Samyang teaser suggests two new astrophotography prime lenses will be released later this month

Other than the weight issue for me, I hear the optics are stellar.

But wouldn't those, AF, and other features make their lenses more expensive
and cut sales a bit?

Don't need AF for astrophotography.

Noted with interest.

Trail artifacts (satellite, meteor, airplane, cosmic rays, etc.) are increasingly common but have been around for a long time. Such trails do not present much of a challenge to actual astro-imaging of static Deep Space objects because trails are intermittent and can be removed via data-reject stacking algorithms. But they can be a serious detriment to studies of astronomical transients.

Trail artifacts are a nuisance for nightscapes. But nightscapes are usually Photoshopped, so it really just adds a little more time doctoring the pic.

"out of control"

Yes, it increasingly difficult to avoid sky streaks in wide angle nightscapes, But satellites are not the primary irritant, in part because most are not bright enough to register in the tiny aperture of wide angle camera lenses and most move so slowly that they fail to trail in a typical wide-angle MW 20-30 sec exp.

There are very dark sites in the SW but nearly all are under airplane flyways that require careful timing and luck to avoid plane trail dashes created by blinking red lights. I recall the nearly pristine skies from the no-fly period following 9-11.

Note that real astro-imaging is not nearly as affected by this stuff because the FOV is small (virtually every astro object is too small and dim for nightscape lenses). The chance of a plane or satellite crossing a narrow field is not all that great and DS imaging techniques can easily remove such intruders. But for a variety of reasons, those techniques are impractical or impossible for nightscapes.

Stan, I'm not sure what satellites you're seeing, but I'll re-state: Even in ultra-wide-angle shots, even at f/2.8, (as opposed to, say, 35mm f/1.4) I still see oodles of satellites, especially compared to 10+ years ago. They are definitely rampant.

I will agree that in many places, airplanes are the worse offender, especially places like Yosemite National Park which are right in the flight path of SFO, or other parts of SoCal that are in the flight paths to LAX, etc.

Satellites that disturb nightscapes must move noticeably in a short exp and be sunlit. So they must have low orbits that speed across the sky and are visible until entering Earth's shadow. They usually become invisible to small lenses only a few hours after sunset (or before sunrise) depending on season and latitude; some can remain visible all night at high N latitude in summer.

Late twilight or early dark is a favorite time for nightscapes but that's an optimal time for satellites and air traffic. Unless you are far north you might try taking MW pics later at night and earlier or later in the season (depending on what part of MW you want to image).

P.S. Yes there are more satellites and more on the way. But grousing about it is useless. We need to adapt.

Again, I don't know how much wide-field shooting you do, compared to deep sky, but that's just not the case. I see satellites in my exposures all night long, even when the sun is definitely at its most opposite from earth, and they show up as pretty considerable streaks even in 15-30 exposures, or 8-15 sec exposures for slightly less ultra-wide focal lengths and at higher megapixel counts.

I am not a fan of ultra-wide MW pics and rarely use <35mm FL. Compared to ultra-wide, satellite trails are fewer but stretch out longer. Airplanes are more of a problem.

So what do you do about it? Take enough shots to get lucky? Photoshop?

This might sound dumb, but wish they would make the satellites out of non reflective material. Just a thought. Might not be practical,

1.8 is ok, manual focus is not unfortunately.

That would be a shame because I also have and love the Samyang 35/2.8, 45/1.8 & 75/1.8, all have fantastic character.

The price isn't a big concern, I just plonked down $10K for a new body, saving $500 or so on a lens isn't going to change the total spend on gear much :(
Happy to save money, but not at the expense of AF or character/optical performance.

Not true at all. Have never had any luck getting precise, perfectly focused stars by focusing at infinity with any UWA lens. Astro work requires very precise focus and almost always has to be done manually by iteration. The AF capability, however, would be more useful for interiors.

I think your idea of teasing is slightly different than mine!

The 75/1.8 is great IMO, the 45/1.8 isn't quite as good but it's smaller, just 10mm longer than the recent 40/2.5 G.

my 45 1.8 is very good as good as my sony 85 1.8 .

The SY 75/1.8 and Sony 85/1.8 both have nicer bokeh than the 45/1.8, not saying the 45's is bad mind you, it's just more on the level of the recent Sony G trio... I quite like the 45's size & FL tho.

What happened to "smaller mirrorless lenses"? :)

Just because they can make it doesn't make them practical. These are businesses and during a pandemic isn't exactly the time for manufacturers to be experimental like when Canon were making 800mm F5.6s or Sigma making the 200-600 f2.8

But because we can't travel now, we don't worry about the size and weight as much anymore. This is the perfect time for some big uncompromised astro-primes.

What wrong with current Samyang 135/2 ? I think a lot of astro photographers use it pretty much ...

You are absolutely right. The current / old manual Samyang 135F2 UMC still is a great lens. But we are talking about the new upcoming AF Samyang optics :). Telling Samyang to stop making new lenses would be silly :)

Uh, I do hope people realize what I actually said about AF and astro. I never use AF to get focus on the stars. I use MF. But with my setup (apparently not common, to be honest) if I set manual focus and turn off the camera, when I turn it back on with AF enabled, it goes right back to where it was before.

This is really not a big deal for astro work. My biggest thought, is that these lenses would need to serve a purpose other than just night sky shots, and even as landscape lenses during daylight, the AF can be very helpful to people who do fast-paced landscape photography.

Never thought AF is crucial for landscape or astro, its not gonna run away.

I agree with Diablo Dave. Everyone here needs to have a look at how Olympus does this.

@ Mike Fewster: You can AF on bright stars with Sony cameras too, with lenses from wide angle to long telephoto. But for critical long exposure work, I prefer manual focus, and checking focus now and then.

Again, I think you should have a look at just what the Oly's do on this. I shoot Sony. I have friends who use Oly. Their starry sky af system really works. It doesn't just af on the brightest stars. I think it is more accurate than mf on other cameras.
https://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/learn-center/photography-tips/astrophotography/starry-sky-af-a-stellar-innovation

Correction. I meant af when shooting astro. For all other af I'll back Sony

@ Mike Fewster: I can't see how the Olympus star AF feature should be noticeable more precise than the AF systems of other cameras for night sky photography. And yes, I have seen the article you linked to. Seems like there is quite some noise reduction applied to the images too.

With manual focus and loupe view, you can focus where you want in the frame, and then fine tune in and out of focus to control aberrations! There is no way you could focus more precise than this.

So I can't see how "I think it is more accurate than mf on other cameras" could be true. The feature seems to be handy, thougjh.