The video should be the gold standard for any filmmaker who wants to explain something to other people. no confused talk, crystal clear announce, pure rational information. when you see this video, you realize how bad other videos are.
Thank you very much for this praise. I agree I do prefer videos that get straight to the point with no extra information or babble about affiliate codes, sponsors, or other useless information. My goal is always to deliver information clearly and concisely, and I am glad you appreciate that. Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comment, I am just now getting back into TH-cam and making videos again.
To the point. I have spend hours to find wide angle lens for astrophotoshoot until I came to your video which give all require details in few minutes and that too precisely. Thanks for video.
one tip, if you hate to deal with the edges and don't want to stop down aperture, get a higher megapixel camera, shoot as wide as you can and then crop in the middle.
Woo Hoo! I am just dipping my toes into astrophotography, and already own the Tamron 15-30 lens as a landscape photographer. I was wondering if I would be better off buying another lens, but think this will work for me, and it gives me the money I might have spent on more glass, getting a filter holder and filters for this lens.
Actually, some of the kit lenses are fine for astrophotogrpahy, so don't discount your's just yet. Do some test shots of the night sky and see if the results are acceptable.
If you can't see the milky way, you may have too much light pollution in your area, or you may not be pointing the camera in the right direction. This is a good website to see what light pollution is like in your area: darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html To locate the milky way in the sky, you can use Photo Pills or Stellarium: Photo Pills: www.photopills.com/videos/how-find-and-plan-milky-way Stellarium: www.stellarium.org/ Otherwise, how are the stars looking? Do they look like tiny pinpoints (circles), or are they smudges? If they appear like they have any aberrations that I listed in the video, depending to what degree they are distorted, you may want to pick up another lens. Also, keep in mind that tiny imperfections won't show up unless you print the photo in a large size, or if you like to pixel peep.
Apalapse thank you for all your help, the light pollution map is awesome and I’m gonna try again a night to point at the Milky Way when the weather will be better ( here in Switzerland ), for the aberrations they are not noticeable until I zoom in a lot, the stars are round so I think that is okay, also I try to get the iso the lowest possible to get the least noise possible ( I tried around 200-400-800). I’m trying to sell my kit lens to get a 50mm f1.8 and the next thing that I am going to buy will be a fisheye lens for star photography, with my crop sensor I want to get around 10mm with the widest aperture that is affordable. I just realised I need to go further to escape from light pollution so for the Milky Way I hope I can still get it without a very wide lens. Have a nice day and thank you for all your help
50mm might be pushing it for the milky way, but you can try it out. Look at some of the Rokinon ultra wide angles for APS-C if you feel like you need a better lens. I'm not sure what your kit lens' focal length is (18-55), but having a wider field of view is helpful for milky way shots. I've never tried fisheyes, but they're definitely a unique look.
I bought the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 specifically to try my hand at Milky Way photography! Wow, what a great lens for the money! And the lack of AF isn't an issue since in all likelyhood you need to manually focus the stars anyway. Another piece of kit I bought that is fantastik for MW shots is the iOptron StarGuider Pro. This is easy to use and allows you to track the stars, thus allowing longer exposure times.
Wow, both products sound like they're working great for you, that's nice to hear! The Rokinon 14mm f2.8 is one of the best value astrophotography lenses currently available. I have not experimented much with star trackers, only a couple of times with a rental, but they dramatically impvoe image quality. Thanks for commenting and sharing your experiences. Clear skies!
I am loving these videos, since the beggining, but these about astrophotography comes really handy since I am starting now developing a taste for it :D many thanks
I bet the new sigma 35 1.2 has to be amazing for it. How do you find the 2.8 when i came to gather light and also have you try wider angle lenaes les than 35 what do you think?
My sigma art series is so freaking awesome!!! It was $1500 but the absolute best lens I have ever shot with and really helped me get away from strictly nikkor.
If you're a beginner with the kit lens and want to do a lot of milky way/ astrophotography. get a $200 star tracker. The f3.5 and even f6.3 apertures are fine with star trackers since you can take up to 5 minute exposures.
Very good point. A star tracker can turn an otherwise non-astro lens into a great astro lens. The only reason why I don't recommend it is that for beginners it can be confusing and extra work. For example, with star trackers you need to know how to polar align and if you want to shoot landscape astro shots, how to blend a non star-tracked foreground with a tracked sky, so in the end it adds some complexity which some people are not out for.
After owning and returning the Rokinon and Sigma lenses, I settled on the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8.. Amazingly sharp. Very little aberration of any kind. For me, it's worth the price premium.
I have. It's a balancing act between the Sigma and the Zeiss. The Sigma affords more leeway with its focal length and aperture, and IMO, the Zeiss visibly better sharpness and less aberration. Haven't found the perfect lens yet. ' = )
The Sigma is very attractive, especially for the f/1.8 for that wide a lens. It would be a great lens to use. My first criterion is sharpness. For astro- and other photography. By the way, thanks for your analytical approach and professional delivery I am eager to view your other videos.
Truly excellent video! Very straightforward explanation and great images in the background. Very professional production quality, too. Subscribed! CheerZ!
Fantastic videos... seen a few already, and have some adjustments to do next time I go taking pictures at night!!! I have the Tokina 11-16mm lens and I'm really happy with it. Very good for its price point. Now I have to stop the trailing stars in my pictures... saw the video and now I know I can't let it for more than 20s (using a Canon 80D). Thank you so much!!!
I am thinking about getting this lens for my 70D. How do you like the image quality? Also, how accurate is the autofocus, especially indoors and/or evening outdoors? Thanks.
The telltale signature of astigmatism is that the images are elongated radially on one side of least worst focus, and tangentially on the other side. If the stars stay elongated the same way, it's not astigmatism. Other than that good recommendations for the lenses, even though sometimes you have to check the lens you purchase, make sure it's OK (and making images of stars is the best way), and if not send it back till you get a good one. My 24 and 35mm lenses (from Samyang, which is Rokinon) are quite good already at F/1.4. The 50mm is not good. Canon lenses.... For a trip to Iceland, to photograph aurorae, I bought the very expensive Canon 24mm F/1.4. Turns out if was very poor, seagull images in the corners. I sent it back to Canon technical services and after a while they sent it back to me, with a note saying "lens is perfectly normal, to improve the quality, stop the lens to F/4". Bunch of idiots, if I paid 1500 euros for that lens, it's not because I needed a 24mm F/4... So bought the much less expensive Samyang, which I had to send back because one side of the image was unsharp. The second was good. Then I went to Iceland, only to see clouds during one week :(. Samyang came out with a new series of XP lenses, and I am tempted by their 50mm F/1.2... But want others to purchase it first and tell me how it works at full aperture. Canon 85mm F/1.2 is full of chromatic aberrations at full aperture, and again, Samyang 85mm F/1.4 is quite useable at full aperture (at F/2.8 it's very good) In fact both lens can be brought to focus by looking at the color change when going through focus, purple halo, then green halo around the stars, and you try to get to the point where the color is changing...
Thanks for the comment and sorry for the late response, I'm just checking in on some comments now. I actually purchased and used the 50 mm f1.2 from Samyang and I thought the quality is quite good but there was heavy CA.
Your Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 looks just like my Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 I guess it's the same make (Samsung) that named differently in different markets. if it is then it's worth to mention.
Serge Bertasius yep! The only reason I didn’t mention it is because if you search Rokinon vs. Samyang you will get the same result. They are the same manufacturer.
F-stop number is the easy explanation (aperture divided by focal length), but what you really want is T-stop (for transmission, i.e. how much light you can get through your lens). Having two lenses with the same F-stop, it is preferred to use the one with lowest T-stop. Otherwise a nice video thank you.
This is correct, and something I should elaborate on in a future video. Most lenses however do not have much discrepancy between the f-stop and the t-stop which is why it was not mentioned here. Between manufacturers you may see a third to half-stop difference at most between the f-stop and t-stop, which while is marked is less of a factor for me than its performance in aberration and sharpness categories.
Before buying a lens, buy an equatorial mount. This will improve your photos way more than a lens will. You will be able to take very long exposure. You can have the best lens on the market, without a mount you'll still be limited by the time you shoot
I’m in love with my Tamron 15-30 I got it canon mount because it was on sale and use it on my Sony but didn’t realize when buying the mc-11 mount that it always hunts for focus and never really finds it . I’ve heard the metabones adapters are ok with them but the adapters are so expensive!
The MC-11 works well with some lenses. I never noticed any AF issues with my adapted Tamron when using Single Point, but I never tested it extensively. Effectively adapting non-Sony lenses is very expensive indeed! I am in the process of getting native wide angles.
Fantastic production and presentation! The only thing that would have made it better is if you had talked about the limitations of crop sensors and how using a speed booster can really help level the playing field with full frame equipment.
Excellent point, Scott. I am sorry I have taken so long to respond to this, I am just getting back into TH-cam and looking at my comments now. Speedboosters are a fantastic way of getting more light onto an APS-C sized sensor and I hope to make a dedicated video about this soon. I personally have not had experience with them yet as all my bodies are full frame but have seen amazing examples on TH-cam and other sites. Thanks for watching and for the great feedback.
Canon 35/1.4 II L is great, also Sigma 20/1.4. For single shot, you need to use 1.8- 2.2 aperture, because with 2.8, you will have to use iso 6400 or even more.
The Canon 35 mm f1.4L ii is amazing, and I covered it in my most recently astrophotography lens roundup. The Sigma 20mm f1.4 I found to have too much coma, though, and that one definitely needs to be stopped down to f2.2 or f2.8 to get good-quality shots with round stars in the corners.
I am trying to decide between a Sony 16-35 F2.8 G Master or two prime lenses, Sigma 14 mm 1.4 Art and the Sigma 20 mm 1.4 Art. I am leaning towards the G Master. Your thoughts?
I am in the same boat right now... assuming by the date of this post you have already settled on a decision? I was between a 16-35 GM & an 18mm + 25mm Batis prime. Decided on the GM, it should arrive in a few days.
Don’t sweat on lens aberration until you understand clear aperture and know what you’re buying. In astrophotography, f-stop is less relevant than what is known as clear aperture. This is an area into which most photographers fall with a very loud thump. Telescopes are usually referenced this way, rather than by focal length. This is because the ability to see faint objects in the night sky is absolutely dependent on it. I had a telescope with a 254mm mirror, otherwise known as “a 10 inch Dob”, which allowed me to see down to a maximum magnitude of -15.5, way, way below what can be seen with the naked eye. The bigger the mirror, the more light the scope can gather. Describing a lens as f/2 doesn’t tell us much without knowing the focal length. You might not think this matters but it does. F-stop is a ratio, not an absolute number. I have three lenses, a 16mm, a 21mm and a 28mm, all of which are f/3.5. From this, most people would conclude that they would produce the same result but they don’t. Why? Well a 16mm has a clear aperture of 4.6mm. The 21mm has a clear aperture of 6mm and the 28mm has a clear aperture of 8mm. Of the three, the 28mm is going to let in the most light because it has the largest pupil. That doesn’t mean the others can’t be used. Nor does it mean that you shouldn’t use f-stops as a guide. Of my lenses, the 21mm is probably the best compromise of focal length and aperture. This is why a lens like a 24mm f/1.4 wins. It’s clear aperture is more than 17mm for a decently wide lens. That’s a lot of light gathering capacity. I don’t disagree with any of your recommendations, though personally, I avoid zooms. I’m sure they are all extremely capable and they have big enough clear apertures. But for anyone looking to stop down, I would advise them to consider the effect it has on light gathering. It may improve the image but the results might not translate as well as they think. Me, ‘m looking for a decent used 24mm f/2 with its clear aperture of 12mm. Just my 2 cents.
You are absolutely correct, and this is something I should have mentioned in my video. Clear aperture is the physical diameter of the hole that lets light into the camera. F-ratio is exactly that, a ratio. The importance of clear aperture is not something I really considered until recently, when I beame more inolved in telescope astrophotography. For normal camera lenes though, it is a tradeoff between greater clear aperture size and shutter speeds for star trailing, so even though a 50mm f1.4 will physically let in more light than a 24mm f1.4, with the 24mm you will see less star trailing at an equivalent exposure length. I am trying to experiment urrently with panoramas using a 50mm f1.2 lens which I recently purchased. Although I can only use a shutter speed of 6 seconds to avoid trails, the bright aperture of f1.2 (and large clear aperture) gives me good detail and together I can stitch a milky way photo that would have the equialent field of view of a wider lens with far more detail. Clear aperture is definitely a topic I will explore in future Astrophotography 101 videos, though, thanks for the feedback and for watching!
