The Best Lens for Star Photos | Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.4 & f/2.8 (aka Rokinon)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 ноя 2017
- What's the best lens for taking star photos?
In this comparison, Matthew Saville compares the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art lens with the Rokinon (also known as Samyang) 14mm f/2.4 and 14mm f/2.8 lenses.
Comparisons of vignetting, distortion, sharpness, and other factors are all covered in this video review.
This video was produced by NatureTTL.com, in partnership with B&H Photo Video.
New photography deals every 24 hours from B&H: www.bhphotovideo.com/find/dea...
-- KIT LIST --
Got your eye on some of the gear used in this video? You can find everything at the following (affiliate) links:
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art: geni.us/axJ0
Rokinon / Samyang 14mm f/2.4: geni.us/iiPy
Rokinon / Samyang 14mm f/2.8: geni.us/jMsCma
Learn more about nature photography at www.naturettl.com/start-here/ 
Наука
This was exactly the comparison I was looking for. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you so much for such an awsome comparison!
Great video! Have you used the Batis 18mm for astrophotography? If you have what are your thoughts on it?
Great video. Keep 'em coming.
Thanks for the outstanding review!!!
I agree with your assessment and recommendations. I started with a used Rokinon 14mm 2.8 lens ($200) and recently moved up to the Rokinon 14mm 2.4 version ($799). For me the 2.4 version is clearly better than the 2.8 for both daylight and night images. While I almost purchased the Sigma, the on-line sample night images did not justify the additional cost in my case. Until I watched your video it did not occur to me to use both at the same time, thank you. Also I subscribed to your most excellent channel.
Brilliant review!
Did not expect that voice
have you did any color setting on different lens when you shot these photos?
What iso should i set my cam?
Great, comprehensive review, thank you. At 3:11 the Sigma has massive coma at the corner (or is it astigmatism - is there a way to distinguish?) when compared with the Samyangs. No way I'd buy it for Astro. And thank you for declaring your affiliate links. Many don't.
Just what I need, thanks :)
Wow! Your voice intro shook my car and the volume wasn't even loud!
How does the 14mm 2.4 stack up against the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II and the Sigma 18-35 1.8?
Very honest review which matches my experience.
? At 3:14 the corner image samples clearly show astigmatism to be far worse in the Sigma than either of the Rokinon's, looking at those corner sample the winner is the 2.4 closely followed by the 2.8 and way behind is the Sigma 1.8
Hi Terry! See my other reply to a similar comment below. Essentially, your eye is keen and your assessment is correct. I prefer the Rokinon myself, and I only ranked the Sigma "first" because in every other way besides coma, it is a winning combination. And the coma, although noticeably worse than the other options at 100%, ...is really not that bad at normal viewing distances.
But, I agree with you, and I'm saving up for the Rokinon, not the Sigma. ;-)
Nice review! Can you also try the Yongnuo 14mm f/2.8?
Have you tried the Irix 15mm?
Which one would you say is sharper, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 or the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on a DX body?
Maybe I am missing it, but I can’t find a Rokinon 14mm F2.4. Found plenty of Rokinon 14mm f2.8 for sale and I have used one before, but not the F2.4 you refer to.
This is the exact comparison I've been looking for. Would love to get the Sigma Art but good lord the price 😱 that Rokinon or Samyang 14mm 2.4 is pretty nice
How do you do sky stacks to reduce noise? Have you got a tutorial?
We do indeed! Check this out: www.naturettl.com/stack-star-photos-reduce-noise-photoshop/
Curious to see your thoughts on the Samyang 16mm F2 for a crop sensor camera such as the 80D?
Hi Roozbeh,
I owned and extensively tested the Rokinon/Samyang 16mm f/2 on a high-megapixel Nikon D5300, a 24 MP sensor that has no AA filter, so it really put the 16mm f/2 through its paces!!! It is downright impressive. Incredibly sharp wide open through most of the frame, totally usable for astro-landscape work and anything else. And by f/5.6, it's so wicked-sharp, it's honestly as sharp as, or sharper than, any 24mm lens I've ever used on full-frame!
