Posted by Peter Coskun on March 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM
In the process of saving money to upgrade a few things (additional camera body and additional lens) I was curious as to what people who shoot night photography use and like as far as lenses. I am sticking with canon, and am unsure if I want to sell my 17-40f/4 and put that money towards something that is 2.8. I like the 17-40, but I feel its just not enough for night shots as I'd like to get a bit more serious in that field as well as produce high quality prints of the night sky. It would likely be used on a canon 5dmk2 (Possibly mk3 if I have the patience to wait). Obviously, the lens will be pricey, so just wanted to hear others thoughts and opinions. Would it be wise to upgrade the 17-40? Or do you find it is sufficient enough for this type of photography? Any tips and advice is greatly appreciated.
I bought a gently used Canon 16-35 II f2.8 lens from eBay solely for night 'starscape' photography and the gorgeous sunstars that this particular lens produces. I could not produce satisfying 'starscapes' with my 17-40 lens wide open. As Floris noted, the difference between f2.8 and f4 wide open is huge as it relates to night photography.
1) F2.8 makes a huge difference when shooting stars.
2) Moreover, 16-35II has much better image quality than 17-40 when both lenses are wide open (especially at the edges and corners), although the differences become almost non-noticeable when both are stopped down to F8-F11.
3) Finally, as mentioned by John, the sunstars on 16-35 are gorgeous. I know some people upgraded to this lens for this reason along.
Posted by Lance Warley on March 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Here's another vote for the 16-35 2.8 II.
If you look in the Yosemite gallery on my site, you'll see a star shot of Yosemite Falls. I took it with the 17-40 F4 30 seconds ISO 6400 and the 5D2. With noise reduction, the shot is acceptable. However, a 2.8 would have achieved better results with the benefits of the extra stop. And for a longer star shot, the 17-40 with the high ISO might not be acceptable.
On a different but related issue: If you go wider, like to a 14mm lens, remember that night photography doesn't change wide angle distortion. I learned this the hard way with a 14mm prime I rented. If you're not on top of your fg with a superwide like the 14, you'll get the same unacceptable distortion (e.g., slanted trees that should be straight) that you get in daylight.
Posted by Peter Coskun on March 16, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Thanks for the tips, I was already leaning towards the 16-35 2.8 as I think that would be wide enough and less expensive than the nikon with adapter. The only thing that would concern me is the use of filters, I use rectangular filters with a 77mm filter holder and know that the 16-35 has an 82mm diameter. As with the nikon, I have heard it is quite difficult to use any filters without a specialty adapter. So I'm assuming it would be a better idea to just sell my 17-40 and use that money towards the 16-35 2.8?
With 16-35II, yes you have to use 82mm filters. Also, you need to use 100mm-wide rectangle filters such as ND/GND/Sprocket CPL.
Since some of my other landscape lenses such as TSE/24mm also use 82mm filters, to this is a non-issue to me.
14-24 is a different beast. The 150mm filters and holder are so expensive and not particularly easy to use. My understanding is that many people don't bother with filters on this lens at all. You can always use exposure-blending instead.
I'll have to say I'm in the same camp with Floris on this one. I use/used a 16-35 2.8 for star shots for a year or so, & still would. I got the Nikkor 14-24 & adapter for my 5DII a couple of months back. There are two major differences for night photography that I have found. I don't get the star distortion with the Nikkor lens like I do with the 16-35. If you are just shooting to show shots on the web at 1200 pixels max dimension, there's no problem. If you are printing large prints such as 16 x 24, then the stars in one or both top corners of the image shot with the 16-35 (at 16mm) will look elongated. This is not due to the exposure being too long. I've shot at 16mm for 15 seconds or less and still had these elongations on at least one side. This is due to the lens distortion that is magnified by stars.
I do not have any discernible distortion in the stars with the 14-24 zoomed out to 14mm even at 30 seconds. I'll typically shoot these at F4 - F5.6.
The other major difference is the opportunity to shoot wider with the 14mm end of the lens. This gives more of a pano and you can shoot longer exposures before you introduce star movement. Either lens will work well for night photography - this has been my experience.
