Nikon AF-S 20mm F1.8g: nice bokeh at large apertures and great sunstars at small apertures, thanks to the unique shape of the aperture blades ... Fast lens in low light, renders colors beautifully, keeps flare under control very well, compact & low weight FF lens, allows filters ... all for acceptable price, thank you Nikon.

For the top four chosen by Chris, patterns look great close up but objectively when you have a lot of them in frame it becomes very busy and an eye irritant. Especially the Sony. Maybe great for a single sun but not for Xmas lights.

FWIW I chose the cleanest looking one the Z 14-30 f4 as an overall picture. In a different shot like the sun through a forest canopy the Sony and Canons would probably edge it out.

Huh?

Where are the MFT and Fuji X lenses in this test?

What a waste of effort. Sunstars are such a gimmick...

They should have tested the Panasonic 12mm f1.4 for micro four thirds. Check out this sunstar. This is uncropped, although it was taken in 16:9 ratio: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6247877242/photos/4005856/5b406de7-ad8d-405d-be2d-4fe880bc14f8

Testing sunstars without a sun seems a bit off. The test was for relatively close subject, not infinity focus or at least further off as in landscapes. Second, and more important is selecting a lens to shoot sunstars also involves testing to see how flare resistant the lens is. This test did not include the flare test - which also measures the quality of the lens coatings.

I don't think anybody cares about measuring sunstars with a ruler, they all look fine. But Nikon 14-30 looks so much better overall, nothing comes close.

I thought the Nikon Z was the best, nice, clean and not too exaggerated.

I would rather a lens so good it produced no sun stars whatsoever. Then just buy a sun star filter to give you whatever number you want.

Alas, we’re not at that point yet, maybe someday.

Sun stars are so unnatural. They are in fact artefacts. Are you seriously worshipping sun stars?

Next, you will be comparing flashes and photos to look for the best red eyes?

Yeah the Canon 16-35 has been one of the reasons why there are still landscape photographers among my peers who shoot Canon. Still I was surprised that the Nikon 14-30 looks okay - Nikon has a terrible track record when it comes to sun stars. I own the 20mm 1.8 just for getting decent sunstars with a Nikon camera. Looking good for the Z future if I am delving into the system some time in the future.

All of these lenses seem to have numoerus aperture blades. This is very nice for general use. But if it comes to sunstars a lower number of not rounded apterure blades would give a more intensive and more clear sunstar - and for this purpose an old lens from the 80ties may be capable to be first choice for this particular use.

But in general these modern lenses all perform very well - and it is matter of taste which one is preferred. It would not be a reason to decide for a particular system.

After all those years of bokeh mania, we now have sunstar mania? next year, a best retro-flare test and poll? and in 2023, will we go for the best moustache distorsion? And lament the corrections that destroy all those oh-so-quaint "character" features? :)

We are mad! Great Holidays to all of you! :)

Let me speak to Ken Rockwell first.

For those who are interested, my Canon EF 16-35 f4 IS excels with sunstars. It's a keeper!

Sunstars can be over bearing, I've seen many "sun in landscape" photos ruined by over the top sunstars.

With my favourite Pentax HD lenses (rounded blades) DA15 and DA 20-40 I can dial sunstars in or out without using an unwanted fully open aperture.

Some Pentaxians like the older straight bladed DA15 but it is too much all the time and you can't dial them out without using open wide at f4 which the lens is not great at.

Sometimes I want the sun to be a disc and other times I want the rays, although never the overbearing "look at my sunstar" type.

What, no Voigtländers?
Any of the M4/3 Noktons will produce nicer starbursts that the ones shown.

All my Voigtländers have 10 aperture blades. Or 12 with the new 75mm f1.5.
Even numbered aperture blades make much nicer, sharper and better defined starbursts than odd numbered blades.

Or just use Prime lenses like the Zeiss Loxia 21mm or any of the Voigtlander FE models (these are the daddy of sunstars).
Den

What? None of these is really ultrawide by modern standards; these are mostly wide-to-moderate-ultrawide zooms. There are lots of FF zoom lenses that go to 12mm and some (e.g., the Laowa 10-18mm) that go to 10mm. Also a bit odd to be testing only fast lenses given that sunstars are a stopped-down phenomenon.

Personally, I tend to view sunstars as a flare defect, which they technically are. However, I will admit that they can add interest to an image when used sparingly... which is hard to do if you have a lens that loves to produce sunstars and the lens isn't wide open. For example, I'd say the Laowa 10-18mm produces reasonable sunstars, although they aren't as long nor sharp as some shown here... and I actually prefer the smaller stars because they're less obtrusive.

None of them that good IMO. Much prefer my Voigtlander Nokton 21 F1.4: Sunstars from F1.8 onwards:-)

I was right! Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 shot at F22 wins!
Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 IS shot at F22 close second with and without my prescription glasses.
All mirrorless !
Sigma and Tamron are the bottom pile.
Were it not for Sigma and Tamron Sony would have won the voyage to the bottom of the pile.

Can't wait 'till next Christmas to shoot sunstars again.

Be very extra careful in shooting Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8 III @ F16 it zaps one red ball (on the lower left side of the Christmas tree).

Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 @ F16 & F22 has no warmth. White balance is over-corrected. Seems like not Christmas at all.

I love you guys but I'll be damned if I care about sunstars. To me this always looks like something you could just add in a photoshop filter and I never want to shoot so far into diffraction even at f16.

I'll try to get into the spirit. I dunno, I guess the Sony lens at least looks messy and less tacked on so maybe that one? Sorry, that's as much as I can put into this.

Well done video but... yeah.

Complete lack of sunstar knowledge but why not a 20mm prime stopped down?

Sunstar is personal subjective. I agree in this review Canon EF zoom has the best sunstar that is similar to my EF 24-70L/2.8 II. However these days all these zoom don't generate best sunstar in my taste. Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander (CV) lenses have the best 10 or 12-point sunstars already at F4.0, you don't need to stop down to crazy F16 or F22. I don't like those overwhelming excessive numbers of rays such as from Sony with 22-point rays, too many.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7888/46681932572_d7a25bcfac_o.jpg (Loxia 21)
https://live.staticflickr.com/7856/46975900381_23c516dab4_o.jpg (Voigtlander 12)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47997551496_d6c96019a6_o.jpg (Loxia 85)

Any particular reason this is fullframe-only?
I suppose it's a well known fact that aps-c and MFT photographers are not interested in sunstars?

smc pentax DA 15/4 limited

No one gave the rules for the number of Rays...
* With an even number of aperture blades you get one ray per blade.
* With an odd number of aperture blades you get two rays per blade.
* Straight aperture blades are said to give better rays than curved ones, but the rest of the bokeh won't be as nice.

Before anyone goes out and buys one of these very expensive lenses, if your goal is mostly using the wide-field end, there are primes from a few companies that are good performers, as fast or faster than these zooms and a fraction of the price.

Sunstar Challenge without voigtländer or zeiss primes? Its a matter of taste but im pretty sure the loxia 21 f2.8 or color skopar 21 f3.5 wouldve won.

Neither. The Nikkor 20mm 1.8G stopped down to F11 is MMMMMUWAAAAAAHHH!!

Fun topic.... designed to bring out the gear fan's response, my sunstars are bigger than yours, my out of camera jpeg color is better than yours etc.

WOW, the white balance of the Nikon Z is far better tan any of the others...look at the images supplied.

Nikon's 20mm F1.8 has amazing star. By far the most exaggerated of any of my lenses.

Canon lenses are known for their clear and pleasant sunstar. No surprise here.

Now how about a Christmas tree review?

I don’t like that many “rays” on a sunstar, so I ended preferring the z mount Nikon to the r and ef mount Canons.

i'm waiting to hear colour scientist's opinions on this one.
regards

When did starburst become a sunstar? I realize both words describe the same phenomenon, but 'sunstar' is much more recent.

Could you add some comparisons at f5.6 or f8 or something? Given how early difraction sets in on today's high density sensors, and some newer lenses being able to sunstar early on?