However, as with all Rokinon "ordinary" lenses, the construction is not that amazing, and the lens can eventually get soft at the edges if you're not gentle with it. I would still highly recommend it, though! However if you're on mirrorless, the new Sigma 16mm f/1.4 might be a good choice too.
I buy sony a7rii.. what best lens for astrophotography?
What about the venus optics 15mm f2.0?
I have it, it has coma like the sigma, but its way smaller tho... I think the 14mm 2.4 and the venus are the best of them
how about Samyang 12mm f/2 NCS CS?
Now, where does the Irix 15 mm fit in?
I have elongated stars in my corners when i shoot. Anyone else have this problem? It happens on both my 10mm Rokinon (dx) and 14mm 1.8 Sigma. It’s not star trails.
I have a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and have never had any of the problems with it, mentioned in this video.
With a crop sensor, would the Rok 2.8 still be as bad with the vineting or would it be good to go?
Adam Shaw a crop sensor will lose the edges of the image so you should see an improvement, yes
Whats the best lens for either Canon T8i or Canon 90D? I mean the best lens not best budget. THE BEST. I need the price to be under 1200$. Also is Canon T8i or Canon 90D good for Astrophotography? Which one between the two is better?
I'm actually very surprised at the recommendation. The test shots at 3:14 clearly show massive coma on the Sigma, and the Rokinon 2.4 showing the least amount of coma (while the 2.8 shows trailing, I suspect it still has less coma than the Sigma given the same exposure time). Are the test shots mislabeled?
Hi Brock,
No, you are correct, the Sigma's coma is much more noticeable. This result has also been What you need to keep in mind is that it really only shows up in the extreme, extreme corners, unlike many other lenses which begin to show coma as early as the rule-of-thirds points.
This is, indeed, one of the reasons why I personally would choose the Rokinon 14 2.4 SP over the Sigma, as I stated in the video. I dislike coma "wings" much more than others do.
Having said that, once you stop the two lenses down to f/2.8, the Sigma is just plain impressive. The coma wings are still present, however they're much smaller and the overall acuity in the fine detail is incredible. So, despite the coma, it seems that many folks are preferring the Sigma.
I choose the Rokinon SP, and apparently so would you, though. Again as I mentioned in the video, different quirks about image quality will incline folks to draw different conclusions.
Hi, I have the Sony A7 iii, I was considering the sigma 14 1.8 or the Sony 16-35 2.8 Gm. Only thing I am concerned with is the sigma 14 kind of being one trick pony and not as versatile as the 16-35 2.8. Sigma runs 1599 and the 16-35 2.8 runs 2199. Any suggestions would be appreciated! I already have the Sony Fe 24-70 2.8 GM would that work okay for an Astro lens?
What did you decided to buy for astrophotography ?
Thanks for a great review! A pity you didn't throw-in Laowa 15/2 lens though...
I'll save that one for a "mirrorless only" lens comparison, since it's not available on Canon / Nikon. There's a few other lenses I want to test out that are mirrorless-only, like the Tokina 20mm f/2 Firn!
Wonderful! Laowa is supposed be my UWA lens of choice once I move to mirrorless full-frame so it would be great to see a good review by a professional :) Tokina is supposed to show "Super-wide" and super fast WA this year, so maybe it's worth waiting a little with the review too ;) ( www.sonyalpharumors.com/tokina-super-wide-wide-fe-primes-unveiled-2018/ )
I've not yet had a chance to do start photos, but I recently scored the Rokinon 14mm/2.8 for just $150 from Ebay. I've been doing cloud time-lapses, and so far it's looking great, esp. for the price. If I continue to use 14mm a lot, then I would definitely consider upgrading to the Rok f2.4, and also gain electronic aperture control functionality. Manual aperture is also another minus of the cheapest Rokinon, but it's still well worth the $$.
Someone calling it like it is. He's has my respect
would love to see how the Irix 15mm f/2.4 and the Laowa 15mm f/2 Zero-D stand up!
Yep, me too.
True Agreed
you good guy.
never liked such reviews. this looked with pleasure.