Its not allways about the aperture. One of my favourite astro setup is Sony Vario-Tessar FE 16-35mm F4. Yes F4! + Sony A7S. This camera is so sensitive, that I can use much lower exposure times than my Samyang 14mm f2.8 + Canon 5Dmk2 setup. Or if I use even faster lens on other camera bodies.
Thanks for this video. I'm thinking about getting an equatorial mount tracker to get longer exposures, but one thing excites me even more than stacking several dozen one minute exposures, and that is Lucky Imaging. Could you please do a video on this? You don't even need a tracker for lucky imaging.
A guy I know does astrophotography just using an "active" tripod. He made it himself, using step motors from old floppy disk drives, and a control circuit he did himself. That's waaaaay too complicated of course, so today the DIY options can be easily done with a Raspberry Pi or something. There surely must be something readily made on the market as well. That's if you want to take long lenses with closed apertures for a spin. Get it? "Spin" Ha-ha.
When taking those images in which both stars and landscape are visible, aren't landscapes going to be overexposed? because well of the amount of light that's going in? (I'm new in photography so if answer's obvious don't hate :D)
Good question! It really depends on the moon phase. In a new moon phase, the landscape will actually be underexposed, since the only light is coming from the stars. Under a quarter to half moon phase, the landscape will be correctly exposed, and under a full moon, the landscape will be overexposed, as well as the sky. If you have trouble with the exposure of your landscapes, taking separate exposures for the sky and foreground, each with different settings, then blending in post, is a popular method, and I hope to make a video on that in the future. Let me know if you have other questions.
I have a nikon d3500 and asside from the kit lens I bought a 70 - 300mm one from nikon. Can I take deep sky photos like nebula with that? Also can I get a remote shutter for my camera?
Hi! A Nikon d3500 paired with the 70-300mm lens you purchased would be best-suited for deep-sky photos, as you asked. The problem is, that at 70mm, which is the lens' widest focal length, you are still dealing wth an effective field of view equal to 70mm*1.5=105mm, which, if you consider the "500 Rule" which is a general rule for calculating shutter speeds for astrophotography, would yield you a shutter speed of just around 5 seconds. This 5 second shutter speed would be the maximum time you could expose for without your camera producing star trails in the photos, which, can be a stylistic choice, but not good for deep-sky imaging like I think you are hoping to do. To combat the star trails you need to purchase or make a star tracker. A star tracker works to move the camera in a way that counteracts the Earth's rotation. The Earth's rotation is what causes the stars to move across the sky and produce star trails in your images. These trackers simply rotate the camera about the celestial pole at the same rate the Earth rotates, meaning that even at really large focal lengths, like 105mm or even higher, you can expose your photos for much longer. Longer shutter speeds are important because they will let more light into your camera and produce a cleaner image. Remember, the level of noise in your photo is directly dependent on how much signal you have to work with, so exposing for longer will get you cleaner, more detailed images. So, to answer your question, Yes! That setup should work, but a star tracker will help you a great deal.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. Both lenses are fantastic and seriously good at rendering stars. I have recently acquired the 135mm f2 for some "deep sky" tracked shots due to the rave reviews I have heard. Don't hesitate to pick these products up, and look forward to reviews on my channel sometime in the future.
Using a wider aperture (lower f-number) would definitely let more light into the camera, but at 50mm, you will have to contend with the motion of the stars, which, if you're not careful, can lead to trailing when long shutter speeds are used. I would give it a shot with the 50mm prime and see if the quality is better than the slower, albeit wider, 18mm end of your kit lens. Which ever result you like more, use. Hope this helps. Clear skies!
That lens doesn't have a lot of reviews, but from what I could find, the lens is sharp in the center at f1.8 but in the corners it is pretty soft and there is a lot of coma. I would recommend renting it or buying and returning just so you can see for yourself. You are the best person to judge whether a lens is "good" or not since your standards are very different from someone else's. Personally, I am very strict when it comes to sharpness and coma performance wide open, so if it were me, I would not buy this lens. I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to comment.
Hey, sorry for the late reply. If you want maximum light gathering to capture the stars you will need to use a wide aperture, like f2.8. F8 and f11 are smaller apertures meaning the amount of light actually coming into the camera from the lens will be 4 times (for f8) or 8 times (for f11) less than what you would see at f2.8. For astrophotography, you want to collect AS MUCH light as you can since the milky way and the night sky are very faint and the camera needs as much data as it can get.
Nice advice I'm not shooting in ur category but the tips are very useful.... I'm from Guyana an i still shooting in stock lens at the time but i enjoy each of it tutorial
Hi there, Thank you very much for very good video, actually I’m a beginner photographer, I passed the lessons in architecture school, my passion is astrography and I’m trying to buy my first camera with the first lense ,I don’t have any idea which camera is more suitable for me which is not too much expensive Thank you very much Anna
Hi, Anna. Sorry for the late response to your message, I am just reading comments now. What is your budget for an astrophotography camera? I would recommend maybe a used Nikon D800, D750 with a Nikon 20mm f1.8 or Sigma 35mm f1.4 for a really good starting setup. For a cheaper setup a Canon 6D with Rokinon 24mm f1.4 and 14mm f2.8 would be super great. On the Sony side you can find the Sony a7r or a7r2 now for relatively cheap and that opens you up to a line of great atsro lenses for Sony, such as the 24mm f1.4 GM and the Sigma 35mm 1.2.
Most likely! What is the maximum aperture on that 18-135? The wider the aperture, the better, since the lens controls how much light enters the camera. Even if it's not a wide aperture like f2.8 or lower, I would still try and experiment, plus, star trails are always an option even when dealing with inadequate gear.
I have Nikon D5300 and just bought a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Will it be a good enough set up for astrophotography? If yes, what will be the ideal settings? 24mm and f/1.8? What should be the shutter speed?
Just saw this video. Great info. Do you have any experience yet with this new line of wide angle lenses from Irix ? They make an 11mm f/2.8 and 15mm f/2.4 I believe.
I don't have any personal experience with those lenses, but I have heard great things about them in the astrophotography community. Just from specifications, the Irix 15mm f2.4 would be great due to its wide focal length, fast aperture, and low distortion and aberration properties. I also believe it can accept normal filters, a quality not shared by other lenses in that focal range.
I'm really in a bind trying to choose between the nikon 20mm 1.8 and the tamaron 15-30. I figured the 20mm would be a better all purpose lens since it has the 77mm filters (I love my ND filters!), but I'm not sure I want to succumb to the tamaron's ultra-wide zoom versatility. If anyone else has or has had this dilemma, can you let me know what swayed you to either of them? By the way, I've upgraded to a d850. I used to shoot milky ways with a d7000 and 10.5mm 2.8, which worked, but looking to improve.
I had the Tamron 15-30 f2.8, but sold it because I wanted faster glass and ND filters, just like you described. I would go for the 20mm f1.8 then. It's a great lens, and the f1.8 aperture will give you cleaner and more detailed photos. Otherwise, Sigma makes some great AP lenses too (14mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.4). Let me know what you end up buying. Good luck!
I was choosing between these two lens and chose the Nikon 20mm as it can fit filters and when trying both these lens at a store the 20mm stood out. It also can focus very close and is very very sharp at f1.8 also the tamron is a beast of the lens compared to the Nikon, weighting double
Hello and thanks for this video! It's been two years since you made this video and I'm wondering if you've used the Batis 18mm f/2.8 and if so your thoughts for it for Astrophotography.
I have a question to ask about the Tokina Lenses. The 11-16 f/2.8 , the 11-20 f/2.8 and the 14-20 f/2. all of these have circular filter compatibility hence can be easily used as a daytime wide landscape lens and a night time astro lens. I would want to know which one of these is the best performer in terms of image quality and sharpness and aberrations.
Sorry for the late response, I just got done with finals. The 11-16 is a tried and true performer. It is seriously good value for the stunning images it produces. I have used it and while it can't compare to the extremely expensive astro lenses, it does a lot for the amount you pay. The 11-20 is a nother good option, however you really pay for the extra 4mm. The 14-20 I have NOT heard about, so after doing a little research, it seems to be a good astro lens. I know Christopher Frost Photography has a bunch of lens review videos covering the wide angle tokinas, so I would give them a watch. Hope I could help!
@@Apalapse I disagree with you. I have the Tokina 11-16 on my D500 and the corners are absolutely shit, you have to stop it down to f4 to get better results but than you need to crank up the ISO. Generally speaking the corners are soft on the lens and also 11mm is the strongest focal length. To me it is disappointing for astro photography.
The video should be the gold standard for any filmmaker who wants to explain something to other people. no confused talk, crystal clear announce, pure rational information. when you see this video, you realize how bad other videos are.
Thank you very much for this praise. I agree I do prefer videos that get straight to the point with no extra information or babble about affiliate codes, sponsors, or other useless information. My goal is always to deliver information clearly and concisely, and I am glad you appreciate that. Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comment, I am just now getting back into TH-cam and making videos again.
To the point.
I have spend hours to find wide angle lens for astrophotoshoot until I came to your video which give all require details in few minutes and that too precisely.
Thanks for video.
This is an excellent video. It covers a lot of Lens theory in a simple and concise yet understandable manner.
Very accurate and most reasonable explanation, because all the good things and hobbies interest ends by the credit card. Thank's a lot
Glad it was helpful!
One of the best lesson to learn from TH-cam.
Thanks
Glad to hear that! Thanks for watching!
one tip, if you hate to deal with the edges and don't want to stop down aperture, get a higher megapixel camera, shoot as wide as you can and then crop in the middle.
Woo Hoo! I am just dipping my toes into astrophotography, and already own the Tamron 15-30 lens as a landscape photographer. I was wondering if I would be better off buying another lens, but think this will work for me, and it gives me the money I might have spent on more glass, getting a filter holder and filters for this lens.
The only thing I have - kit lens :/
Actually, some of the kit lenses are fine for astrophotogrpahy, so don't discount your's just yet. Do some test shots of the night sky and see if the results are acceptable.
Apalapse thank you for your response, I have done some tests , I can see a lot of stars and it’s awesome but I can’t get The Milky Way, just stars.
If you can't see the milky way, you may have too much light pollution in your area, or you may not be pointing the camera in the right direction.
This is a good website to see what light pollution is like in your area: darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html
To locate the milky way in the sky, you can use Photo Pills or Stellarium:
Photo Pills: www.photopills.com/videos/how-find-and-plan-milky-way
Stellarium: www.stellarium.org/
Otherwise, how are the stars looking? Do they look like tiny pinpoints (circles), or are they smudges? If they appear like they have any aberrations that I listed in the video, depending to what degree they are distorted, you may want to pick up another lens. Also, keep in mind that tiny imperfections won't show up unless you print the photo in a large size, or if you like to pixel peep.
Apalapse thank you for all your help, the light pollution map is awesome and I’m gonna try again a night to point at the Milky Way when the weather will be better ( here in Switzerland ), for the aberrations they are not noticeable until I zoom in a lot, the stars are round so I think that is okay, also I try to get the iso the lowest possible to get the least noise possible ( I tried around 200-400-800). I’m trying to sell my kit lens to get a 50mm f1.8 and the next thing that I am going to buy will be a fisheye lens for star photography, with my crop sensor I want to get around 10mm with the widest aperture that is affordable. I just realised I need to go further to escape from light pollution so for the Milky Way I hope I can still get it without a very wide lens. Have a nice day and thank you for all your help
50mm might be pushing it for the milky way, but you can try it out. Look at some of the Rokinon ultra wide angles for APS-C if you feel like you need a better lens. I'm not sure what your kit lens' focal length is (18-55), but having a wider field of view is helpful for milky way shots. I've never tried fisheyes, but they're definitely a unique look.
This video is really good in 10 seconds i understand which lens i should buy👍🙂
I'm making an updated video soon.
@@Apalapse I just subscribe so don't miss your video😉
I bought the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 specifically to try my hand at Milky Way photography! Wow, what a great lens for the money! And the lack of AF isn't an issue since in all likelyhood you need to manually focus the stars anyway. Another piece of kit I bought that is fantastik for MW shots is the iOptron StarGuider Pro. This is easy to use and allows you to track the stars, thus allowing longer exposure times.
Wow, both products sound like they're working great for you, that's nice to hear! The Rokinon 14mm f2.8 is one of the best value astrophotography lenses currently available. I have not experimented much with star trackers, only a couple of times with a rental, but they dramatically impvoe image quality. Thanks for commenting and sharing your experiences. Clear skies!
I am loving these videos, since the beggining, but these about astrophotography comes really handy since I am starting now developing a taste for it :D many thanks
Bought a zeiss 35/2.8 a few days ago for my a7riii. Ainly for ASTRO photos. Very pleased with it.
I bet the new sigma 35 1.2 has to be amazing for it. How do you find the 2.8 when i came to gather light and also have you try wider angle lenaes les than 35 what do you think?
35mm f1.2 will gather so much more light than the f2.8, but f2.8 is stll enough to do some seriously good astro work.
What a friendly video, thanks! (I did nearly abort when I heard the generic VO...)
Thank you so much!!! I have a miro 4/3 and have been so confused on which lens to get and you answered all my questions on this video.
I'm so glad!
Wow aprendí muchísimo en este video, y eso que no se mucho Inglés. Bravo 👏
thanks!
This was absolutely excellent! so well explained and very helpful, i knew most of it but i still learned something nee, thank you so much!
thanks so much!
My sigma art series is so freaking awesome!!! It was $1500 but the absolute best lens I have ever shot with and really helped me get away from strictly nikkor.
Which specific sigma lens are you using? The 14mm?
If you're a beginner with the kit lens and want to do a lot of milky way/ astrophotography. get a $200 star tracker. The f3.5 and even f6.3 apertures are fine with star trackers since you can take up to 5 minute exposures.
Very good point. A star tracker can turn an otherwise non-astro lens into a great astro lens. The only reason why I don't recommend it is that for beginners it can be confusing and extra work. For example, with star trackers you need to know how to polar align and if you want to shoot landscape astro shots, how to blend a non star-tracked foreground with a tracked sky, so in the end it adds some complexity which some people are not out for.
@@Apalapse you make a good point, maybe a fester prime lens would be money better spent.
@@hairlesschimp479 I think so.
After owning and returning the Rokinon and Sigma lenses, I settled on the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8.. Amazingly sharp. Very little aberration of any kind. For me, it's worth the price premium.
Have you tried the Sigma 14mm f1.8?
I have. It's a balancing act between the Sigma and the Zeiss. The Sigma affords more leeway with its focal length and aperture, and IMO, the Zeiss visibly better sharpness and less aberration. Haven't found the perfect lens yet. ' = )
Interesting! I have yet to use either the Zeiss or Sigma, but the f1.8 of the Sigma is enticing for me, and I don't mind cropping the extreme edges.
The Sigma is very attractive, especially for the f/1.8 for that wide a lens. It would be a great lens to use. My first criterion is sharpness. For astro- and other photography. By the way, thanks for your analytical approach and professional delivery I am eager to view your other videos.
I'm renting the lens for an upcoming trip to a dark sky site, so I will let you know what you think.
Truly excellent video! Very straightforward explanation and great images in the background. Very professional production quality, too.
Subscribed! CheerZ!
Wow, thank you for the kind words and thanks for the sub! Cheers!
Fantastic videos... seen a few already, and have some adjustments to do next time I go taking pictures at night!!! I have the Tokina 11-16mm lens and I'm really happy with it. Very good for its price point. Now I have to stop the trailing stars in my pictures... saw the video and now I know I can't let it for more than 20s (using a Canon 80D). Thank you so much!!!
I am thinking about getting this lens for my 70D. How do you like the image quality? Also, how accurate is the autofocus, especially indoors and/or evening outdoors? Thanks.
The telltale signature of astigmatism is that the images are elongated radially on one side of least worst focus, and tangentially on the other side. If the stars stay elongated the same way, it's not astigmatism. Other than that good recommendations for the lenses, even though sometimes you have to check the lens you purchase, make sure it's OK (and making images of stars is the best way), and if not send it back till you get a good one. My 24 and 35mm lenses (from Samyang, which is Rokinon) are quite good already at F/1.4. The 50mm is not good. Canon lenses.... For a trip to Iceland, to photograph aurorae, I bought the very expensive Canon 24mm F/1.4. Turns out if was very poor, seagull images in the corners. I sent it back to Canon technical services and after a while they sent it back to me, with a note saying "lens is perfectly normal, to improve the quality, stop the lens to F/4". Bunch of idiots, if I paid 1500 euros for that lens, it's not because I needed a 24mm F/4... So bought the much less expensive Samyang, which I had to send back because one side of the image was unsharp. The second was good. Then I went to Iceland, only to see clouds during one week :(. Samyang came out with a new series of XP lenses, and I am tempted by their 50mm F/1.2... But want others to purchase it first and tell me how it works at full aperture. Canon 85mm F/1.2 is full of chromatic aberrations at full aperture, and again, Samyang 85mm F/1.4 is quite useable at full aperture (at F/2.8 it's very good) In fact both lens can be brought to focus by looking at the color change when going through focus, purple halo, then green halo around the stars, and you try to get to the point where the color is changing...
Thanks for the comment and sorry for the late response, I'm just checking in on some comments now. I actually purchased and used the 50 mm f1.2 from Samyang and I thought the quality is quite good but there was heavy CA.
The best explanation. Clear, Thanks.
Finest way to learn photography ... My Great Wishes with Apalapse .
Your Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 looks just like my Samyang 14 mm f/2.8
I guess it's the same make (Samsung) that named differently in different markets.
if it is then it's worth to mention.
Serge Bertasius yep! The only reason I didn’t mention it is because if you search Rokinon vs. Samyang you will get the same result. They are the same manufacturer.
Very informative and well delivered video! You are a good teacher, subbed!
F-stop number is the easy explanation (aperture divided by focal length), but what you really want is T-stop (for transmission, i.e. how much light you can get through your lens). Having two lenses with the same F-stop, it is preferred to use the one with lowest T-stop.
Otherwise a nice video thank you.
This is correct, and something I should elaborate on in a future video. Most lenses however do not have much discrepancy between the f-stop and the t-stop which is why it was not mentioned here. Between manufacturers you may see a third to half-stop difference at most between the f-stop and t-stop, which while is marked is less of a factor for me than its performance in aberration and sharpness categories.
Your videos are amazing!
Thanks for a quick and easy to follow video. Loved it.
YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST !! KEEP IT GOING !!! LOVE YOU
Outstanding presentation.
thanks!
Before buying a lens, buy an equatorial mount. This will improve your photos way more than a lens will. You will be able to take very long exposure. You can have the best lens on the market, without a mount you'll still be limited by the time you shoot
Very true. I plan on making a video about this in the future!
Very well made and detailed videos, love your channel.
Thank you very much, Damien.
I’m in love with my Tamron 15-30 I got it canon mount because it was on sale and use it on my Sony but didn’t realize when buying the mc-11 mount that it always hunts for focus and never really finds it . I’ve heard the metabones adapters are ok with them but the adapters are so expensive!
The MC-11 works well with some lenses. I never noticed any AF issues with my adapted Tamron when using Single Point, but I never tested it extensively. Effectively adapting non-Sony lenses is very expensive indeed! I am in the process of getting native wide angles.
Wow very Good Information!
Fantastic production and presentation! The only thing that would have made it better is if you had talked about the limitations of crop sensors and how using a speed booster can really help level the playing field with full frame equipment.
Excellent point, Scott. I am sorry I have taken so long to respond to this, I am just getting back into TH-cam and looking at my comments now. Speedboosters are a fantastic way of getting more light onto an APS-C sized sensor and I hope to make a dedicated video about this soon. I personally have not had experience with them yet as all my bodies are full frame but have seen amazing examples on TH-cam and other sites. Thanks for watching and for the great feedback.
Canon 35/1.4 II L is great, also Sigma 20/1.4. For single shot, you need to use 1.8- 2.2 aperture, because with 2.8, you will have to use iso 6400 or even more.
The Canon 35 mm f1.4L ii is amazing, and I covered it in my most recently astrophotography lens roundup. The Sigma 20mm f1.4 I found to have too much coma, though, and that one definitely needs to be stopped down to f2.2 or f2.8 to get good-quality shots with round stars in the corners.
I am trying to decide between a Sony 16-35 F2.8 G Master or two prime lenses, Sigma 14 mm 1.4 Art and the Sigma 20 mm 1.4 Art. I am leaning towards the G Master. Your thoughts?
I am in the same boat right now... assuming by the date of this post you have already settled on a decision? I was between a 16-35 GM & an 18mm + 25mm Batis prime. Decided on the GM, it should arrive in a few days.
nikon 20mm 1.8 is freaked crazy amazing
I think so, too, although there are better lenses now. An updated astro lens guide is coming.
Nicely explained! I'm a fan 😊
Bravo...A perfect review and the best I have ever seen ...
Don’t sweat on lens aberration until you understand clear aperture and know what you’re buying. In astrophotography, f-stop is less relevant than what is known as clear aperture. This is an area into which most photographers fall with a very loud thump. Telescopes are usually referenced this way, rather than by focal length. This is because the ability to see faint objects in the night sky is absolutely dependent on it. I had a telescope with a 254mm mirror, otherwise known as “a 10 inch Dob”, which allowed me to see down to a maximum magnitude of -15.5, way, way below what can be seen with the naked eye. The bigger the mirror, the more light the scope can gather. Describing a lens as f/2 doesn’t tell us much without knowing the focal length. You might not think this matters but it does. F-stop is a ratio, not an absolute number.
I have three lenses, a 16mm, a 21mm and a 28mm, all of which are f/3.5. From this, most people would conclude that they would produce the same result but they don’t. Why? Well a 16mm has a clear aperture of 4.6mm. The 21mm has a clear aperture of 6mm and the 28mm has a clear aperture of 8mm. Of the three, the 28mm is going to let in the most light because it has the largest pupil. That doesn’t mean the others can’t be used. Nor does it mean that you shouldn’t use f-stops as a guide. Of my lenses, the 21mm is probably the best compromise of focal length and aperture. This is why a lens like a 24mm f/1.4 wins. It’s clear aperture is more than 17mm for a decently wide lens. That’s a lot of light gathering capacity.
I don’t disagree with any of your recommendations, though personally, I avoid zooms. I’m sure they are all extremely capable and they have big enough clear apertures. But for anyone looking to stop down, I would advise them to consider the effect it has on light gathering. It may improve the image but the results might not translate as well as they think. Me, ‘m looking for a decent used 24mm f/2 with its clear aperture of 12mm. Just my 2 cents.
You are absolutely correct, and this is something I should have mentioned in my video. Clear aperture is the physical diameter of the hole that lets light into the camera. F-ratio is exactly that, a ratio. The importance of clear aperture is not something I really considered until recently, when I beame more inolved in telescope astrophotography. For normal camera lenes though, it is a tradeoff between greater clear aperture size and shutter speeds for star trailing, so even though a 50mm f1.4 will physically let in more light than a 24mm f1.4, with the 24mm you will see less star trailing at an equivalent exposure length. I am trying to experiment urrently with panoramas using a 50mm f1.2 lens which I recently purchased. Although I can only use a shutter speed of 6 seconds to avoid trails, the bright aperture of f1.2 (and large clear aperture) gives me good detail and together I can stitch a milky way photo that would have the equialent field of view of a wider lens with far more detail. Clear aperture is definitely a topic I will explore in future Astrophotography 101 videos, though, thanks for the feedback and for watching!
Very well explained indeed.
Thank you very much!
Thanks you very much for letting us 😍😊
Glad you liked the video!
After only 39 seconds I subscribe to the channel! I will follow you. 👌🏼
Thanks!
I got 18-55 kit lens will i be able To make that shot?
You should be able to. I have taken milkyway images using my nikon 18-55 kit lens.
Its not allways about the aperture. One of my favourite astro setup is Sony Vario-Tessar FE 16-35mm F4. Yes F4! + Sony A7S. This camera is so sensitive, that I can use much lower exposure times than my Samyang 14mm f2.8 + Canon 5Dmk2 setup. Or if I use even faster lens on other camera bodies.
How is tikona 11-20mm for astrophotography ?
