Canon EF-S 10-22mm or Sigma 8-16mm

There is a variety of techniques and equipment for astro stuff to avoid star trails, half a stop on the lens wont be a big difference (you would be better off with a fast prime like a 35mm f/1.8 (or the sigma f/1.4) or a 24mm f/1.8 that hopefully sigma releases soon).


To avoid trails the professional way (expensive) is to you a motorized tripod that rotates as the correct speed (computer controlled normally). Otherwise you can simply combine multiple exposures in software that does the alignment for you.


Saying that, if astro work was very important then the ability to get a wider aperture can certainly be useful.
 
D.P. said:
There is a variety of techniques and equipment for astro stuff to avoid star trails, half a stop on the lens wont be a big difference (you would be better off with a fast prime like a 35mm f/1.8 (or the sigma f/1.4) or a 24mm f/1.8 that hopefully sigma releases soon).


To avoid trails the professional way (expensive) is to you a motorized tripod that rotates as the correct speed (computer controlled normally). Otherwise you can simply combine multiple exposures in software that does the alignment for you.


Saying that, if astro work was very important then the ability to get a wider aperture can certainly be useful.
Click to expand...

its not a priority decision maker i feel and the ways around it, like the multiple exposure stacking, and yes the motorised tripod if i really got into it,

so the canon is the best choice?

(off topic) my plan im going for lens options that are pretty specialized but very good over many ok lenses, this will be only my second 'OK' lens
 
Last edited:
It really depends what "astro" work you plan on doing. I disagree with D.P. on some of those comments. Having has a 35mm lens it's nowhere near wide enough for the kind of astro work I do (landscape startrails and stacked stars). The wider the better really. A lens that's as fast as possible is also a benefit. DoF really isn't an issue, bearing in mind a lot of work will be done with everything at effectively infinity, also a good lens, such as the Tokina (and I think the Canon) will have a focus window (can't remember their actual name offhand) so you can focus to infinity with ease by looking at the markings, that's if you can't focus automatically.

f/2.8 is best for star trails IMO but half a stop isn't going to make much difference either way considering you'll be shooting at ISO 100-400 anyway. With modern cameras you shouldnt have to worry about noise in that range. Where it would be more important is stacking shots, the faster the better as while stacking does work it works best at the centre of the frame, becoming jncreasingly worse as you get to the edges, meaning generally there is likely to be some cropping at the edges. Alternatively buy a heavy (and expensive) motorised mount.

As you rightly pointed out indoor shoots of public buildings probably won't allow you a tripod but many will be big open spaces so again DoF won't necessarily be an issue.

All in all there isn't much in it. I'd still choose an 11-16 for my use but as a general wide lens it's not going to make a huge difference, other than in a few specialist situations, however you may want to sacrifice some quality for convenience/better all round ability in those situations.
 
It all depends on what you want. Wider is not always better. The infamous Nikon noktor 55m f/1.2 was designed for astro photography and is still the single best lens you can buy for that purpose, hence the extortionate cost.

The problem going ultra wide for astro stuff is more often than not you end up with a load blank black space and a band of stars (normally the milkyway).

Anyway, the issue is that there is no lens like a 16mm f/1.4 dfor APS_C camera so for really fast glass, shorter shutter astro work to avoid star trails is kind if impossible on an APS-C camera. A 24mm f/1.4 on FF is a great tool here.



And a DoF depends on what you are shooting. of course if you just shoot at the night sky with no foreground then you don't have to worry but these photos rarely hold much interest. The best stuff I have seen IMO is where there is also a strong foreground element like a tree, castle or mountain. The difficulty is then balancing shutter time, noise, DoF and aperture.
 
have to agree on night skys with no earthly objects, it just lacks. I dont know if i could even try a night sky shot with a tree etc as i wouldnt know what to do! (at this beginner stage)!..but its something i definitely want to do

the main reason for this lens for me was to do creative night shots and i really want to give motion blur scenes a go but with scope to do more in time

maybe the canon with its extended range would indeed be the best option?

the pics i have seen of skyscapes and of scenes where part of the image is static and other is motion blurred really interest me
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
It all depends on what you want. Wider is not always better. The infamous Nikon noktor 55m f/1.2 was designed for astro photography and is still the single best lens you can buy for that purpose, hence the extortionate cost.

The problem going ultra wide for astro stuff is more often than not you end up with a load blank black space and a band of stars (normally the milkyway).

Anyway, the issue is that there is no lens like a 16mm f/1.4 dfor APS_C camera so for really fast glass, shorter shutter astro work to avoid star trails is kind if impossible on an APS-C camera. A 24mm f/1.4 on FF is a great tool here.



And a DoF depends on what you are shooting. of course if you just shoot at the night sky with no foreground then you don't have to worry but these photos rarely hold much interest. The best stuff I have seen IMO is where there is also a strong foreground element like a tree, castle or mountain. The difficulty is then balancing shutter time, noise, DoF and aperture.
Click to expand...

