Milky Way Astrophotography Lens Review Nikon 14 24mm Zeiss 15mm Rokinon SP 14mm Sigma Art
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Capturing sharp stars and the Milky Way is one of the few genres in photography where special lenses are really a make or break deal. Fast apertures are a must, and there are unique aberrations that affect stars in ways that typically don't show up in daytime images.
In this head to head field test, see how the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, Zeiss Milvus 15mm f/2.8, Rokinon SP 14mm f/2.4, and Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 compare for shooting stars and the night sky.
Special thanks to BrentRentsLenses.com and B&H for loaning the lenses used for this test.
0:00 Overview
8:32 Focusing
11:49 Image quality at f/2.8
20:34 Sigma and Rokinon image quality wide-open
24:31 Conclusions 
Хобби
Wow what a great video. Covered all the bases in great detail. Thanks a lot for this.
Great job and most helpful review I've ever watched. I love your fair comparison in same aperture f2.8 which is practically used in most fields. Thanks Greg.
Great, thank you.
Excellent review!!! Thank you kindly
Well done comparison! Thanks
I've been looking for a good ultrawide prime, thanks for the excellent review!
Very informative. Thank you.
You did great job!
Thanks, Janusz!
Very interesting info on why lenses focus past infinity! I did always wonder!
Thanks this is really helpful for my future purchase. I shot the milky way last night but my widest lens is the old 28-70 2.8, and my only modded camera is a D7000 DX body so it's not all that wide...
Great video.
I just bought a Sigma 14mm f1.8 for astro-landscapes. Had the Samyang (Rokinon) 14mm for a while. Good coma performance but the "moustache" distortion really buggered up the level horizon if it was in the photo.
Is there no lens correction plug-in in Lightroom?
Excellent kit comparison video👍. BTW I used to think we in Ireland were at a huge disadvantage, night photo wise, until you mentioned the wolves. No such here, or snakes or fear of what may lurk in the dark. 😊
Why a "huge disadvantage night photo wise" when shooting in Ireland? Great dark skies there.
Thanks for the informative video. Well done!
Thank you!
An excellent copy of the Rokinon/Samyang 24mm F/1.4, such as my 2nd owned copy, is the best! Stop down to F/2.0, and nearly perfect with zero coma on the corners.
Good to hear, thanks! Not sure yet what I’ll do for 20-24mm shots. Keeping the Nikon most likely. Still a good lens.
Excellent comparison!
Thanks, Lonnie!
We still share a common passion. Going back west where I can be out with these lenses shooting the night sky.
Excellent video! Thank you. I’m curious what tripod you were using during the video also!
Full details here: gregbenzphotography.com/camera-equipment
Very helpful thanks 😊
Kev, did you get one of these?
Hi Greg. A little late to the party, but I was looking for lens reviews and found your post. I use the Nikon 14-24 for astrophotography on my D850 with a tracker, which obviously means I can take longer exposures and stop down. I also use the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 and while the Sigma lenses are sharper, the colour rendition is much sweeter on the Nikon and the coma issue is hugely reduced. I was going to sell it before I got the tracker but, despite its weight, I'm keeping it in the bag now ! Great review btw. Thanks for sharing. P.S. I'm loving the slider in Lumenzia. It makes my life so much easier. Thank you.
Great to hear it, and thanks for the comments. Definitely changes the game to use a tracker.
Thank you for the best astro review of these lenses online.
Zeiss 15mm f2.8 classic Zf can be found used nowadays around or below the 1000$ mark. I just got mine mint for around 800$ which is a bargain for almost Milvus (minus some correction and weather sealing probably) tank of a lens.
For pure astrophotography Sigma appears unbeatable. Rokinon f2.4 appears to be the ideal price/size/coma/vignette/sharpness for astrophotography.
For a landscape/cityscape & also astro lens, the classic Zeiss used is worth it I think.
Seriously considered the Sigma but it's really heavy & more expensive compared to a used Zeiss and I had concerns on long term durability with field use.
Yeah, the Sigma is very heavy. That’s the only reason I leave it at home sometimes.
Had the sigma 14mm and like the Nikon 14-24mm you have th filter problem...can't screw on on to protect the lens. I shoot in fog, rain, snow, high end, and do not like my lens exposed to the elements. Also, have fun and expense adding filters on the front ($$$), and inconvenience.