Fantastic Review as always! I recently purchased the Samyang 14mm RF mount with auto focus and it has pretty much lived on my EOS R for the last 3 weeks on all my architectural shoots. I ended up reviewing it in real world scenario on my channel.
Great review. But, I had no idea Jeff Daniels was into photography.
Good radio voice I could understand everything everything he said, I gots to get me a wide angle
How would these compare to the irix 15mm f2.4 and tamron 15-30mm f2.8?
Hi Rustin,
Of those two other lenses, the Tamron is a pretty widely acclaimed lens for being incredibly sharp even in the extreme corners and wide open; having reviewed it a couple years ago I would definitely say it is almost on par with the Sigma 14 at 2.8, or the Rokinon 14 2.4 SP at 2.8. The Tamron also has incredibly low vignetting, (although the Sigma probably beats it by 2.8) and incredibly low distortion. It is actually a touch lighter than the Sigma, though, and offers you the zoom range of course, making it a much more practical choice for other things, while the Sigma is a real one-trick pony due to its massive weight and prime focal length.
The Irix 15mm f/2.4 is also allegedly quite impressive, from the reviews I've seen and sample images that friends have sent me. I would not put it on par with the Sigma 14 when stopped down to f/2.4, though, and honestly I'd rather have the 14mm of the Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 anyways, if I'm going to "put up with" f/2.4.
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the lenses mentioned, though, if you simply get the one that suits your needs best. For me personally, that is the Rokinon 14 2.4, and maybe a 2nd lens like the Tamron 15-30 for when I need a zoom and a 2nd focal length for timelapse work where two cameras are desirable.
Thanks. Heard great reviews on the tamron also but also heard it’s closer to an f3.2 in reality. Heard mixed reviews on the irix
I have the Tamron 15-30 and don't find it all that sharp. I'm looking at replacing it with the Sigma 14mm f1.8. The VC is a bit of a gimmick really because sometimes it will shift the elements into an area of inferior optical performance and you'll end up with a whole area of the frame that is soft. For astro it is satisfactory, but not fast enough for my liking.
Eight months later and the Irix 15mm f2.4 is getting great reviews and worth a look. If backpacking the weight of a fixed lens is something to consider over a fast zoom.
I've had the 2.8 Rokinon for some time and loved it to bits, until I accidentally dropped it and cracked the front element :/ . I'm currently using the Rokinon 20mm 1.8 which of course is great for low light and suffers from average coma in the extreme corners. I am however missing the extreme wide angle from the 14mm
Unfortunately, my own Rokinon 14 2.8 suffered the same fate a while ago. Smashed the front element on a rock.
But, that's part of the beauty of owning a $250 lens. You don't go into cardiac arrest as you watch the lens smash onto a rock. Don't get me wrong, it's still extremely un-desirable to smash a lens, but since the lens is only $250, I'm more likely to do certain things like leave the camera out overnight, or shoot in a nasty storm, etc.
The Rokinon 20mm is impressive, but yeah, it's so different a focal length from 14mm that you kinda still wish you had both of them in your bag...
Got the samyang 14mm F 2.4 for free, what camera should i get lol? ive been thinking 80D (general photography, travel) (Canon EF mount)
for good value cannon 5D mark 11 (old but full frame large sensor )
Canon 6D or 6D mk ii if you can afford it. The tilt screen is incredibly useful. Both are amazing in low light environments.
what about laowa
My Samyang 14mm f2.8 isn't sharp at all and has terrible astigmatisms all over the image. I wonder if I just have a bad model.
I'm shooting on a full frame sony so I know that 14mm on that lens will be much wider than on an aps-c sensor.
I am not sure I understand, the Sigma is the best one overall with no complaints but the new Rokinon 2.4 is better for pixel pickers? huh?
Hi Guy Geffen,
It was a difficult choice for me to leave this review with a slight contradiction, but that's just the best way I could put it based on what I know most other photographers prioritize when they're considering a lens like this.
Simply put, if you put both of the lenses at f/2.4, The Sigma's vignetting is SIGNIFICANTLY less than the Rokinon. making it plain and simply a brighter lens overall at the same apertures until f/5.6 or so.That's hugely valuable to many astro-landscape shooters, and they're likely willing to put up with a faint amount of coma (at f/2.4) in order to get such an incredible improvement in vignetting.
The main reason I chose the Rokinon as my own personal favorite was that I'm just a real stickler for coma alone, moreso than other aspects of image quality.
I do have two complaints about the Sigma, firstly its price and weight are the "worst" of the bunch, and secondly its coma "wings" are the worst of the bunch. However, I must still recognize it as the overall champion of the bunch, even if my own personal preference differed.
Can we use the samyang 14mm f/2.4 with APS-C bodys like Nikon D500 ?
Christos Santakas yes you absolutely can! Although to be honest, on APS-C the old Rokinon 14 2.8 is pretty darn sharp and clean, since it crops off the corners. You couldn't go wrong buying any of these three 14's, based on your budget and weight preferences.
Matthew Saville Thank you Matthew !
Seller on eBay offered to sell sigma 14mm Canon mount for 1170 so I'm like, binging these old reviews and comparisons. vignetting really grinds my gears in night photos on my 14mm 2.8 Samyang, plus i had to hack it to fix that decentering so I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on the sigma rn
Have tried or can you comment on the Laowa 12mm f2.8? I read that it's fairly decent for astro photography.
Mau Tsukuda I wouldn't call it fairly decent. Or at least I would say, it's not worth the extra 2mm to me, to compromise on the corners as much as the Laowa does, compared to the Sigma 14 or the Rokinon 14 SP. I'd honestly rather have one of the f/4 zooms that goes to 12mm or 11mm, or the Irix 11mm f/4, since shooting that wide affords you a slight bump in shutter speed anyways.
Matthew Saville have you personally tried it? 2mm at the ultra wide end can make a huge difference.
Yes, I photographed the solar eclipse in August with the Laowa 12mm and the Sony 12-24mm, and I've also recently been reviewing the Irix 11mm f/4.
To be honest, 14mm is almost always wide enough for me. If I ever bought a wider lens, it would be a secondary purchase after I already had my favorite / the best 14mm.
Matthew Saville in your opinion, what's the best 14mm for the money?
I use the Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS Lens and I've got very good results from it on my Canon 550D and 60D cameras.
That's an absolutely great lens, for any APS-C sensor cameras! It equals roughly 15mm or 16mm depending on if you're using it on Nikon DX or Canon EF-S, respectively, but it's still beautifully wide and quite sharp.
Why don't you use autofocus? Even when you're not shooting nightscape?
i just make a test with samyang 14mm 2.8 (same as rokinon) with blackmagic 4k!
How about Laowa’s 12mm f2.8 and 15mm f2
i agree........
no tokina?
I am owner of most Canon primes, 8-15 fisheye, 16-35 LII, 24-70L, 70-200 IS LIII, but then i´ve got this cheap Samyang and I was worried about the quality for photos and videos. I work mostly for interiors, and I see no difference almost (only the heavy vignette) between my 16-35 and the 14mm samyang. Now i´ve got the 10mm Samyang to shoot wide videos in my cropped sensong @ 4K 1DX MKII Canon flagship camera! Amazed by these cheap lenses!
Vignettes are easy easy to correct too with a lens profile same as distortion. So What is the real issue with the Roki? The max aperture. the sigma lets in a 2/3rd stop more light than the roki 2.4 lens so that is significant. The sigma shots could have less noise as a result of requiring less post gain. Again very significant. Yes there are ways to reduce noise in post but with astro its very time consuming and hit or miss. But lets also be honest. The sensor technology has a lot to do with things too. A low noise sensor recieving less light exposure and more gain could perform as well as a lesser sensor recieving more light and requiring less gain. All astro images have to have more or less gain applied. so a photo at f2.4 exposure, if shot on a low noise sensor could match a photo shot on a faster lens like the f1.8 sigma. Something to consider.
I would trade my Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 for the Sigma 14mm 1.8 lens.
Thanks for the Video!! Good to know that these lower price lens perform with good IQ. Only the more expensive like Canon, Nikon or Zeiss are better built to last.
