f/5.6. Using a 16:9 crop with DxO will give you an even wider angle view with the Canon lens than you can get with the Pergear lens thanks to the stretching needed to correct barrel distortion.

Having said that, the Pergear lens isn't big or even that heavy, and scale focussing with a hyperfocal distance less than 2½m at f/2.8 for an A4 print and a scale that runs infinity, 7', 2m, 1m, 3', 2', 0.6m etc. is easy. The joke depth of field scale has no connection with reality though. There is a loose bayonet-on filter holder threaded for 82mm filters that stops you using the provided front lens cap (the Canon lens takes 43mm filters and it would be a good idea to buy a Canon or JJC EW65C hood for it to protect the focussing mechanism).

The Pergear lens is much simpler to use for astro. The infinity end stop means I can't fiddle around trying to establish critical focus, it's a direct mechanical focus mechanism rather than focus by wire and I don't need to switch off Retract lens on power off in case it camera goes to sleep and then switch that function back on again so that I can replace the lens cap without forcing the focus mechanism. The Pergear lens has less coma/astigmatism in the corners wide open but I'm still not sure if it gives significantly better results.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the summary. Have you had your opportunity to test the two lenses side by side in un-tracked astro yet ;-)

Click to expand...

No, that's why I haven't decided yet.

Click to expand...

One of my concerns (in Australia) with the Pergear is that I can only buy it from Pergear (China), Amazon (US) or eBay (Australia, but as a Chinese seller). I am trying to get a straight answer (and struggling) out of the Pergear eBay seller about who pays return shipping (it is NOT a eBay Plus listed item) if the lens is defective (eg. decentred or poor infinity setting, both relatively common "issues" with the cheaper UWA lenses). They also state a 30 day return policy, so I am asking what the warranty is. This makes me a little nervous.

In contrast, Canon Australia offers a 5 year warranty (about the only aspect that we are better than US) and I can buy the RF 16 from a local shop, so returns and warranty are not an issue.

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

Andy01 said:

...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the summary. Have you had your opportunity to test the two lenses side by side in un-tracked astro yet ;-)

Click to expand...

No, that's why I haven't decided yet.

Click to expand...

One of my concerns (in Australia) with the Pergear is that I can only buy it from Pergear (China), Amazon (US) or eBay (Australia, but as a Chinese seller). I am trying to get a straight answer (and struggling) out of the Pergear eBay seller about who pays return shipping (it is NOT a eBay Plus listed item) if the lens is defective (eg. decentred or poor infinity setting, both relatively common "issues" with the cheaper UWA lenses). They also state a 30 day return policy, so I am asking what the warranty is. This makes me a little nervous.

In contrast, Canon Australia offers a 5 year warranty (about the only aspect that we are better than US) and I can buy the RF 16 from a local shop, so returns and warranty are not an issue.

Click to expand...

The Canon is the safer buy. I use mine a lot in daylight, it's more pocketable, easier to use and gives slightly better results. The Pergear was a combined birthday and Christmas present from my siblings when I'd already had the Canon lens for a year. So it's a toy really, that I hoped would be more satisfying for astro. It doesn't get properly dark here between mid-May and mid-August and it's usually been cloudy on moonless nights and I live in a city, so I haven't got out much at night in the last nine months.

The lens came direct from Pergear, it works, having a substantial metal housing, a directly ring controlled iris and mechanical focussing meant it wasn't going to go wrong soon if it lasted the first month. The heft and the metal finish are very seductive, but those cheap plastic RF lenses are incredibly tough and hard wearing and I'm very impressed with them, certainly the 16mm, the 28mm and the 100-400mm. But I am very careful not to knock the front elements of the 16mm and 28mm and definitely recommend a hood for the former.