I also love the review. Given I have none of these ( just the Nikon 16-35mm f/1.4 ), it helps me to position which I might choose in the future. Thanks!
I assume you mean the 16-35 f/4. I have that too and love it for other subjects, but it does not really have a fast enough aperture for shooting the Milky Way. f/2.8 is already pushing it with the noise levels seen at ISO3200-6400. One of these wide primes would be an excellent compliment. I’m personally using the 16-35mm with my new Sigma Art 14mm quite a lot and leaving the Nikon, as I don’t shoot the Milky Way at 24mm that often, and the 16-35 is great for and filters.
Greg Benz.. Yep, my bad!
Great in depth review! Some of my best shots are from northern MN. I can't help but notice that the sample image of the Nikon is out of focus. Even zoomed out the stars look blurry. The Nikon should be very sharp at 14mm 2.8. I know everyone will gasp at this, but I find that I get more consistent results when I auto-focus the Nikon and Tamron 15mm. It works great on my D810 as long as there is a bright enough star or distant light at true infinity.
Thanks! I just use a 300 lumen headlamp to autofocus on a nearby object like a tree.
I love the review. I wish the Irix Blackstone 15mm 2.4 would have been there but I understand that you can't include all. Thumbs up!
Thanks, and I’ve heard some good things about that lens.
Yeah...and Amazon just had a one day sale of the Irix f2.4 for 70% off. They were listing at $150. lol. I missed the deal, but I already have one.
Nice video. I'm taking my 14-24 sigma out tonight to test it out. Hopefully I'll catch some meteors too.
Nice review. Having just got my D850, I am curious how the Sigma performed with that camera. I've been using the Nikon 14-24 for years, and get good results, but as you pointed out, focusing it is not easy. I thought that was related to the fact that it was a auto-focus lens, and by design, is not as easy to manually focus. But, you did not remark the same about he Sigma. Something to think about.
The Sigma focus ring is not as precise as the Rokinon/Zeiss (has a little more play), but it is much easier to focus than the Nikon. On the D850, the LCD display is less noisy, which helps make it easier to visually assess manual focus before shooting. The combination is a huge step up from the old D810 and Nikon 14-24 scenario I had.
Thanks, I'll probably give it a try. Also, I've read so much about QC problems with Rokinon lenses, that I have been leery about getting one.
Great video! Trying to figure out if I should get the 14mm Rokinon or the 15-30 Tamron. Also just curious why you were shooting at 13sec when with the 500 rule you could shoot for +30sec?
The 500 rule is oversimplified and therefore garbage in my opinion. It doesn’t not factor in the resolution of your camera nor how large you will print.
Taking test shots with 14mm lenses and Nikon D8xx Camera shows clearly that 15s will blur whereas I find 13s acceptably sharp. Can do 30s if you want to show online, but not if you want crisp stars in a large print. Could do 30 on an old lower resolution camera too. Depends on your gear and intended use.
Excellent video. Just curious if you had thought of trying the Nikon 14mm prime lens? Or if there is a reason you didn't try it?
Mostly just fine and availability forcing me to pick a handful to test. The Sigma was highly reviewed already, had a wider aperture, and cost slightly less.
Regarding purple cast on zeiss. That has to do with the sensor and low exposure. Your exposure for the zeiss you can see is a little darker than the other lenses (12:14). Adjust to equal levels, and I bet the problem is gone. This problem can occur with any of the lenses, as noticed slightly in the Rokinon. I don't exclusively do only astro, and for other work....there are other characteristics that make the zeiss superior.......color matched lenses, focus gears (videography), better micro contrast, weather proofing, takes regular filters, no issues with focusing at night with longer focus throw and creamy smooth focusing (I just set to infinity, and it nails it....using Milvus 15mm).
Have you used the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 or done any comparisons? I am trying to decide between that and the Sigma 14mm F1.8 for Astro. Great video, thank you!
I have not, but have heard good things about it.
Thank you.
What are your thoughts on the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2.0 for astro?