Indeed, longevity has always been a problem with the older third-party options. The oldest Rokinon 14mm is almost a "disposable" lens. Good thing it's so cheap!
I'm really hoping that the new Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 SP starts a new era in Rokinon build quality, and proves to be a lot more sturdy in the long run. So far I think the jury is still out though, the lens is still only a year old in the wild, or less...
Sigma Art 14mm is fine art lens,excellent!!!!!!!
"pinsharp at 1.8"?? are we looking at the same picture? because to me it'e very clear the Rokinon 14 2.4 wins hands down
you're right, to me the Rokinon is the winner. However the Sigma is still even sharper at f/2.4, and has significantly less vignetting compared to the Rokinon 14 f/2.4, so if you care about central sharpness and corner vignetting more than you care about actual extreme corner sharpness and low coma, then the Sigma is a winner.
I was simply attempting to share what I thought would be most people's choice, while also disclosing what my own personal choice would be. I guess I should have stated it more clearly that the Rokinon 14 2.4 was my own personal winner.
Any thoughts on the Laowa 15mm f2?
How about Canon 14mm L 2.8?
On the B&H reviews for the Sigma is not that great.
Good video.
Bee Cee Look at other sites also. Sigma auto focus is slow and inconsistent.
Do you use auto focus on night photo? No. At least that's what I have learned.
3:13 I see corma in sigma
So at 3:06 you use photos taken at three different exposure lengths as your example for sharpness? Yeah, that's flawed.
If you are showing how sharp the lens is when it's wide open, the exposure times are going to have to be different.
@@tracesoftexas327 or make the ISO different.
It should be stated that Sigma has actually decent customer service, so you can get the Sigma 14 repaired/realigned as needed. On the other hand, RokiBowYang's customer service is worse than useless--they just waste your time. At the absolute best, they don't repair any lenses--they just offer to sell you replacements.
Based on your review I got curious to check Bryan Carnathan's lens image quality charts, in those charts Sigma at 1.8 is very significantly sharper than Rokinon 14 at 2.4!
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1135&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1121&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
Ali Morshedlou I would be suspicious of any review that showed a SIGNIFICANT difference between either of the two lenses, unless you start getting really nitty-gritty with the more subtle and obscure ways you can measure image quality. And even then, as I mentioned, when you do you may find that the Rokinon delivers preferable image quality for your own taste...
Well, what can I say, I never touched any of these lenses, you know better. Still, the charts in the link are interesting to look at, they really show a significant difference!
Yes, in Lensrentals measurement chart the Sigma 14/1.8 also shows outstanding results
The Sigma is indeed outstanding, don't get me wrong. In fact I tried to make it clear that my preference for the Rokinon was not entirely based on image quality, it was also based on price and weight. But the one thing about image quality that would stop me from getting the Sigma was the "coma wings" which were noticeable until f/4 or so. Overall, the Sigma may indeed have better corners than the Rokinon in many conditions and metrics, but for me the Rokinon is just too much more affordable and slightly lighter so that sways my decision as well.
Vignetting is the big issue with all of these lenses. Although there are many reviews claiming that the sigma 14mm 1.8f has less vignetting compared to these samyangs its hard to believe. You can forget profile correction, it just makes picture worse... Especially if you are working with canon which has even less dynamic range.
I;m selling one of these of anyone is in the Toronto area (e mount)
😜 All wrong here: IRIX 15mm 2.4. Manual focus, clicks in at super accurate infinity, no nonsense like gaffer tape to fix focus ring or so. Nikkor focus rings a way to less tight, Sigma has coma, Zeiss to expensive. The Blackstone version of IRIX is about 700 has Alu Magnesium barrel, the Firefly has identical optics like Blackstone, but plastic barrel like Nikkor and is for that lighter and about 200 less expensive. Swiss engineered, made in Korea at top quality.
Hi Roland,
From the sample images I've seen that my friend captured for me, (he bought both the Sigma 14 and the Irix 15, and also already owns the Rokinon 14 2.8 and the Nikon 14-24) ...I'd say that the Irix 15 2.4 is only roughly on par with, or slightly inferior to, the Rokinon 14 2.4 SP. Plus, it's 1mm less wide, which to me is part of the whole reason of getting these specific lenses in the first place.