For astro, however, I knew that my 16mm produced winged stars in the corners wide open (though not as badly as the RF 35mm f/1.8) which become tolerable at f/4. But 16mm/4 is a 4mm aperture, which is slow for nightscapes. It's also an AF lens with a short focus throw, and focus by wire which isn't as pleasant for critical manual focus on stars. Being an AF lens means it focusses beyond infinity, which means I can be sure I've got critical focus, but it also means that I lose focus if the camera switches off and the front elements retract. The Pergear lens seems to have its infinity stop near enough at infinity, still a short throw but it doesn't care whether the camera is on or off, the extreme corners aren't as dark or as birdy as those of the uncorrected Canon lens, but I've yet to compare them on the same stars, camera and night.

I was considering that option and selling my mkii EF 24-105f4l. I found a used RF FOR 700 AND $900, However, i am really liking what I have read about the 15-35 F2.8L. I saw some fabulous iceland shots posted on line, and the shooter used a sony 16-35 and 70-200.

The 15-35mm f2.8 is a great lens, just like all Canon L lenses are, but do you really need the f2.8 aperture? It adds $700 and over 1/2 pound versus the RF 14-35mm. An F4 lens is fine for any of the landscapes you will find in Iceland -- and anywhere else. You lose a bit of light for night sky photography, but for the Aurora Borealis, the extra stop is not a big deal. I guess it all depends on how much weight you are willing to carry around for the extra light gathering capability of the 15-35mm. One more thought: if you are planning to acquire a set of L lenses, the 77mm filter size of the 14-35 is the same as many of Canon's L lenses, so you only need to buy one set of filters.

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the summary. Have you had your opportunity to test the two lenses side by side in un-tracked astro yet ;-)

Click to expand...

No, that's why I haven't decided yet.

Click to expand...

One of my concerns (in Australia) with the Pergear is that I can only buy it from Pergear (China), Amazon (US) or eBay (Australia, but as a Chinese seller). I am trying to get a straight answer (and struggling) out of the Pergear eBay seller about who pays return shipping (it is NOT a eBay Plus listed item) if the lens is defective (eg. decentred or poor infinity setting, both relatively common "issues" with the cheaper UWA lenses). They also state a 30 day return policy, so I am asking what the warranty is. This makes me a little nervous.

In contrast, Canon Australia offers a 5 year warranty (about the only aspect that we are better than US) and I can buy the RF 16 from a local shop, so returns and warranty are not an issue.

Click to expand...

The Canon is the safer buy. I use mine a lot in daylight, it's more pocketable, easier to use and gives slightly better results.

Click to expand...

Those are exactly the reasons I lean towards RF 16.

Sittatunga said:

The Pergear was a combined birthday and Christmas present from my siblings when I'd already had the Canon lens for a year. So it's a toy really, that I hoped would be more satisfying for astro. It doesn't get properly dark here between mid-May and mid-August and it's usually been cloudy on moonless nights and I live in a city, so I haven't got out much at night in the last nine months.

The lens came direct from Pergear, it works, having a substantial metal housing, a directly ring controlled iris and mechanical focussing meant it wasn't going to go wrong soon if it lasted the first month.

Click to expand...

I agree that it "should" last some time, especially since it would probably get relatively infrequent use for me.

My experience when buying my first "astro" lens, the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP made me quite wary. I read LOTS of reports about the cheap fully manual Samyang f2.8 14mm, where some people tried 4-5 lenses before finding an acceptable copy, and my poor experience with 3 different Irix 15mm f2.4 lenses and all were "defective".

I am wary that there is possibly a "reasonable" chance that I would get a less-than-perfect Pergear lens and have to potentially battle to return it for replacement. The cost of shipping with tracking from Australia to China is about 10% of the lens price, which would definitely sour the experience.

That is why I paid the extra to get the XP and it has been great - but, of course, now it doesn't work with the new Canons.

Sittatunga said:

The heft and the metal finish are very seductive, but those cheap plastic RF lenses are incredibly tough and hard wearing and I'm very impressed with them, certainly the 16mm, the 28mm and the 100-400mm. But I am very careful not to knock the front elements of the 16mm and 28mm and definitely recommend a hood for the former.