I’ve never tried it nor talked to someone who’s used it. Based on the reputation of other lenses and my experience with the 14 SP, I would expect it is good value for the money (and that you should thoroughly test any you receive, as you might need to return 1 or 2 due to reports of variable quality).
Tamrons 15 - 30 f2.8 is apparently an excellent Astrophotography lens too 😊
I've heard that as well. Would be a good comparison against the Nikon 14-24mm and wish I'd tested it as well.
Ah, sorry I just commented a duplicate. I will leave it for the extra comment on the video, but go ahead and ignore it if you like Greg. 🙂
Somewhat surprised that the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 didn't make the list as it's purported to beat the Nikon 14-24mm lens!? Possibility of doing an 'additional vid' using the Tamron and updating the information for comparisons on the cards?
Hi Greg: can I ask what is the difference between the Rokinon SP 14 MM and the Rokinon 14 MM? I know the aperture is different - 2.4 vs. 2.8 I believe - but I'm not understanding what else is different. There is about a 400-500 difference in price between the two...
The SP is a new, supposedly higher-quality lens. I have never used the non-SP version, but it tends to get good reviews - with the caveat that many people report returning a bad one before getting a good one. Can’t speak from any personal experience with it.
Thanks Greg. Interesting the return before getting a good one.
Hello Greg, nice review!
I just got a Nikon D850, and I am in the hunt for 1 lens, that is capable of astro photography and landscape pictures in general, most say the Nikon 14-24mm is the best, but others say there are better for such a high MP Camera, and well.. the story goes, if you were to buy a good lens for astro and landscapes in general for the Nikon D850, wich one would you take? I wouldn't like to go past 1.5k USD.
I’d get the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8. Or the Rokinon 14 SP and use the leftover money to get their 24 too.
Thanks, there is a new Sigma Art 14-24mm but I guess, we would have to wait to try, let me see what are the chances to buy the Sigma here in Chile.
I’d give that serious consideration. I would assume it is an excellent lens. My guess is that Nikon will refresh their lens at some point. It was awesome when launched, but isn’t holding its ground as well with the latest competitors.
I have a Sony A7 iii, I been looking at the sigma 14 1.8 and the Sony FE 16-35 GM 2.8. If you had to pick one, which would you go with?
Depends on your priorities. The Sigma is awesome for astrophotography, but heavy and limited to very wide. The 2.8 should be very good (I’ve only used the f/4 version), but not as optimized for night details and obviously can’t go as wide. If I only had one, I would personally go with the 16-35 for all around use.
Greg Benz thanks man I appreciate it! As soon as I finish paying off the Sony FE 24-70 2.8 GM lens I will buy the 16-35 2.8!
Sounds like a great lineup. I use both my Nikon and Sony 16-35 f/4 lenses a lot and would surely use an f/2.8 a lot (but don’t need it as I have the Sigma 14 and 35 f/1.8 for night skies, as well as Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 - so I prefer my 16-35’s f/4 weight and and cost to round out options). Your lineup will be great and simpler to manage.
I would go for Rokinon SP. I think Coma performance is the most important aspect for Astro because you can't fix it in post. From your sample, I don't see any Coma at all.
It’s excellent that way, so is the Sigma stopped down to a similar aperture. Rokinon is cheaper and lighter, both nice pluses.
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?
Hopefully someone else can answer this one, I don't shoot Canon.
What are your thoughts about why the Nikon showed so many more stars in the zoomed out view? Thanks
Is there a particular time point you are referring to?
Reducing the image resolution when you zoom out is very sensitive to pixel-level detail and dependent on which algorithm is used. For example, try comparing nearest neighbor (computationally attractive because it is simple and fast) vs something like bilinear.
Ultimately, the zoomed out view on a monitor will always have some flaws that a printer likely would expose, because we’d typically print with greater detail (especially considering the larger size of prints we can obtain than the monitors we typically use).
@@gregbenzphotography At the 17:09 point, it seems like the Nikon is showing more brighter stars on the left side of the Milkyway but maybe it's just my monitor and RUclips. I just bought the Sigma 14mm last week and I'm going to Joshua Tree National Park to test it out next week for 6 days. Have you tried doing a pano with the Sigma and how do the photos stretch together. I want to try and get the full arc of the Milkyway. Thank you and great review.