I wish Irix had just made the lens 14mm, that would have made buying decisions a lot easier. I love how they have the Blackstone and Firefly versions of their lenses. I also really love their 11mm f/4! But, for me, the winner is still the new Rokinon / Samyang 14mm f/2.4.
sounds like your selling something sir.....but more so......the up grade people go on about.......lets be honestly ok......from cameras to lens.....this so called upgrade & what you have to pay?......its a joke.
the editing programs out there now & what you can do with your photos.......to go out and spend the extra 1k-2k?.......to get that so called " up grade "........
meh , ill stick with my 14mm 2.8.
Does not make any sense
I never realised that there actually are people who shooting stars. Looks so boring, but I must be wrong.
LokkieF i think it is when you combine he stars with a nice foreground, that it becomes really interesting, at least the images are great I think
Bla bla bla. Y nada de pruebas
Bla bla bla
Awesome they are not...Nikon Canon Zeiss.....yes are awesome.Sigma Rokinon or......are great lenses but always on second place.
Awesome they are not? Nikon and Canon's 14mm primes are HORRIBLE, literally trash, and Zeiss doesn't make a 14mm, only a 15mm.
Have you even tried the Nikon / Canon 14mm's? They're ancient, and their wide-open corner performance makes them a very bad choice for astro-landscape photography.
I speak in general not for specific focal lengths.
Well, "in general" Nikon and Canon are still not always the best choice. At other focal lengths that are popular for astro-landscape work, like 24mm, both Canon and Nikon's 1.4 primes again fall flat on their face with nasty coma and astigmatism, while the Rokinon has impressively low coma / astigmatism. Although the Sigma 24 1.4 art is much sharper than the Rokinon 24 1.4, it does have worse astigmatism. ("Coma wings") Still, the Sigma is much better than the Nikon and Canon.
Similar results at 35mm, another focal length popular for astro work. The Sigma is hands-down the best, that is for mere mortals who can't afford the insanely priced mk2 Canon 35. But the mk1 Canon 35 L, and. The Nikon 35 1.4, are much worse and yet still cost far more than the Sigma.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, if you're into nightscape photography in particular, the number of superior third-party lenses far surpasses the number of superior name-brand lenses.
There are other things which name-brand lenses are better at, but nightscape photography (around which the entire premise of this video was made) is not one of those things. :-/
My friend,this is only my opinion and i can understand from your first comment that you disagree with me and its fine. For my work,for my needs,for my favourite use of f number,for my desired print quality i believe that Nikon Canon and Zeiss glass is Awesome and the other great lenses of Sigma Rokinon Tamron... are on the second place.
Maybe i am wrong and you are right in total compare but as i say this is what I believe.
Actually I'm pretty sure there is nothing from either of those manufacturers that can compete with the Sigma 14 f/1.8.
Canon and Nikon wide angles are good for daylight but junk for astrophotography, horrible vignetting and lots of coma compared to others.
Even Zeiss can't compete with Sigma at that focal lenght.
the answer is NEITHER, .....>>Zeiss or Nikkor
Theoria Apophasis
...As I have already stated: Zeiss doesn't make a 14mm, and the Nikon 14 is ancient and terrible. So right off the bat you're making a non-sequitur statement, in the context of this video.
Outside the context of this video, however, I would not hesitate to put either of these lenses against anything from Zeiss or Nikon that comes within even 3mm of this focal range. The Sigma 14 Art and the Rokinon 14 SP are just wicked sharp, and generally impressive, both wide-open and stopped down.
zeiss don't make any fast uwa's, if they did they'd probably cost the earth! Nikon? you've got the 14-24mm and the 20mm 1.8 neither are outstanding for astro stuff.
IRIX 15mm 2.4 is what you all are looking for
The Rokinon/Samyang is hit or miss quality according to many reviews. The Nikon 14-24mm blows all three of these out of the water.
"Nikon? you've got the 14-24mm and the 20mm 1.8 neither are outstanding for astro stuff" ARE YOU SERIOUS??