For astro, however, I knew that my 16mm produced winged stars in the corners wide open (though not as badly as the RF 35mm f/1.8) which become tolerable at f/4. But 16mm/4 is a 4mm aperture, which is slow for nightscapes. It's also an AF lens with a short focus throw, and focus by wire which isn't as pleasant for critical manual focus on stars. Being an AF lens means it focusses beyond infinity, which means I can be sure I've got critical focus, but it also means that I lose focus if the camera switches off and the front elements retract.

Click to expand...

The MF is one of my concerns with the RF 16. I remember struggling to get good focus (in less than perfectly dark skies) with my M5 + EF-M 22mm due to the focus by wire. I tried recently in my backyard (which is FAR from dark skies) with R8 + RF 15-30mm (set at 15mm) and found it a little easier to MF, but still not easy - at such UWA the stars are pretty tiny even using 10x magnification, and the focus ring is quite sensitive (I tried both options - varies with rotation degree and rotation speed and found the degree a little better I thought).

Sittatunga said:

The Pergear lens seems to have its infinity stop near enough at infinity,

Click to expand...

This was the issue with two of the three Irix lenses (a Firefly & a Blackstone) I tried (the third was badly decentred) - even at full rotation to infinity, the lens had not achieved accurate infinity focus. It was supposedly user-adjustable, but the provided instructions were sketchy at best, so I wasn't about to start messing with a brand new lens - I just returned them.

Sittatunga said:

still a short throw but it doesn't care whether the camera is on or off, the extreme corners aren't as dark or as birdy as those of the uncorrected Canon lens, but I've yet to compare them on the same stars, camera and night.

Click to expand...

Does the Canon correction reduce the wings (birdy affect) on the stars, or just crop some out ?

Andy01 said:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga wrote

:...

Click to expand...

The MF is one of my concerns with the RF 16. I remember struggling to get good focus (in less than perfectly dark skies) with my M5 + EF-M 22mm due to the focus by wire. I tried recently in my backyard (which is FAR from dark skies) with R8 + RF 15-30mm (set at 15mm) and found it a little easier to MF, but still not easy - at such UWA the stars are pretty tiny even using 10x magnification, and the focus ring is quite sensitive (I tried both options - varies with rotation degree and rotation speed and found the degree a little better I thought).

Click to expand...

Never had an M5 but my original R is a lot better for that than my M100. I've never tried the variable speed focus.

Andy01 said:

Does the Canon correction reduce the wings (birdy effect) on the stars, or just crop some out ?

Click to expand...

See for yourself. One slapdash test example, 16mm, 4s @2.8 &ISO 1600, taken with AWB, processed with daylight WB, minimal processing except that I brightened the DPP4 one. All of these are at f/2.8 for the poorest image quality.


DPP4, DLO, mandatory distortion correction. That roof really is wavy.


DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction


And a tripod comparison of the Pergear and Canon lenses on a tripod at f/2.8 and ISO 100

A tripod image quality comparison at ISO 100 and f/2.8


16mm, DPP4, mandatory distortion correction.


16mm, DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction, 3:2 aspect ratio


14mm, DxO PhotoLab 7, no corrections


16mm, DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction, 16:9 aspect ratio, cropped from bottom

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga wrote

:...

Click to expand...

The MF is one of my concerns with the RF 16. I remember struggling to get good focus (in less than perfectly dark skies) with my M5 + EF-M 22mm due to the focus by wire. I tried recently in my backyard (which is FAR from dark skies) with R8 + RF 15-30mm (set at 15mm) and found it a little easier to MF, but still not easy - at such UWA the stars are pretty tiny even using 10x magnification, and the focus ring is quite sensitive (I tried both options - varies with rotation degree and rotation speed and found the degree a little better I thought).

Click to expand...

Never had an M5 but my original R is a lot better for that than my M100. I've never tried the variable speed focus.

Sittatunga said:

Does the Canon correction reduce the wings (birdy effect) on the stars, or just crop some out ?

Click to expand...

See for yourself. One slapdash test example, 16mm, 4s @2.8 &ISO 1600, taken with AWB, processed with daylight WB, minimal processing except that I brightened the DPP4 one. All of these are at f/2.8 for the poorest image quality.

Click to expand...

Thanks for these Interesting.

Just to confirm what I am looking at;

1st one is RF16 processed with DPP - almost removes wings entirely, though they may become more obvious with "proper" astro PP.

2nd one is RF 16 (same image) processed with DxO 7 - much brighter, "larger image" (not as much "cropping" by software), but pronounced wings.

3rd one I am a bit confused - your comment says it is a comparison of Pergear vs RF16 but there is only one image - what am I missing ? It looks like a DxO processed image from RF16 with no distortion correction.

Is this correct or have I misunderstood something. Is there a Pergear (night) shot here - doesn't look like it from the exif ?

Sittatunga said:

DPP4, DLO, mandatory distortion correction. That roof really is wavy.


DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction


And a tripod comparison of the Pergear and Canon lenses on a tripod at f/2.8 and ISO 100

A tripod image quality comparison at ISO 100 and f/2.8

Click to expand...

So these are (?);

1st one is RF16 processed in DPP - quite "dull" and dark, and the central sign isn't as crisp as the others.

2nd one is RF16 processed in DxO - brighter, wider, more punchy, sign is crisper

3rd one is Pergear 14 processed in DxO - not too different from RF16, brighter (but 1/40th vs 1/125th), a little less punchy in colour, and probably slightly crisper near centre (sign). Edges are softer than RF16.

Sittatunga said:

16mm, DPP4, mandatory distortion correction.


16mm, DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction, 3:2 aspect ratio


14mm, DxO PhotoLab 7, no corrections


16mm, DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction, 16:9 aspect ratio, cropped from bottom

Click to expand...

From these it looks like the RF16 processed with DPP and "enhanced" heavily (perhaps with a different software) might produce a decent result for stars.

For daytime, the RF16 processed with DxO (which I haven't used) produces the best result.

Though for daytime, it looks like the RF 15-30 (which I own) produces comparable results (less CA, but 16 is sharper in centre) at 15mm f4.5 to RF 16 at f4, and at f5.6, the difference might be slightly less - so hard to justify buying the RF16 as a daytime lens (yes, it is smaller & lighter than 15-30, but no IS).


Keenly awaiting some night comparison shots with RF16 & Pergear - hope for clear (and dark) skies :-D

Andy01 wrote:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga said:

Andy01 said:

Andy01 said:

Sittatunga wrote

:...

Click to expand...

The MF is one of my concerns with the RF 16. I remember struggling to get good focus (in less than perfectly dark skies) with my M5 + EF-M 22mm due to the focus by wire. I tried recently in my backyard (which is FAR from dark skies) with R8 + RF 15-30mm (set at 15mm) and found it a little easier to MF, but still not easy - at such UWA the stars are pretty tiny even using 10x magnification, and the focus ring is quite sensitive (I tried both options - varies with rotation degree and rotation speed and found the degree a little better I thought).

Click to expand...

Never had an M5 but my original R is a lot better for that than my M100. I've never tried the variable speed focus.

Andy01 said:

Does the Canon correction reduce the wings (birdy effect) on the stars, or just crop some out ?

Click to expand...

See for yourself. One slapdash test example, 16mm, 4s @2.8 &ISO 1600, taken with AWB, processed with daylight WB, minimal processing except that I brightened the DPP4 one. All of these are at f/2.8 for the poorest image quality.

Click to expand...

Thanks for these Interesting.

Just to confirm what I am looking at;

1st one is RF16 processed with DPP - almost removes wings entirely, though they may become more obvious with "proper" astro PP.

2nd one is RF 16 (same image) processed with DxO 7 - much brighter, "larger image" (not as much "cropping" by software), but pronounced wings.

3rd one I am a bit confused - your comment says it is a comparison of Pergear vs RF16 but there is only one image - what am I missing ? It looks like a DxO processed image from RF16 with no distortion correction.

