Nikon 16-35 or Nikon 14-24
Discussion
Hi all - please help me choose....
I already have the 16-35 - its my most-used lens, with some great results.
However, I find myself hankering after the wider and faster 14-24, but I'm struggling to justify the outlay. RRP on the 14-24 is about £1600, although I'd happily buy a warranted used item from a reputable trader. I'd almost certainly sell the 16-35 to offset some of the cost, but I'm still looking at a net spend of around £500, just to get 2mm shorter and a couple of stops faster
I really fancy trying some milky way shots sometime this year, so I'm convincing myself I need 14mm and f2.8
My only other alternative is a Samyang 14mm f2.8 prime and sentence myself to having to correct the weird distortion in Lightroom. I'm a Nikkor-w
e though, so the thought of a Samyang in my bag offends my OCD...
EDIT - LOL - the PH swear-bot edited my text - PH being PC? Whatever next?....
I already have the 16-35 - its my most-used lens, with some great results.
However, I find myself hankering after the wider and faster 14-24, but I'm struggling to justify the outlay. RRP on the 14-24 is about £1600, although I'd happily buy a warranted used item from a reputable trader. I'd almost certainly sell the 16-35 to offset some of the cost, but I'm still looking at a net spend of around £500, just to get 2mm shorter and a couple of stops faster
I really fancy trying some milky way shots sometime this year, so I'm convincing myself I need 14mm and f2.8
My only other alternative is a Samyang 14mm f2.8 prime and sentence myself to having to correct the weird distortion in Lightroom. I'm a Nikkor-w
e though, so the thought of a Samyang in my bag offends my OCD...EDIT - LOL - the PH swear-bot edited my text - PH being PC? Whatever next?....
8bit said:
You don't say if your camera is DX or FX,
FX - D81016mm is great and probably enough, but the 16-35 is only f4 and I will struggle with star movement if I go much past 25-30 seconds
I've had another look at the Samyang 14mm f2.8. I can get a new one from eBay for £255 delivered and many of the reviews say its a great lens at any price, never mind at sub £300
I might see what I can pick up at the NEC photography show next month
toohuge said:
How about the Nikon 14mm f2.8 prime? It’ll get you wide and fast - plus satisfy your Nikon affinity.
But seriously - used it’s good value and while more expensive than an off brand - significantly cheaper than the 14-24mm.
Chris
And AF too, I presume....But seriously - used it’s good value and while more expensive than an off brand - significantly cheaper than the 14-24mm.
Chris
Edited by toohuge on Tuesday 6th February 17:01
The Tokina 11-20 is a DX lens, a friend of mine has one and I borrowed it to use on my previous camera for a few days, lovely lens, sharp as you like but wouldn't autofocus on my D5100. Tokina do a 16-28mm f/2.8 and a 17-35mm f/2.0 both in FX though, I'll be looking at the 16-28mm when I come to getting a wide FX lens.
So this is a subject I am interested in as well, as I currently lack a wide lens.
The options are currently :
Primes
Nikon 14mm f2.8 - a very old lens and a poor performer.
Yongnuo 14mm f2.8 - based on the quite good Canon 14mm f2.8, should be better than the Nikon HOWEVER Not out for Nikon just yet, but the Canon ones are good in the middle, but a little rough at the edges so might not be perfect for astro.
Irix 15mm f2.4 - Manual focus, but very sharp, free from distortion one of the brightest options, and it also has the best corners of any lens here, both in sharpness and freedom from CA. If you ignore astro, possibly the best image quality.
Samyang 14mm f2.8 -Manual focus, very sharp, and best coma for astro BUT and its a big BUT, sample variation is massive, and the lenses are fragile with reports of drops of a couple of feet onto a bed resulting in decentering. Samyang are bringing out a better built version
The NEW Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 - This is better built than the above lens, is the widest and fastest lens other than the Sigma, and autofocuses. The only thing currently stopping me pulling the trigger is the price - £800 ! I believe this will fall to £600 over the next year.
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art - sharpest lens here. Very hotly anticipated as the 50mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses were good. However it disapointed a little, as there are complaints about the astro coma on some samples, and the coma doesnt seem to go away when stopped down to f2.8. Not as good as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in this regard, and worse than the Samyang. A little disapointing wide open sharpness wise at f1.8 compared to the Sigma 50mm f1.4as well ( although that is a very high standard ! ) . If you can ignore this issue, best image quality and brightest lens here. Cost, size and lack of filters are the problems.
Zooms
Nikon 14-24 - Very sharp, very wide and a great lens. Does very well at 14mm and f2.8 which was amazing when it was new, as you usually have to be stopped down and in the middle of the zoom range to get acceptable results on such a wide lens. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
Tokina 16-28 f2.8. - an older, slightly less wide lens. quite good stopped down, but Poor wide open. .
Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Possibly the most modern zoom lens, about equal to the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness, and has stabilization. However it is actually more like a 16-30 lens and those 2mm really count at that end, and also mean you need a shorter shutter speed for astrophotography. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
For landscapes the option I prefer at the moment is a 50mm f1.4 taking multiple shots and then stitched together. Very light, takes filters and massively outresolves any wide angle lens. Can't do a lot of stuff like long exposures etc but gives the best results for astro.
The options are currently :
Primes
Nikon 14mm f2.8 - a very old lens and a poor performer.
Yongnuo 14mm f2.8 - based on the quite good Canon 14mm f2.8, should be better than the Nikon HOWEVER Not out for Nikon just yet, but the Canon ones are good in the middle, but a little rough at the edges so might not be perfect for astro.
Irix 15mm f2.4 - Manual focus, but very sharp, free from distortion one of the brightest options, and it also has the best corners of any lens here, both in sharpness and freedom from CA. If you ignore astro, possibly the best image quality.
Samyang 14mm f2.8 -Manual focus, very sharp, and best coma for astro BUT and its a big BUT, sample variation is massive, and the lenses are fragile with reports of drops of a couple of feet onto a bed resulting in decentering. Samyang are bringing out a better built version
The NEW Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 - This is better built than the above lens, is the widest and fastest lens other than the Sigma, and autofocuses. The only thing currently stopping me pulling the trigger is the price - £800 ! I believe this will fall to £600 over the next year.
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art - sharpest lens here. Very hotly anticipated as the 50mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses were good. However it disapointed a little, as there are complaints about the astro coma on some samples, and the coma doesnt seem to go away when stopped down to f2.8. Not as good as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in this regard, and worse than the Samyang. A little disapointing wide open sharpness wise at f1.8 compared to the Sigma 50mm f1.4as well ( although that is a very high standard ! ) . If you can ignore this issue, best image quality and brightest lens here. Cost, size and lack of filters are the problems.
Zooms
Nikon 14-24 - Very sharp, very wide and a great lens. Does very well at 14mm and f2.8 which was amazing when it was new, as you usually have to be stopped down and in the middle of the zoom range to get acceptable results on such a wide lens. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
Tokina 16-28 f2.8. - an older, slightly less wide lens. quite good stopped down, but Poor wide open. .
Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Possibly the most modern zoom lens, about equal to the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness, and has stabilization. However it is actually more like a 16-30 lens and those 2mm really count at that end, and also mean you need a shorter shutter speed for astrophotography. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
For landscapes the option I prefer at the moment is a 50mm f1.4 taking multiple shots and then stitched together. Very light, takes filters and massively outresolves any wide angle lens. Can't do a lot of stuff like long exposures etc but gives the best results for astro.
ExPat2B said:
So this is a subject I am interested in as well, as I currently lack a wide lens.
The options are currently :
Primes
Nikon 14mm f2.8 - a very old lens and a poor performer.
Yongnuo 14mm f2.8 - based on the quite good Canon 14mm f2.8, should be better than the Nikon HOWEVER Not out for Nikon just yet, but the Canon ones are good in the middle, but a little rough at the edges so might not be perfect for astro.
Irix 15mm f2.4 - Manual focus, but very sharp, free from distortion one of the brightest options, and it also has the best corners of any lens here, both in sharpness and freedom from CA. If you ignore astro, possibly the best image quality.
Samyang 14mm f2.8 -Manual focus, very sharp, and best coma for astro BUT and its a big BUT, sample variation is massive, and the lenses are fragile with reports of drops of a couple of feet onto a bed resulting in decentering. Samyang are bringing out a better built version
The NEW Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 - This is better built than the above lens, is the widest and fastest lens other than the Sigma, and autofocuses. The only thing currently stopping me pulling the trigger is the price - £800 ! I believe this will fall to £600 over the next year.
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art - sharpest lens here. Very hotly anticipated as the 50mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses were good. However it disapointed a little, as there are complaints about the astro coma on some samples, and the coma doesnt seem to go away when stopped down to f2.8. Not as good as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in this regard, and worse than the Samyang. A little disapointing wide open sharpness wise at f1.8 compared to the Sigma 50mm f1.4as well ( although that is a very high standard ! ) . If you can ignore this issue, best image quality and brightest lens here. Cost, size and lack of filters are the problems.
Zooms
Nikon 14-24 - Very sharp, very wide and a great lens. Does very well at 14mm and f2.8 which was amazing when it was new, as you usually have to be stopped down and in the middle of the zoom range to get acceptable results on such a wide lens. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
Tokina 16-28 f2.8. - an older, slightly less wide lens. quite good stopped down, but Poor wide open. .
Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Possibly the most modern zoom lens, about equal to the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness, and has stabilization. However it is actually more like a 16-30 lens and those 2mm really count at that end, and also mean you need a shorter shutter speed for astrophotography. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
For landscapes the option I prefer at the moment is a 50mm f1.4 taking multiple shots and then stitched together. Very light, takes filters and massively outresolves any wide angle lens. Can't do a lot of stuff like long exposures etc but gives the best results for astro.
I'm suprised by some of your conclusions on those. I've had a 14mm 2.8 AFD and thought it was a superb lens. Sold it to K12Beano on here who seemed to like it too. It's biggest problem was that the 14-24 came along and did everything just as well but with a zoom range and not that much more £'s. The options are currently :
Primes
Nikon 14mm f2.8 - a very old lens and a poor performer.
Yongnuo 14mm f2.8 - based on the quite good Canon 14mm f2.8, should be better than the Nikon HOWEVER Not out for Nikon just yet, but the Canon ones are good in the middle, but a little rough at the edges so might not be perfect for astro.
Irix 15mm f2.4 - Manual focus, but very sharp, free from distortion one of the brightest options, and it also has the best corners of any lens here, both in sharpness and freedom from CA. If you ignore astro, possibly the best image quality.
Samyang 14mm f2.8 -Manual focus, very sharp, and best coma for astro BUT and its a big BUT, sample variation is massive, and the lenses are fragile with reports of drops of a couple of feet onto a bed resulting in decentering. Samyang are bringing out a better built version
The NEW Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 - This is better built than the above lens, is the widest and fastest lens other than the Sigma, and autofocuses. The only thing currently stopping me pulling the trigger is the price - £800 ! I believe this will fall to £600 over the next year.
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art - sharpest lens here. Very hotly anticipated as the 50mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses were good. However it disapointed a little, as there are complaints about the astro coma on some samples, and the coma doesnt seem to go away when stopped down to f2.8. Not as good as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in this regard, and worse than the Samyang. A little disapointing wide open sharpness wise at f1.8 compared to the Sigma 50mm f1.4as well ( although that is a very high standard ! ) . If you can ignore this issue, best image quality and brightest lens here. Cost, size and lack of filters are the problems.
Zooms
Nikon 14-24 - Very sharp, very wide and a great lens. Does very well at 14mm and f2.8 which was amazing when it was new, as you usually have to be stopped down and in the middle of the zoom range to get acceptable results on such a wide lens. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
Tokina 16-28 f2.8. - an older, slightly less wide lens. quite good stopped down, but Poor wide open. .
Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Possibly the most modern zoom lens, about equal to the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness, and has stabilization. However it is actually more like a 16-30 lens and those 2mm really count at that end, and also mean you need a shorter shutter speed for astrophotography. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
For landscapes the option I prefer at the moment is a 50mm f1.4 taking multiple shots and then stitched together. Very light, takes filters and massively outresolves any wide angle lens. Can't do a lot of stuff like long exposures etc but gives the best results for astro.
The Irix is brilliant, would happily have another of those if I was still shooting FX.
The Tokina 16-28 I thought was excellent too, including wide open. It's biggest drawbacks were no filter ring and nasty flare when pointed at light source (all Tokinas seem to suffer this). Loved the build quality and manual focus ring. Really nice lens that.
Of the two mentioned in the OP, I think the 14-24 is a really special lens but the 16-35 is a more sensible choice unless you shoot astro.
Gad-Westy said:
ExPat2B said:
So this is a subject I am interested in as well, as I currently lack a wide lens.
The options are currently :
Primes
Nikon 14mm f2.8 - a very old lens and a poor performer.
Yongnuo 14mm f2.8 - based on the quite good Canon 14mm f2.8, should be better than the Nikon HOWEVER Not out for Nikon just yet, but the Canon ones are good in the middle, but a little rough at the edges so might not be perfect for astro.
Irix 15mm f2.4 - Manual focus, but very sharp, free from distortion one of the brightest options, and it also has the best corners of any lens here, both in sharpness and freedom from CA. If you ignore astro, possibly the best image quality.
Samyang 14mm f2.8 -Manual focus, very sharp, and best coma for astro BUT and its a big BUT, sample variation is massive, and the lenses are fragile with reports of drops of a couple of feet onto a bed resulting in decentering. Samyang are bringing out a better built version
The NEW Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 - This is better built than the above lens, is the widest and fastest lens other than the Sigma, and autofocuses. The only thing currently stopping me pulling the trigger is the price - £800 ! I believe this will fall to £600 over the next year.
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art - sharpest lens here. Very hotly anticipated as the 50mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses were good. However it disapointed a little, as there are complaints about the astro coma on some samples, and the coma doesnt seem to go away when stopped down to f2.8. Not as good as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in this regard, and worse than the Samyang. A little disapointing wide open sharpness wise at f1.8 compared to the Sigma 50mm f1.4as well ( although that is a very high standard ! ) . If you can ignore this issue, best image quality and brightest lens here. Cost, size and lack of filters are the problems.
Zooms
Nikon 14-24 - Very sharp, very wide and a great lens. Does very well at 14mm and f2.8 which was amazing when it was new, as you usually have to be stopped down and in the middle of the zoom range to get acceptable results on such a wide lens. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
Tokina 16-28 f2.8. - an older, slightly less wide lens. quite good stopped down, but Poor wide open. .
Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Possibly the most modern zoom lens, about equal to the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness, and has stabilization. However it is actually more like a 16-30 lens and those 2mm really count at that end, and also mean you need a shorter shutter speed for astrophotography. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
For landscapes the option I prefer at the moment is a 50mm f1.4 taking multiple shots and then stitched together. Very light, takes filters and massively outresolves any wide angle lens. Can't do a lot of stuff like long exposures etc but gives the best results for astro.
I'm suprised by some of your conclusions on those. I've had a 14mm 2.8 AFD and thought it was a superb lens. Sold it to K12Beano on here who seemed to like it too. It's biggest problem was that the 14-24 came along and did everything just as well but with a zoom range and not that much more £'s. The options are currently :
Primes
Nikon 14mm f2.8 - a very old lens and a poor performer.
Yongnuo 14mm f2.8 - based on the quite good Canon 14mm f2.8, should be better than the Nikon HOWEVER Not out for Nikon just yet, but the Canon ones are good in the middle, but a little rough at the edges so might not be perfect for astro.
Irix 15mm f2.4 - Manual focus, but very sharp, free from distortion one of the brightest options, and it also has the best corners of any lens here, both in sharpness and freedom from CA. If you ignore astro, possibly the best image quality.
