Nikon 14-24mm or Tamron 15-30mm on A7r2 regarding Image quality (corners)

[EDBR]

More than satisfied about my A7r and A7r2. But lacking the “ultra wide angle zoom f2.8”.

 

Have already the Sony 16-35mmF4 and Loxia 21mmf2.8. For astrophotography use also the Samyang 14mmf2.8, Loxia 21mm and 24mmf1.4….

 

But the Nikon and Tamron seem to cover it all, maybe the quality on the A7r2 will be a little behind the Loxia but would give me the possibility traveling with one lens, max two (like to much the little Loxia) in stead of 4 lenses…

 

Have to say I meanly use these lenses for landscape (at f8-f11) and astrophotography (wide open or one stop closed), so don’t really care about AF…

 

But do care about quality all over the picture, also in the extreme corners certainly regarding landscaping.

Did anyone compare it to primes or other zooms on the A7r2 ?

 

Could also consider the Canon 11-24 but a little dark for astrophotography, only f4.0…prefer f2.8

Don’t know how this lens performs on the A7r2 in the extreme corners.

 

Thanks for any reply and friendly greetings

[Golem]

I find it peculiar that I repeatedly encounter

astro photo enthusiasts worrying about the

relative aperture of a lens. You would think

that they'd know better.

[Ben]

I find it peculiar that I repeatedly encounter

astro photo enthusiasts worrying about the

relative aperture of a lens. You would think

that they'd know better.

This really sounds condescending and wrong. If EDBR is doing astrophotography with an ultra wide angle lens there is no denying that a faster lens will be helpful. Stacking in these focal lengths is way more complicated than above 50mm (ff equiv) because all the software that can do mass batch stacking(~above 32 pictures) on consumer grade hardware(that is software that works with intermediate files) lacks proper distortion correction and is useless. If he wants to do landscape astrophotography neither a tracking mount nor stacking will help. There is no investment in widefield and landscape astrophotography that gives you a bigger increase in image quality than high quality and fast optics.

[Guest]

This really sounds condescending and wrong. If EDBR is doing astrophotography with an ultra wide angle lens there is no denying that a faster lens will be helpful. Stacking in these focal lengths is way more complicated than above 50mm (ff equiv) because all the software that can do mass batch stacking(~above 32 pictures) on consumer grade hardware(that is software that works with intermediate files) lacks proper distortion correction and is useless. If he wants to do landscape astrophotography neither a tracking mount nor stacking will help. There is no investment in widefield and landscape astrophotography that gives you a bigger increase in image quality than high quality and fast optics.

Well why would you want to stack more than 32 pictures? As I see the choice of his focal lenght, he is not going to shoot nebula's or something. The only reason I see why he should stack (maybe around 8 images) is to get a bit more detail in the picture (of stars and milky way) and bit less noise. The smaller the sensor, more techniques are needed to get nice astro-shots. With the a7r and a7rII this is not needed. About distortion... I think its easily fixed by shooting 3 pictures and only using the center of the image to avoid distortion on the corners... and re-align it in photoshop. 

 

Honestly... I dont understand the need of the OP for more quality on the extreme corners... I think this is more an outing from GAS than really a problem. The ultimate lens does not exist and never will. The need for more and more sharpness I will never understand. I honeslty think the only people care about sharpness on the extreme corners are the phony professional photographers. I  mean I  don't see what the OP wants. He wants more image quality by going for zoom lens? Isn't the reason to go for primes in first place for their superior IQ compared to zoom? It feels like upside down world. Although I can see the need for different focal length, I don't see the necessity... I mean, with the a7r and the a7rII it gives you more than enough space to crop and get the same fov. Having 4 landscape-oriented lenses and still not happy is imho not a good sign.

 

For OP: If rumors are true, sony might announce within 1-2 months a 14-28 or 16-35 F2.8 GM lens. Since you have more than enough money for your gear you can wait and afford this lens. Or buy a decent lens and not a Samyang. Like the Zeiss Otus 28mm.

ps: in 95% of the cases going for zoom is always an compromise on quality (and/or speed) compared to a prime.

 

 

[EDBR]

Thanks Ben, faster lenses are indeed a welcome feature. One stop different makes a difference of ½ of the light…

The A7 series is nice to use for astroP. Wide lenses are a more than welcome and fast wide lenses even more. Like I mentioned also very happy about the quality of the SY lenses.

Stacking exists of course and I use it but would prefer not to use it and have more f-low lenses around. And stacking an image out of a 14mmSY is very difficult regarding the rather heavy distortion.

Another clue is the time-problem, limiting in changing your position (you have to wait for taking 4, 8 or more images).

And during the night, 30sec is a long wait, and 8 times 30sec even more…

More expensive lenses like the Canon 14mm suffer from a more disturbing heavy coma…

So yes would like to know how the 14-24 performs on a A7r2.

 

Firebladex, a lot of fire…

 

Stacking images, very confident with the technique. But if you’re going for the Milky Way, wide is never wide enough and cropping certainly not a good path to follow.

You can find all this very well explained in http://www.lonelyspeck.com

Re-align is indeed working in PS but not on auto, you have to do it manually with the 14mmSY, try it auto in PS, it won’t work. See also site above

 

And “He wants more image quality by going for zoom lens?” That’s certainly not what I mean!!!!

My 16-35 f4 doesn’t have the quality of my Loxia 21mm f2.8 but can live with that.

But I would prefer a 16-35 f2.8 with the same quality at f8 or f11 but with the possibility to use it also in astroP at f2.8.

If the Nikon 14-24mm+A7r2 performs as good as my 16-35 I would be happy.

Regarding cropping, if you are used to use a wide angle for landscape you certainly don’t want to crop at some time you just hope it would have been wider (and yes in that case I'm even used to perform vertical shots to join them in a Pano).

And for landscaping you definitely will prefer good corners.

See: https://edwarddebruyn.myportfolio.com/tenerife2

 

About decent lenses, the Samyangs are performing very good regarding AstroP, believe me, even in the corners. Even better than some wide primes of Canon and Nikon (no coma).

And the Loxia 21mmf2.8 is more than decent but a little less J expensive than what you propose!

 

The only thing is that, even for day-landscaping and night (AstroP) would prefer “ONE” decent wide angle zoom, performing as my 16-35mm but with a f2.8 (sharp like the 14-24 on the D800 series, no coma and sharp)

This combined with my other less wide and less expensive legacy lenses for landscaping (Contax C/Y 30-70mmf3.4 and Rokkor Minolta 200f4). These lenses perform even better than “more NEW expensive lenses” at f8-f11 (preferred diaphragm for my landscape photography).

 

Why a f2.8 wide angle zoom: 

- This zoom (f4)is my most used lens (in combination with filters). 

- Don’t like to change lenses when working (dust, changing filters, danger of dropping filters or lens,..).

- Like also to travel light, the less lenses I’ve to carry around the happier I am.

 

And, so yes, if as you say, an f2.8 is coming, I certainly will sell most of my stuff for ordering this one, but didn't see any rumor about this....

[Guest]

hmm than I read your openings post wrong. I though you were only looking for a sharper lens. Still the rule applies there is no perfect lens and you have to compromise somehow. I honeslty think F4 can be enough to shoot stars and milkyway. Ofcourse its not ideal but it can work. I myself own the Samyang 24MM F1.4 en Samyang 85mm F1.4 (and owned the zeis 24-70 F4). I like the samyang for the price/quality they offer and its the most affordable way to shoot milkyways. But they are not sharp lenses. They are what you pay for. 

I am selling my 24mm F1.4 and saving up for the Loxia 21mm as the perfect lens for landscape and astrophotography. But if you are willing to accept the quality-loss of zoom lenses, I would say go for it. In a way, the best lens you have, is the one that you use the most. I dont think many people have the nikon/tamron lenses on the a7r/a7rII. If i were you, I would read the reviews of these lenses and go for it. As the only problem i can forsee is about AF functions (while using adapters) but for landscape and manual focus, it should not be any problems to use. I doubt using an adapter will result in quality loss.

The new G-master lens is still rumor. If you have patience, await the photokina (september 2016).

 

[EDBR]

firebladex

Think I would go for the Batis. Not unhappy about my Loxia but wider and same quality or even better.

About the SY, yes the 24mm is perhaps not the best but performs quit good for astrophotography.

Less sharp but not the ugly coma of the 24mm Canon or Nikon lenses.

From what I've seen my SY 35mm has better IQ: sharp at f2.8, and very sharp from f4 in the extreme corners.

The 14mm is very sharp from f8

The Loxia is already very sharp wide open in the extreme corners (made me forget the 24mmSY.)