That's why I specifically mentioned what I shoot to give an idea of what I'm suggesting for.

I always shoot with foreground interest, just stars is generally boring (especially with a wide angle lens), however most foregrounds are 20+ ft away, to all intents and purposes at infinity when shot at f/2.8 and 11mm (for example). You need to be pretty close to get OOF foreground!

EDIT: And stacking with foreground interest causes even more problems as the stacking software essentially just rotates each image (which is why you end up with the problems at the edges of a scene).
 
Last edited:
I'd just chip in here- computerised (GOTO) mounts are expensive, but you don't need GOTO to do tracking shots with a DSLR, just an equatorial mount and a motor drive. You could get pretty much everything you need for £200, less secondhand.

If you're going to be doing very long exposures, setting up and aligning a mount it is an art though...

You can actually build a tracking wedge (barn door mount) out of bits of wood and some bolts if you don't want to spend:

http://www.astropix.com/BGDA/SAMPLE2/SAMPLE2.HTM

Worth getting the book if you want to pursue astrophotography. And it's a myth that you need expensive equipment to get good results. Warning- it can be frustrating when you start, and addictive when you begin to get results!
 
^i will certainly look into that, looks very intersting!

FYI i have just ordered the 10-22mm from JL for 499 with 40 to come off from canon and a further 25 to come off from 5% Amex credit card

so a total of 435

should have it tomorrow, ..before my actual body has arrived no doubt :/
This will leave me with a probably unusual selection of lenses compared to the typical!
 
Last edited:
al4x said:
I take it you have a FF for Astro amp?

So you wouldnt use a wide in general?
Click to expand...

No, I have a D7000. I also use wide all the time for general shooting but especially the type of "astro" I do. This is where we need to clarify the type of "astro" photography you do.

If you want night scenes, such as star trails over a mountain or house, or the milky way over the hills (that's what I do) then you want something very different to shooting planets and galaxies/space dust. The former you just need a decent camera and generally a wide angle lens like I was discussing earlier, the latter you'll probably want a specially converted DSLR (infra red filter taken out and other bits) and longer, much faster lenses (like the 55mm f/1.2 D.P. mentioned earlier) and a computerised mount (guessing CGrieves knows a lot more than me about all that).

Sounds like you want the former so just a nice fast side angle will do and a reasonable DSLR, although the better noise handling the better.
 
Yes, i want the former really.
I looked into the latter and asked on here and the kit was quite pricey (and i realised what the 60Da was!)
The astro work i will be trying first will be foreground of earth objects plus background of space
I would like to get points of stars but do realize the tok might have been better for that but i hope only marginally.

Hopefully the 60D and 10-22mm will be ok!
Is the choice of lens ok?
 
Last edited:
AAh, im having second thoughts! most people seem to prefer the tokina due to sharpness!!
 
Choose based on the aperture and focal range you want, not sharpness. Both will be plenty sharp enough.

Note that 8mm is significantly wider than 10mm, that should be more of a consideration.
 
I have the Sigma 8-16 which I use for interior photography.
It's unbelievably wide and if that is your no1 priority then it's the only choice.

An example at 8mm

9756167195_281b84c1f4_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Impressively wide

I don't think I will be doing that wide much (if at all)

I have quite a good returns window with JL so I'm wondering if I should get the tok as well and return one? But I am not sure what I will be doing except for night shots for a while

How much width does 1mm make in real terms?
 
Alex- Chill :D :cool:

You're very flicky. Gear isn't that important. All of these lenses are excellent, with different properties. Make a judgement call based on what, broadly, you want to photograph, but don't obsess over it.

Inspiration is more important- photograph using whatever you've got in your hand, don't worry about whether the result would be different with 3% more sharpness, 2mm less focal length or 1 stop more aperture.

I have a friend who takes photos that blow away anything I've done in terms of creativity, and he uses a 450D and a kit lens.

Besides which, if you take care of lenses, you can move them on later without losing much if they really don't do what you need.
 
There's no point obsessing constantly, everything will always be a compromise in some way or another even with an unlimited budget. You just need to work out what you can compromise on and buy gear that enables you to do what you need.
 
I know you guys are right but i always want to get the best as i hate the faff of returns.
I picked up the lens from JL today
I read a lot about its build quality not being the best but to me it seems fine. But then the 100mm is plastic too.

That length comparison page is quite dramatic! i didnt think 1mm with crop would make that much difference! but i dont think i would have gone with the sigma due to the fixed hood

Looking at everything i am now happy with my choice,
its a couple off mms short of the sigma but accepts filters and is faster
its a tad slower than the tok but has better range top and bottom..especially after looking at the comparison above!

the only lens i really want now is a 400mm tele lens..ugh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom