Looking for a lens (Canon) best-suited to the night-sky

Dan27

Dan27

Messages
23
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
In a few months I'm going to the observatory on Mt. Teide in Tenerife and while I'll have plenty of expensive equipment to do some deep-field astronomy, I'd love a lens that could capture the view of the night sky in all it's glory - as I'm sure it's going to be brilliant at near 2,400m!

I'm guessing I'll need something wide and fast, but I'm unsure as to what would be a good compromise.

I don't really want to spend more than £500.

(Also, I already have a Canon 70-300mm & 60mm macro at my disposal ... would the macro be good for this purpose?)

Advice would be great,
Thanks! :)
 
Buy a niffty ffity and spend the rest on a good tripod and shutter remote
 
I'd say get a tripod and a UWA, in the region of 10mm. It doesn't need to be fast as it'll be on the tripod. That would get you a stunning sky-scape!

Look at the Canon 10-22, sigma 10-20 or the tokina 11-16, all great UWA lenses and within your budget if you buy carefully.
 
Last edited:
Canon 10-22 on a crop, or 16-35 L II f/2.8 on a full frame.
The guy on the BBC stargazing program was using a 16-35L. Hire the lens if necessary.
 
sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is faster than the 10-22mm, can't comment on how it's IQ compares though.

Another option, the samyang 14mm f/2.8. Manual focus and aperture control, and distortions aren't well controlled (complex distortion on a FF body as well), but it's resolution is on the same kind of level as the legendary nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8. For the price, I'd seriously be considering this!
Not as wide as the 10-20ish-mm zooms and with more distortion, but it's faster, cheaper and sharper (and at 14mm, AF is hardly important).
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is faster than the 10-22mm, can't comment on how it's IQ compares though.

Another option, the samyang 14mm f/2.8. Manual focus and aperture control, and distortions aren't well controlled (complex distortion on a FF body as well), but it's resolution is on the same kind of level as the legendary nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8. For the price, I'd seriously be considering this!
Not as wide as the 10-20ish-mm zooms and with more distortion, but it's faster, cheaper and sharper (and at 14mm, AF is hardly important).
Click to expand...

The Canon 10-22 is just as fast at the wide end where you want it, it's f3.5 - 4.5
 
Last edited:
My mistake, thought it was f/4 or 4.5
 
The sigma is f3.5 throughout the whole range though so is very slightly quicker at 20mm but I doubt you'd notice. The sigma f3.5 isn't supposed to be as good though.
 
startrails - a sharp f/2.8 zoom will do. shoot at iso100 wide open for a very long time (remote release will be needed).

if you are after steady sky shot, you'll need fast primes (f/1.4 or 1.2). to get 'a lot in' 24mm f/1.4 on 5d mkii / d3s / d700 will help. even wider? -14mm f2.8L on ff.
thats a lot of money before you ask
 
Thanks for all the prompt replies!
The Canon 10-22 looks brilliant, i might be tempted!
I'll definitely be investing in a sturdy tripod & shutter remote anyway :)

odd jim said:
I'd say get a tripod and a UWA, in the region of 10mm. It doesn't need to be fast as it'll be on the tripod. That would get you a stunning sky-scape!

Look at the Canon 10-22, sigma 10-20 or the tokina 11-16, all great UWA lenses and within your budget if you buy carefully.
Click to expand...

The sigma & tokina also look very good, seem highly rated too. With only £100 or so in it, which would you recommend?

Cheers!
 
Dan27 said:
Thanks for all the prompt replies!
The Canon 10-22 looks brilliant, i might be tempted!
I'll definitely be investing in a sturdy tripod & shutter remote anyway :)

The sigma & tokina also look very good, seem highly rated too. With only £100 or so in it, which would you recommend?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Personally speaking, I bought the canon!
 
I spent months deciding on what UWA. I went for the Canon 10-22 because;

Least distortion
Better flare control
Bigger range
Decent aperture (better than Sigma, not as good as Tokina)

OK you get a hood and case with the other two I believe, you get a 2.8 aperture with the Tokina and a great price on the Sigma.

Ultimately I decided that image was the deciding factor - now they are all close, but I read the Canon was just a little bit better. I don't use 2.8 for wide angle shooting nor will be using a hood because I will be using Grad Filters on the front in the future. I will be carrying the gear in a larger case anyway so the pouch/len case supplied isn't a killer.

The build quality is good. I read it was as bad as the kit lens which nearly put me off buying it. I say the zoom and focus rings are equally as good as the focus ring on the 100mm 2.8L IS macro.


Andy
 
Last edited:
Depends what style of photo you want, but the faster the better IMHO. Even on 30sec exposures on a nifty 50 set near enough wide open, you get elongation of the stars due to the earths rotation. If you're downsizing the photo to web sizes, it's less of an issue, but it'll be bloomin annoying if you want a large print from it.
 
I already own the Canon 10-22 and I've used it for some wide-field astro shots in the past -

MilkyWay%20and%20Coalsack.jpg


But I've recently bought the Tokina 11-16, just for the extra 2/3 of a stop. If you're buying the lens mainly for astro shots then I'd recommend the Tokina. If you're going to be using it for other stuff then I'd go with the Canon.
 
Again, thanks for the replies!

I'm starting to feel as though the Tokina may be the one to go for. I don't necessarily need the range of the Canon, and that f/2.8 seems appealing.
Might just top it off with the 50mm - at such a good price i may as well make use of a fast prime up there. (albeit with a narrower field of view.)

:thumbs:
 
Just came across the apparent flare problems with the Tokina ... does anybody have experience with this?
 
the new Sigma 10-20 is available in either f3.5 constant or f4-5.6.

I've got the f3.5, and this particularly copy is better then the canon version I tried, much sharper.
 
Dan27 said:
Just came across the apparent flare problems with the Tokina ... does anybody have experience with this?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the main reason why I'm keeping the Canon for everyday use while the Tokina will be just for astro shots.
 
Ahh right, going to have to weigh up the pro's & con's of these again now :thinking:

hollis_f said:
Yes, it's the main reason why I'm keeping the Canon for everyday use while the Tokina will be just for astro shots.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top