Click to expand...

It is, the process of inserting and titling images in the wee small hours got confused and I can't re-edit the post now.

Andy01 said:

Is this correct or have I misunderstood something. Is there a Pergear (night) shot here - doesn't look like it from the exif ?

Andy01 said:

DPP4, DLO, mandatory distortion correction. That roof really is wavy.


DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DxO PhotoLab 7 no distortion correction. Sorry, titles got confused, can't edit the original post now

Andy01 said:

Andy01 said:

A tripod image quality comparison at ISO 100 and f/2.8

Click to expand...

So these are (?);

1st one is RF16 processed in DPP - quite "dull" and dark, and the central sign isn't as crisp as the others.

2nd one is RF16 processed in DxO - brighter, wider, more punchy, sign is crisper

3rd one is Pergear 14 processed in DxO - not too different from RF16, brighter (but 1/40th vs 1/125th), a little less punchy in colour, and probably slightly crisper near centre (sign). Edges are softer than RF16.

Click to expand...

Andy01 said:

Andy01 said:

16mm, DPP4, mandatory distortion correction.


16mm, DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction, 3:2 aspect ratio


14mm, DxO PhotoLab 7, no corrections


16mm, DxO PhotoLab 7 with distortion correction, 16:9 aspect ratio, cropped from bottom

Click to expand...

From these it looks like the RF16 processed with DPP and "enhanced" heavily (perhaps with a different software) might produce a decent result for stars.

Click to expand...

One thing I have signally failed at is trying to produce a flat image for that lens. DPP4's peripheral illumination correction may not be good enough for a lot of colour stretching.

Andy01 said:

For daytime, the RF16 processed with DxO (which I haven't used) produces the best result.

Though for daytime, it looks like the RF 15-30 (which I own) produces comparable results (less CA, but 16 is sharper in centre) at 15mm f4.5 to RF 16 at f4, and at f5.6, the difference might be slightly less - so hard to justify buying the RF16 as a daytime lens (yes, it is smaller & lighter than 15-30, but no IS).

Click to expand...

The corners sharpen up a lot at f/4 and the wings get a lot smaller, though might still be noticeable if you had Venus there. I have the EF 16-35mm f/4 L but it's the RF lens that goes on holiday with me. Such an inoffensive, normal looking lens too.

Andy01 said:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Keenly awaiting some night comparison shots with RF16 & Pergear - hope for clear (and dark) skies :-D

Click to expand...

Andy01 said:

Keenly awaiting some night comparison shots with RF16 & Pergear - hope for clear (and dark) skies :-D

Click to expand...

Finally got out on a clear-ish night, half an hour or so after moon-set with the two lenses. Took ten or a dozen ten second exposures at various apertures from f/2.8-4. Exported the. CR3 files to 16 bit TIFF, no enhancements or noise reduction and stacked them with Sequator, just with dynamic noise removal and complex distortion reduction.

Sequator seems to strip all the EXIF data, these were all taken at ISO 1600.


14mm, f/2.8, TIFFs exported from DPP4, stacked & jpeg exported from Sequator


RF 16mm, f/2.8, TIFFs exported from DPP4, stacked & jpeg exported from Sequator


RF 16mm, f/2.8, CR3 files directly stacked & jpeg exported from Sequator

The RAW converter that Sequator uses seems to suppress stuck pixels better than DPP4 but doesn't do the necessary lens corrections. The top bar of the gate at the bottom of the picture is outside the field of view of the 14mm lens even though I didn't move the camera or the tripod when changing the lens. Not sure where that diagonal red line comes from, this was looking south.


14mm, f/2.8, CR3 files directly stacked & jpeg exported from Sequator

For comparison of DPP4 and Sequator RAW processing.


There doesn't seem to be much change to the star shapes between f/2.8 and f/4 when processing in DPP4


RF 16mm, f/4, CR3 files directly stacked & jpeg exported from Sequator

Definite reduction in the sizes of the wings here. I'll stop now, it's well past my bedtime.