Posted by Peter Coskun on March 16, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Wick I wasn't aware that there would be distortion at the corners at 16mm, but what would make 14mm have no distortion at all? Obviously this is wider so my assumption is that the distortion would be greater at 14mm. Is there any particular reason for this? If I am not mistaken, the nikon lens has almost a fisheye lens look (not image wise but lens wise as the front element protrudes a bit out of the lens body).
A lens that was mentioned in the RMNP forum recently and may be worth checking out is the Rokinon (aka Samyung) 14mm f2.8 lens. A fully manual lens that will not accept filters may not be what you're looking for, but at $400 (+/-) it may be well worth checking out. Some quirks aside, the user reviews in that link and this lens test at PhotoZone are pretty darned impressive. There are more user reviews on the Web if you're interested.
I had exactly the same problem with the 16-35 II as Wick described. It's a different kind of distortion from what causes the trees to angle in when you aim up. It's the same reason that that lens just isn't nearly as sharp as the Nikon (in the corners). If you want to print starscapes big and want them to look good, the 16-35 II just doesn't cut it. The reason the Nikon is better is because Nikon sacrificed the ability to put filters on that lens for a fundamentally superior optical design.
My recommendation is to keep your 17-40 and all your filters, and buy the Nikon/adapter for whenever you don't need filters (if that's within your budget). Use the Nikon when you can, and use the 17-40 stopped down with filters when you need the filters. That's what I do with my 16-35 II. I don't use grads (exposure blending is way more powerful), so not using filters isn't such a big deal on a super wide, most of the time.
Posted by Peter Coskun on March 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Thanks for the link John, I will check out that lens a bit more. I may do just that Floris, keep the 17-40 as a backup lens/use with filter lens, and save for the nikon. I only hear good things about that lens. I wanted to stay with the canon, but it does have lots of mixed reviews. I probably won't get this lens for quite some time, just wanted some opinions and examples of those who have used these lenses. I do plan on making large prints of night shots (24x36 at max maybe larger). Thanks for all the info.
Posted by Peyton Hale on March 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
I have seen stellar results from the Nikon 14-24, enough to make me think deeply into a purchase. Also, I would cast a vote for the Zeiss 21mm, f/2.8. Its a manual focus lens that has superb build quality and the images from it are just top notch.
Discussion
12 replies1) F2.8 makes a huge difference when shooting stars.
2) Moreover, 16-35II has much better image quality than 17-40 when both lenses are wide open (especially at the edges and corners), although the differences become almost non-noticeable when both are stopped down to F8-F11.
3) Finally, as mentioned by John, the sunstars on 16-35 are gorgeous. I know some people upgraded to this lens for this reason along.
If you look in the Yosemite gallery on my site, you'll see a star shot of Yosemite Falls. I took it with the 17-40 F4 30 seconds ISO 6400 and the 5D2. With noise reduction, the shot is acceptable. However, a 2.8 would have achieved better results with the benefits of the extra stop. And for a longer star shot, the 17-40 with the high ISO might not be acceptable.
On a different but related issue: If you go wider, like to a 14mm lens, remember that night photography doesn't change wide angle distortion. I learned this the hard way with a 14mm prime I rented. If you're not on top of your fg with a superwide like the 14, you'll get the same unacceptable distortion (e.g., slanted trees that should be straight) that you get in daylight.
With 16-35II, yes you have to use 82mm filters. Also, you need to use 100mm-wide rectangle filters such as ND/GND/Sprocket CPL.
Since some of my other landscape lenses such as TSE/24mm also use 82mm filters, to this is a non-issue to me.
14-24 is a different beast. The 150mm filters and holder are so expensive and not particularly easy to use. My understanding is that many people don't bother with filters on this lens at all. You can always use exposure-blending instead.
I do not have any discernible distortion in the stars with the 14-24 zoomed out to 14mm even at 30 seconds. I'll typically shoot these at F4 - F5.6.
The other major difference is the opportunity to shoot wider with the 14mm end of the lens. This gives more of a pano and you can shoot longer exposures before you introduce star movement. Either lens will work well for night photography - this has been my experience.
My recommendation is to keep your 17-40 and all your filters, and buy the Nikon/adapter for whenever you don't need filters (if that's within your budget). Use the Nikon when you can, and use the 17-40 stopped down with filters when you need the filters. That's what I do with my 16-35 II. I don't use grads (exposure blending is way more powerful), so not using filters isn't such a big deal on a super wide, most of the time.