Samyang 14mm f2.8 -Manual focus, very sharp, and best coma for astro BUT and its a big BUT, sample variation is massive, and the lenses are fragile with reports of drops of a couple of feet onto a bed resulting in decentering. Samyang are bringing out a better built version
The NEW Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 - This is better built than the above lens, is the widest and fastest lens other than the Sigma, and autofocuses. The only thing currently stopping me pulling the trigger is the price - £800 ! I believe this will fall to £600 over the next year.
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art - sharpest lens here. Very hotly anticipated as the 50mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses were good. However it disapointed a little, as there are complaints about the astro coma on some samples, and the coma doesnt seem to go away when stopped down to f2.8. Not as good as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in this regard, and worse than the Samyang. A little disapointing wide open sharpness wise at f1.8 compared to the Sigma 50mm f1.4as well ( although that is a very high standard ! ) . If you can ignore this issue, best image quality and brightest lens here. Cost, size and lack of filters are the problems.
Zooms
Nikon 14-24 - Very sharp, very wide and a great lens. Does very well at 14mm and f2.8 which was amazing when it was new, as you usually have to be stopped down and in the middle of the zoom range to get acceptable results on such a wide lens. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
Tokina 16-28 f2.8. - an older, slightly less wide lens. quite good stopped down, but Poor wide open. .
Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Possibly the most modern zoom lens, about equal to the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness, and has stabilization. However it is actually more like a 16-30 lens and those 2mm really count at that end, and also mean you need a shorter shutter speed for astrophotography. Filters, size and weight are the disadvantages.
For landscapes the option I prefer at the moment is a 50mm f1.4 taking multiple shots and then stitched together. Very light, takes filters and massively outresolves any wide angle lens. Can't do a lot of stuff like long exposures etc but gives the best results for astro.
The Irix is brilliant, would happily have another of those if I was still shooting FX.
The Tokina 16-28 I thought was excellent too, including wide open. It's biggest drawbacks were no filter ring and nasty flare when pointed at light source (all Tokinas seem to suffer this). Loved the build quality and manual focus ring. Really nice lens that.
Of the two mentioned in the OP, I think the 14-24 is a really special lens but the 16-35 is a more sensible choice unless you shoot astro.
Sharpness map of the 14mm prime
https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/NikonD810...
Sharpness map of the Nikon 14-24
https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/NikonD810...
Nikons own MTF curves for the 14mm f2.8
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product...
Also check the vignetting at f2.8, about a stop worse than the other options. Check the measured transmission, its actually closer to T3.2 compared to the 14-24 which is about half a stop better.
So it has soft, dark corners. It also flares badly, as it has no nanocoating. and it uses the old fashioned screw autofocus, added all together, I would struggle to reccomend it.
Now, I do understand that sharp corners are not the be all and end all, and you can keep flare under control in various ways, and sometimes size and price trump all other considerations, but I think the biggest argument against it is that Youngnuo are also about to release a 14mm f2.8 which should perform about the same for 1/2 the price.
Regarding the Tokina - I am amazed you liked the focus ring, it is a nightmare for shooting landscapes/astro. You set your sharp focus, then "click" the ring to manual and it jogs the focus !
ExPat2B said:
Maybe I am being too harsh on the Nikon 14mm f2.8, its not that it is a bad lens per se, but it is a very strong field of lenses.
Sharpness map of the 14mm prime
https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/NikonD810...
Sharpness map of the Nikon 14-24
https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/NikonD810...
Nikons own MTF curves for the 14mm f2.8
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product...
Also check the vignetting at f2.8, about a stop worse than the other options. Check the measured transmission, its actually closer to T3.2 compared to the 14-24 which is about half a stop better.
So it has soft, dark corners. It also flares badly, as it has no nanocoating. and it uses the old fashioned screw autofocus, added all together, I would struggle to reccomend it.