If zeiss 15mm classic could be found for 800$. Other lenses Rokinon f2.4 or Sigma 1.8 only brand new prices, would you go forward with the Zeiss. In other words, not considering price but only performance for sharpness coma vignetting trio, how would you rate the Zeiss classic which is almost same as the 15mm Milvus
It’s a fine piece of glass, but I prefer the Sigma (for overall quality) or Rokinon (especially for quality and weight).
What tripod do you use? and bal head
I use several, see my gear list for details: gregbenzphotography.com/camera-equipment
I've shot with the Zeiss Milvus and older Distagon 15mm. The Distagon is better in every way except the Milvus has the removable lens hood. Optically, Zeiss slid backwards on the Milvus 15mm.
Not true, that came from one site (forgot name), doing a foolish test using Imatest chart, not meant for super wides. Others and myself disagree, and own it. They are same optics, different body with weathersealing, and only upgraded the coating.
@@alfredv9902 I own the Milvus and have rented a Distagon several times. I’ve compared the images side by side.
@@PaulW98Z I own the Milvus 15mm too, so am curious, what did you discover when you rented the older distagon? I hear opinions both ways, don't know awhat to believe. Here is the full comment from BH PHOTO (comment section)..".Having own the original version (wt hood modification) I can say that the new Milvus is better than the original ZF.2 for starters it is sharper in the corners, weather sealed and a removable hood. I shoot some IR photography and although the original lens was great for IR this versions produces a very bad hotspot. Overall is a a fantastic UWA a great improvement over the original version."
Thoughts on the Tamron 15-30 f2.8?
Have not used it, but have heard good things.
Does someone know which Programm this is??
What time point? You mean something other than Lightroom?
It would have been great to also compare with the Sigma 14-24mm, from various MTF, coma and chromatic tests, it seems a better lens than the Nikon 14-24mm. I own both N14-24mm and N35mm f1.8; stopped down to f2.8, my N35 outperform the N14-24mm by a large margin. Although I like the Nikon 14-24mm and there has been numerous excellent (but old) reviews from famous photographers, I would not rate it as a great lens.
Agreed, the Nikon 14-24 was amazing, but now feels a bit dated in comparison the best current lenses.
Rokinon 14 SP is 2.4 aperture.
Zoom lenses such as the Nikkor 14-24 featured here will, owing to their inevitable compromises in optical design, never fare as well as primes in this context. Pretty obvious really. A better comparison would have included the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 prime in this round-up.
There’s a few more lenses I would have loved to have tested if I could at the time. I was quite shocked how poorly the Nikon did despite being a zoom. Feels aged at this point, was a killer lens when first released.
Saw them trees and thought you were in bear country...my mistake! Wolf country...even worse! I would have been done right then! LOL
I use the Rokinon 16mm 2.0
What’s your sense of how it compares to the lenses I showed?
I am debating between the 16 and 14.. cost vs quality. Any thoughts on that?
Which lenses?
john ratcliff that’s an incredible piece of glass.
Pretty disappointed that neither the Tamron 15-30 nor the Irix 15 f/2.4 did make the list
If you’re offering to donate them for a test, I’ll be happy to review them. ;)
Greg Benz yes sir. I'm so rich that i can donate to you all the gear you want to test😀
gezz, 2700US$ for the Zeiss??? WHAT THE F....
Best lens for AP: sigma art 35 1.4
Recently picked that up and looking forward to using it, though I primarily shoot the night sky wide.
Greg Benz If you want a wide view you can do a mosaic, 35mm on FF is quite wide, won't take very much. The results are far superior than wide lenses tho, that 35 is so amazingly sharp and has no aberrations/coma even at 1.4! It will capture much much more signal from the deep sky. Better paired with a little star-tracker, incredible results
It would certainly be sharp, but I’m more concerned with noise and address that through stacking. So a pano wouldn’t work for me in many situations.
Greg Benz you can both stack and pano, it's more than doable, the noise would be very very low anyways because of the huge size and the much more signal to noise ratio with such lense, check this out (mostly done with the sigma 50): www.ericbenedettiphotography.com/Stars-and-Nature/i-k2PC2JJ/A
Will give it a try. Haven’t used a star tracker before, but interested in getting one. Any recommendations on one you like?