Thanks for this video. I'm thinking about getting an equatorial mount tracker to get longer exposures, but one thing excites me even more than stacking several dozen one minute exposures, and that is Lucky Imaging. Could you please do a video on this? You don't even need a tracker for lucky imaging.
I've actually never heard of lucky imaging, but I will certainly check it out and maybe make a dedicated video for it!
A guy I know does astrophotography just using an "active" tripod. He made it himself, using step motors from old floppy disk drives, and a control circuit he did himself. That's waaaaay too complicated of course, so today the DIY options can be easily done with a Raspberry Pi or something. There surely must be something readily made on the market as well.
That's if you want to take long lenses with closed apertures for a spin.
Get it? "Spin"
Ha-ha.
Lol
This is absolutely brilliant! Thanks very much!
Hi great video. Any comments on the sigma 16 1.4 , I just got it. Thanks again.
Rubén espinoza planning to get this lense too, how does it work out?
And here I am doing astrophotography with a dated Pentax-F 70-200 f4-5.6 with the k-5 ii
When taking those images in which both stars and landscape are visible, aren't landscapes going to be overexposed? because well of the amount of light that's going in? (I'm new in photography so if answer's obvious don't hate :D)
Good question! It really depends on the moon phase. In a new moon phase, the landscape will actually be underexposed, since the only light is coming from the stars. Under a quarter to half moon phase, the landscape will be correctly exposed, and under a full moon, the landscape will be overexposed, as well as the sky. If you have trouble with the exposure of your landscapes, taking separate exposures for the sky and foreground, each with different settings, then blending in post, is a popular method, and I hope to make a video on that in the future. Let me know if you have other questions.
Apalapse Thanks, really good video btw
Well explained, thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for the great informations and for the superior content ❤
You are welcome. I am glad you found my videos helpful and I hope you stick around to see more of my content. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Do you have any experience with the Rokinon 20mm f/1.8? Is it worth it over the 14mm f/2.8?
Awesome video man 👍🏾 which of the sigma lenses would you recommend the best for a Fuji camera?
Thanks 🙏🏾
I've got the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm F/2 (2nd Gen) for my APS-C and I cannot rate it highly enough.
Nice graphics! I'm impressed :D :D sort of like a kurtgesatz aesthetic but without the birds :D
Haha!
this was really good information, thank you
Glad it was helpful!
I have a nikon d3500 and asside from the kit lens I bought a 70 - 300mm one from nikon. Can I take deep sky photos like nebula with that?
Also can I get a remote shutter for my camera?
Hi! A Nikon d3500 paired with the 70-300mm lens you purchased would be best-suited for deep-sky photos, as you asked. The problem is, that at 70mm, which is the lens' widest focal length, you are still dealing wth an effective field of view equal to 70mm*1.5=105mm, which, if you consider the "500 Rule" which is a general rule for calculating shutter speeds for astrophotography, would yield you a shutter speed of just around 5 seconds. This 5 second shutter speed would be the maximum time you could expose for without your camera producing star trails in the photos, which, can be a stylistic choice, but not good for deep-sky imaging like I think you are hoping to do.
To combat the star trails you need to purchase or make a star tracker. A star tracker works to move the camera in a way that counteracts the Earth's rotation. The Earth's rotation is what causes the stars to move across the sky and produce star trails in your images. These trackers simply rotate the camera about the celestial pole at the same rate the Earth rotates, meaning that even at really large focal lengths, like 105mm or even higher, you can expose your photos for much longer.
Longer shutter speeds are important because they will let more light into your camera and produce a cleaner image. Remember, the level of noise in your photo is directly dependent on how much signal you have to work with, so exposing for longer will get you cleaner, more detailed images.
So, to answer your question, Yes! That setup should work, but a star tracker will help you a great deal.
simply amazing content in quality videos!
What do you think about the samyang 14mm F2.8 and samyang 135mm F2?
Sorry for taking so long to respond. Both lenses are fantastic and seriously good at rendering stars. I have recently acquired the 135mm f2 for some "deep sky" tracked shots due to the rave reviews I have heard. Don't hesitate to pick these products up, and look forward to reviews on my channel sometime in the future.
Great video quality 👍
I own a 70D crop sensor, would i gain a lot quality if upgrade to 6D?
I also own the Rokinon 14mm
70d+14mm =20min exposure
6D+14mm= 30 min exposure
Can I use 50mm Prime as it will support me to go for higher aperture? Apart from this the only option I have is my 18-55mm kit lens.
Using a wider aperture (lower f-number) would definitely let more light into the camera, but at 50mm, you will have to contend with the motion of the stars, which, if you're not careful, can lead to trailing when long shutter speeds are used. I would give it a shot with the 50mm prime and see if the quality is better than the slower, albeit wider, 18mm end of your kit lens. Which ever result you like more, use. Hope this helps. Clear skies!
Hi there, I’m looking at the Viltrox 20mm f1.8 Nikon z mount. Would this be good for milkyway as well as northern lights
That lens doesn't have a lot of reviews, but from what I could find, the lens is sharp in the center at f1.8 but in the corners it is pretty soft and there is a lot of coma. I would recommend renting it or buying and returning just so you can see for yourself. You are the best person to judge whether a lens is "good" or not since your standards are very different from someone else's. Personally, I am very strict when it comes to sharpness and coma performance wide open, so if it were me, I would not buy this lens. I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to comment.
Thank you for a very informative video
I am a 8 year hobby photographer and I find this very well done! Will share it around!
Thanks!
Great video but need help finding a lens for my Sony a6400 mirrorless to shoot the milky way in Prescott Az. Thanks Robert.
Good work ! Thanks
So if I have a 2.8 lens, I should use it at 2.8 and not 8 or 11 which I though would be sharper image?
Hey, sorry for the late reply. If you want maximum light gathering to capture the stars you will need to use a wide aperture, like f2.8. F8 and f11 are smaller apertures meaning the amount of light actually coming into the camera from the lens will be 4 times (for f8) or 8 times (for f11) less than what you would see at f2.8. For astrophotography, you want to collect AS MUCH light as you can since the milky way and the night sky are very faint and the camera needs as much data as it can get.
Just learned and thanks
Nice advice
I'm not shooting in ur category but the tips are very useful....
I'm from Guyana an i still shooting in stock lens at the time but i enjoy each of it tutorial
Thanks! Even with a stock lens you should be able to get good results, give it a shot!