Now, I do understand that sharp corners are not the be all and end all, and you can keep flare under control in various ways, and sometimes size and price trump all other considerations, but I think the biggest argument against it is that Youngnuo are also about to release a 14mm f2.8 which should perform about the same for 1/2 the price.
Regarding the Tokina - I am amazed you liked the focus ring, it is a nightmare for shooting landscapes/astro. You set your sharp focus, then "click" the ring to manual and it jogs the focus !
I gave up on the charts and numbers ages ago. I just go of what I like and my own experience using them, never been disappointed with any of those, though as you say that is a strong bunch of lenses so maybe nitpicking is fair enough. My gripe with the Tokina was the rainbow flairs it produced and the big front element. I can see the Tokina focus control might be annoying in the scenario you mention but I almost never use AF for landscape and can't say I've ever used it for astro, can't imagine how AF would work for astro. I think I just like that push pull clutch mechanism on any lens I've had it on, though Olympus do it better! Sharpness map of the 14mm prime
https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/NikonD810...
Sharpness map of the Nikon 14-24
https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/NikonD810...
Nikons own MTF curves for the 14mm f2.8
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product...
Also check the vignetting at f2.8, about a stop worse than the other options. Check the measured transmission, its actually closer to T3.2 compared to the 14-24 which is about half a stop better.
So it has soft, dark corners. It also flares badly, as it has no nanocoating. and it uses the old fashioned screw autofocus, added all together, I would struggle to reccomend it.
Now, I do understand that sharp corners are not the be all and end all, and you can keep flare under control in various ways, and sometimes size and price trump all other considerations, but I think the biggest argument against it is that Youngnuo are also about to release a 14mm f2.8 which should perform about the same for 1/2 the price.
Regarding the Tokina - I am amazed you liked the focus ring, it is a nightmare for shooting landscapes/astro. You set your sharp focus, then "click" the ring to manual and it jogs the focus !
Yup - a thumbs up for the Nikkor 14mm in the real world. (And great value s/h - thanks Mr Gad!)
Although I recognise that there's a great variety of newcomers on the market these days, so I think you have to go back to the "what am I going to use it for" question and choose from the reviews. Doesn't appear to be a "bad" example - although a decade or so ago I had a Sugma 14mm, which I found quite dire! So things have come along leaps and bounds.
And, mind you, I'm not a big zoom lens fan (apart from the 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor) so I often start out on a day with a "it's a 14mm day" or "it's a 105mm day" so have never had a hankering for a 14-24mm to compare.
Although I recognise that there's a great variety of newcomers on the market these days, so I think you have to go back to the "what am I going to use it for" question and choose from the reviews. Doesn't appear to be a "bad" example - although a decade or so ago I had a Sugma 14mm, which I found quite dire! So things have come along leaps and bounds.
And, mind you, I'm not a big zoom lens fan (apart from the 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor) so I often start out on a day with a "it's a 14mm day" or "it's a 105mm day" so have never had a hankering for a 14-24mm to compare.
ExPat2B said:
Looks nice. Sigma seem to be really pushing the wide stuff now. Think they did a 12-24 recently too. Would love to have a play with there 14mm 1.8 too. Yeah sigma are releasing a 14-24f2.8 art apparently soon. Thoygh they struggle with corner coma with their primes.
The sy 14/2.4 is probably the best astro wide now. I use the irix 15mm but only for astro I use my 16-35 for landscapes because its easier to use filters with.
for astro I usually stitch 35 or 50mm anyhow
The sy 14/2.4 is probably the best astro wide now. I use the irix 15mm but only for astro I use my 16-35 for landscapes because its easier to use filters with.
for astro I usually stitch 35 or 50mm anyhow
RobDickinson said:
for astro I usually stitch 35 or 50mm anyhow
I really should learn how to do that - I have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 prime in my kit bag that I hardly ever useDoes it need Photoshop or can it be done in Lightroom?
Edit - as soon as I finished typing this, I searched “how to stitch astro shots” into Google and your article on the Canon website popped up - 48-shot stitch - impressive!
Edited by Nigel_O on Saturday 10th February 07:45
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff