Jump to content

Affordable UWA Lens for Astro and Landscape


Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I am currently looking for an UWA lens for astro photography and landscape. Ideally:

  • it should not cost a fortune (< 1k)
  • deliver high optical quality all the way to the edges with low coma and CA
  • be as compact as possible

I know these requirements are somewhat contradictive, but still, I'm trying to find the best compromize for me. 

Currently, I have narrowed it down to the following candidates:

  • Samyang 14mm F2.8 manual version: huge, not designed for Sony FE, no filter thread and copy-to-copy variation seems to be a big problem
  • Samyang FE 14mm F2.8 AF version: no filter thread, some say it's better than the manual version, others say it's worse, don't really need AF
  • Laowa 15mm F2 Zero D: coma correction is only average
  • Irix 15mm F2.4 Blackstone: huge, not designed for Sony FE
  • Tokina Firin 20mm F2: a bit narrow with 'only' 20mm

Any recommendations? Which lenses do you use for astro/landscapes?

 

Cheers,

keepcoding

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hm, nobody interested in this topic or are you all busy taking photos?  ;)

 

Update from my side:

  • the Samyang manual lens and Irix Blackstone are out (too bulky and heavy)
  • Samyang AF lens is out (too soft towards edges at F2.8 and too much CA)
  • Laowa lens is out (too much CA at F2 and high coma below ~F3.2 and electronic contacts for EXIF / MF assist as well as weather sealing would have been nice at this price point)

Note that the above conclusions are purely based on my opinion by looking at sample photos on the web. You are welcome to proove me wrong with new 'evidence'.

 

This leaves me with the Tokina Firin, which itself has some drawbacks (lens barrel scratches easily and no weather sealing). Therefore, I am considering to save towards a Batis 18mm lens, which seems to be close to perfect in every aspect (maybe a bit bulky, but I could live with that). 

I also had a closer look at the Loxia 21mm, also a pretty much perfect lens. But given that it costs the same as the Batis and is only 21mm + MF + not weather sealed + has slightly worse coma correction, I would prefer the 18mm Batis over the Loxia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking for an ultra wide to match the 24-105.

There isn't much out there in terms of ultra wide, small, and quality.

 

I've had my eye on the voigtlander 15mm f4.5, which is supposed to be excellent.

 

If you are really serious about astrophotography, F4.5 might be a turn off.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

........... 

 

There isn't much out there in terms of  

 

ultra wide,

small,

and quality.

 

................

     

Law Of The Universe:  

   

"CHOOSE ANY 2 OUT OF THOSE 3 .... "    

    

1st Amendment of the LOTU:  

   

"Choose, no whining"   

   

  

`

Link to post
Share on other sites

Law Of The Universe:  

   

"CHOOSE ANY 2 OUT OF THOSE 3 .... "    

    

1st Amendment of the LOTU:  

   

"Choose, no whining"   

   

  

`

 

True. But I'm not looking for an imaginary lens that is tiny, has stellar image quality and a focal length of 8mm ;-) A compromise is always an option if it makes sense (e.g. trade 5% image quality for 30% less weight). I mean only very very few people would consider to buy a Zeiss Otus because of the better image quality compared to 'standard' glass. The increase is just too small to justify that much more bulk and money. 

 

Anyway, I will give the Batis 18mm a try, could be a good compromize for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

New to Sony full frame and in the same spot as you. Keep us updated with how the Batis works out.

 

Good luck!

 

True. But I'm not looking for an imaginary lens that is tiny, has stellar image quality and a focal length of 8mm ;-) A compromise is always an option if it makes sense (e.g. trade 5% image quality for 30% less weight). I mean only very very few people would consider to buy a Zeiss Otus because of the better image quality compared to 'standard' glass. The increase is just too small to justify that much more bulk and money. 

 

Anyway, I will give the Batis 18mm a try, could be a good compromize for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to Sony full frame and in the same spot as you. Keep us updated with how the Batis works out.

 

Good luck!

 

 

In the meantime I've tried the Batis and have to admit: it's a brilliant lens. Focal length is nice, sharpness at F2.8 good to the edges (corners get sharp by ~F5.6), coma is low and there are virtually no chromatic aberrations.

What I do not like so much is the price tag and the size of the lens. And the OLED display is about as useless as I imagined.

 

My review for those who are interested: https://blog.keepcoding.ch/?p=2893

 

I am currently waiting for my copy of the Tokina Firin 20mm and will compare it to the Batis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm currently thinking about Tokina Firin 20mm/2.0 vs Nikkor 20mm/1.8+adapter.

 

Firin is $700 MF/$950AF and Nikkor is $800.  There's Sigma ART 20/1.4 $900 but both out perform it.

 

I believe all three/four meets your criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I'm adding this to this thread because it is about affordable UWA lenses for Sony FF and I felt it meets all criteria.

9 shots taken with A9, Samyang 12mm f/2.8, stitched together as a spherical panorama and then converted to this little planet using PTGUI Pro. 5 shots would have been sufficient, but it's easier to fix small issues like dog running around in between shots, when you have lots of overlap.

Location is Schwarzhorn (Flüela) summit, 3147m, Switzerland.

Click image for download page of full resolution pic.

And, btw, this Samyang fisheye lens is available for under CHF 500,-

Edited by Chrissie
Link to spherical panorama inserted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you may get the idea, that fisheye lenses can only be used for very rare use cases. I would like to show, that you can also do quite normal shots, if the circumstances allow for it.

If you take care to place the horizon at (or very close to) the center of the picture, then it will remain a straight line and the distortion will be unnoticeable. And the field of view of a fisheye lens is hard to beat, without stitching several shots.

The following shots were also taken with the Samyang 12mm f/2.8:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also "play" with the predictable distortion of a fisheye lens by intentionally placing the center of the picture slightly below the horizon. This way you'll get a convex horizon, which resembles the curvature of the earth at great distances, to emphasize the impression of vastness:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Granted, this is more than "slightly" below the horizon, but illustrates the effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Placing the center of the image above the horizon will give you a concave horizon, which in my view looks distinctly unnatural. I'm adding this just for completeness:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chrissie said:

I would like to show, that you can also do quite normal shots, if the circumstances allow for it.

Thanks, Liveshots, for your appreciation.

Said "circumstances" in particular involve, that you have no off-center traits in your picture, which viewers know or expect to be straight, like trees, signposts and the like. Keeping differently oriented (horizontal, vertical) parts of your scenery straight simultaneously may be impossible to achieve. The horizon is fairly simple in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...