Sure I dose work so hard to get the best out of every moment I pick up my Camara
@@wallyb_photographyvybz Awesome, that's the right mentality!
Fantastic video my friend! New subscriber!
Thank Q for ur Astrophotography great tips ....!
Wanna see ur more videos pls....
Yes, more will be coming for sure!
6 minutos de intenso conhecimento fotográfico
Is the footage (for example the timelapse) you used in the video from you or a shutterstock type side? :)
It's from ESO
Well explained
Thanks!
Thank You Very Much
I have a sigma 24-70 2.8
Nikon 10.5 fisheye
Tamron 10-24
Nikon d7500 camera
Sounds like a good combo!
Hi there,
Thank you very much for very good video, actually I’m a beginner photographer, I passed the lessons in architecture school, my passion is astrography and I’m trying to buy my first camera with the first lense ,I don’t have any idea which camera is more suitable for me which is not too much expensive
Thank you very much
Anna
Hi, Anna. Sorry for the late response to your message, I am just reading comments now. What is your budget for an astrophotography camera? I would recommend maybe a used Nikon D800, D750 with a Nikon 20mm f1.8 or Sigma 35mm f1.4 for a really good starting setup. For a cheaper setup a Canon 6D with Rokinon 24mm f1.4 and 14mm f2.8 would be super great. On the Sony side you can find the Sony a7r or a7r2 now for relatively cheap and that opens you up to a line of great atsro lenses for Sony, such as the 24mm f1.4 GM and the Sigma 35mm 1.2.
Wao excellent videos! Congratulations!
Very good video.
Thanks!
Please keep doing this
SOOOOOOOOOOOO HELPFUL VIDEO THANK YOU
I have Sony alpha 6000 with 18-135 prime lens, so will I be able to capture milky way or do perform some astrophotography with it?
Most likely! What is the maximum aperture on that 18-135? The wider the aperture, the better, since the lens controls how much light enters the camera. Even if it's not a wide aperture like f2.8 or lower, I would still try and experiment, plus, star trails are always an option even when dealing with inadequate gear.
@@Apalapse 🙏😊
Good video, thanks
Witch camera is best for estrophotography
There is no best camera for astrophotography, but the Sony a7s and Canon 6D are very good options.
I have Nikon D5300 and just bought a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Will it be a good enough set up for astrophotography? If yes, what will be the ideal settings? 24mm and f/1.8? What should be the shutter speed?
Nope I would do 18mm f2.8 and ISO 1600
Just saw this video. Great info. Do you have any experience yet with this new line of wide angle lenses from Irix ? They make an 11mm f/2.8 and 15mm f/2.4 I believe.
I don't have any personal experience with those lenses, but I have heard great things about them in the astrophotography community. Just from specifications, the Irix 15mm f2.4 would be great due to its wide focal length, fast aperture, and low distortion and aberration properties. I also believe it can accept normal filters, a quality not shared by other lenses in that focal range.
Hi. Do you have any recommendations for telephoto lenses for deep space object photography?
The Rokinon 135mm f2 or Canon 70-200mm f2.8L ii are my top choices but if you want DEEP space I would recommend a dedicated telescope.
How about irix series? They have a 15mm f2.4 all manual lens for $399
I'm really in a bind trying to choose between the nikon 20mm 1.8 and the tamaron 15-30. I figured the 20mm would be a better all purpose lens since it has the 77mm filters (I love my ND filters!), but I'm not sure I want to succumb to the tamaron's ultra-wide zoom versatility. If anyone else has or has had this dilemma, can you let me know what swayed you to either of them? By the way, I've upgraded to a d850. I used to shoot milky ways with a d7000 and 10.5mm 2.8, which worked, but looking to improve.
I had the Tamron 15-30 f2.8, but sold it because I wanted faster glass and ND filters, just like you described. I would go for the 20mm f1.8 then. It's a great lens, and the f1.8 aperture will give you cleaner and more detailed photos. Otherwise, Sigma makes some great AP lenses too (14mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.4). Let me know what you end up buying. Good luck!
I was choosing between these two lens and chose the Nikon 20mm as it can fit filters and when trying both these lens at a store the 20mm stood out. It also can focus very close and is very very sharp at f1.8 also the tamron is a beast of the lens compared to the Nikon, weighting double
I almost forgot about the close focusing. Also, the sunstars are great on the Nikon, which, if you shoot landscape, can be a priority.
Apalapse a bit confused here... didn't you say in the video that you use the Tamron???
I did, but sold it. I wanted a lens I could use filters with more easily, but also sold it for other reasons mentioned in an above comment.
Nice Video!
Thank you, Dennis!
Would you recommend using a vintage Nikkor lens (e.g. 35mm/2.8 or 24mm/2.8) on a Canon 5D, with a lens adapter? Or too slow?
Hello and thanks for this video! It's been two years since you made this video and I'm wondering if you've used the Batis 18mm f/2.8 and if so your thoughts for it for Astrophotography.
I have personally not used this lens although it is quite amazing from what I have heard. I would recommend it.
Great channel!
Thanks!
I have a question to ask about the Tokina Lenses. The 11-16 f/2.8 , the 11-20 f/2.8 and the 14-20 f/2. all of these have circular filter compatibility hence can be easily used as a daytime wide landscape lens and a night time astro lens. I would want to know which one of these is the best performer in terms of image quality and sharpness and aberrations.
Sorry for the late response, I just got done with finals. The 11-16 is a tried and true performer. It is seriously good value for the stunning images it produces. I have used it and while it can't compare to the extremely expensive astro lenses, it does a lot for the amount you pay. The 11-20 is a nother good option, however you really pay for the extra 4mm. The 14-20 I have NOT heard about, so after doing a little research, it seems to be a good astro lens. I know Christopher Frost Photography has a bunch of lens review videos covering the wide angle tokinas, so I would give them a watch. Hope I could help!
Yes you surely helped. Get a hands on the 14-20. Try it out. Would surely want to know whats your take on it.
@@Apalapse I disagree with you. I have the Tokina 11-16 on my D500 and the corners are absolutely shit, you have to stop it down to f4 to get better results but than you need to crank up the ISO. Generally speaking the corners are soft on the lens and also 11mm is the strongest focal length.
To me it is disappointing for astro photography.