Lenses for astrophotography.

I have seen great stuff from this lens and also the 85mm. Although not every one list the lens settings. I have an 8 mm fish eye from same gang (Opteka) but after two trips in my trunk it developed extreme coma.  I am currently evaluating a Zeiss 135 f2 but have only taken it out once at F4 (forget to change to f2) on a adventurer, which had some visible tracking error.

Canon EF 50 mm f/1,8 STM - stopped down to f/3.5 - f/5

Canon EF 200 mm f/2,8 L II USM - stopped down to f/4

In the past I also used the Canon EF 40 mm F/2,8 STM  and the Canon EF 85 mm f/1,8 which were ok for me.

As a cheap alternative the Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135 mm f/3,5 is ok at f/5.6 if you got a proper example, very sharp in the center but still showing some color abberations.

I will add to the Canons listed before the 24mm f/2.8.  It is a cheap, fast, fun little lens.

Bill Mark:
I am interested in getting opinions on good lenses for astrophotography. Here are my favorites so far. I shoot mostly with Nikon so mine are all Nikon lenses or are compatible with them. Feel free mention other makes.Sigma 15-30 f2.8 - Full frame for extream wide angles example at f4 http://astrob.in/208631/B
Nikkor 20 f1.8G - really nice with small  CCD for a wide angle example Ha at f3 http://astrob.in/226376/0/
Nikkor 35  f2D - APS good for milky way shots example at f4  http://astrob.in/237362/0/
Nikkor 85 f1.8D - Full Frame example at f3.5 http://astrob.in/188464/E

I don't think Sigma has a 15-30/F2.8.  It must be Tamron, which I happen to have a copy.  It's an excellent lens for ultra-wide long exposures. It can even do astro-landscape despite being "just" F2.8, if coupled with a sensitive camera such as the D8X0 series or D750, Df etc.

I do not recommend the 85/1.8D.  I have an 85/1.8G, and it has strong color fringes even at F4.0.  I believe the 1.8D can only be worse.  You may consider the new Tamron 85/1.8 if you are on a budget.  It outperforms the Nikon 85/1.8G by a wide margin no matter in resolution or color correction.

For 35mm and 50mm, nothing can beat Sigma Art 50/1.4 and 35/1.4.  I have both, and both perform excellently on my D800.  For ultrawide, the Sigma Art 20/1.4 and 24/1.4 are both good.  Generally speaking, I do not recommend any Nikon prime lenses.  Nikon has some very good zoom lenses in recent 10 years, but its prime lenses fall significantly behind those offered by Sigma (Art series).

If budget is not an issue, you can of course consider the Otus and Melvus series of Zeiss. Most of them are either excellent or outstanding.  But they are expansive.

Many Samyang/Rokinon lenses are good on paper, but their quality control is a big issue and sample variance can be very large.  You will need some luck to get a good copy.  You can buy them if the vender has good return/exchange policy.

Generally speaking, you want to check the test report on DxOMark and/or lenstip.com and compare similar lenses before you make a purchase.  Astronomical pictures on the web can be a mixed bag.  I generally don't trust such images, unless they are taken by very experienced astrophotographers.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao

What about the Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED ?

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
Samyang 135mm T2.2 ED UMC Cine

The ones that I have tried and do not like are: 24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, Canon 85mm 1.2

Thanks for insight on some poor lenses also.

bill

I use the Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED exclusively with my Nikon d7100 (DX) and found that spherical abberration is limited at the edges since the camera is not a full frame.  However, there is still some abberration at the edges that is not symmetrical from the center.  I suppose each lens will differ.  However, I found the best f-stop to be f/5.0 but focusing for that perfect pin point sharp pixel is extremely dependent on air temperature.  One micro off from infinity and the game is over.

It takes a lot of effort to get a great integrated image and may not be worth the purchase.  Chromatic abberration is not a problem.

Three big thing I look for coma - want nice round stars all the way to the edge of the frame. Colour correction - no pink or violet fringes around stars. Glaring - no faint halos around stars. although halos can be due to pour seeing or filters.  Hope this helps. 

my favs are

Nikon 300mm F4.5 ED IF

http://www.astrobin.com/full/274920/0/
http://www.astrobin.com/full/274930/0/

and Nikon 80-200 F2.8
just starting out in astrophotography but prefer using lens and camera instead of my newtonian telescope

hi there, does anyone has any idea about Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 and Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD these lenses? I am gonna buy Canon 760D and one of these lenses, any recommendation? thanks in advance.

Even though I don't have any experience with these lenses, in general, this class of zoom lenses are far from ideal for astrophotography. Optical abberations such as comma or CA. might lower your final outcome significantly. I recommend you to check lens review sites and comparisons to make your decision: LensTip, Photozone and The-Digital-Picture are fine resources. I personally wouldn't recommend those lenses.

In case your are going to use the lens exclusively for astroimaging, I strongly recommend Nikon manual lenses, their AI and AI-S lineups. Especially the 105mm f/2.5 and 180mm f/2.8 are well known for their build quality, sharpness and are great choices for astro. I own the 105, and, for the price paid, it's hard to beat. These lenses can be bought in good condition used by the same amount as the Tamrons you quoted. They're manual-everything though (only a problem to daylight photo perhaps).  The already mentioned Rokinon 135/2 is also a great choice, although more expensive.

If you intend to use the lens in a day-to-day "regular" photography basis, AF is strongly recommended. In this case, prices go up quite rapidly, and, while perhaps out of your budged, a good 70-200mm may be a very nice choice. I own Tamron's 70-200 pre-VR lens, and, although it's AF is far from top quality, it is a good all-rounder, and my primary "teelscope" for astrophotography. Canon's 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) is also a great choice.

What are your intended uses? Are you going to use an EQ mount? And, as far as value for money and what you're willing to pay, only you can decide! 

BTW, you can check my gallery or contact me for more info on the lenses, especially the Tamron 70-200 and Nikon 105, as I own them.

Regards,
Gabriel