Milky Way, need to upgrade to faster lens???
- Thread starter shl3608
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I'm assuming this was shot at 18mm and wide open (f/3.5), right? Not knowing where this was shot or how much post processing was done, I can't see anything here that says you "need" a brighter lens unless you're looking to eliminate star trails.
If you want to do a lot of this and also stay in the DX format, my take would be that instead of investing in the 24mm Rokinon I would look to spend a little more and grab the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. It will keep you as wide as you are now, while adding some flexibility with the zoom. They're hard to come by right now in the Nikon mount, but the going price on Canon is $799 and I expect you could find one at around $850-900 if you look hard. it's a 50% jump in price over the Rokinon, but I suspect it's a better buy in the long run.
If you want to do a lot of this and also stay in the DX format, my take would be that instead of investing in the 24mm Rokinon I would look to spend a little more and grab the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. It will keep you as wide as you are now, while adding some flexibility with the zoom. They're hard to come by right now in the Nikon mount, but the going price on Canon is $799 and I expect you could find one at around $850-900 if you look hard. it's a 50% jump in price over the Rokinon, but I suspect it's a better buy in the long run.
shl3608
Senior Member
BackdoorHippie (you have no idea how much your ID makes me giggle because of where I live) and Geoffc, thanks for your nice comment and suggestion.
I live in Portland, OR and that shot was taken in Central Oregon near the Cascades. I had not considered Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 but I will look into that one for certain. The Rokinon 24mm/F1.4 was often mentioned by others in different forums and it fit my budget but your suggestion definitely gives me another option. I have the 35mm/1.8G prime also which I have not tried yet for night photography. I figured that would not capture enough of the night sky in view and I like shooting at 18mm but F3.5 definitely forces me to up my ISO quite a bit which could be a source of the grainy pictures also.
You assumed correctly. This was taken wide open at F3.5 at 18mm. I am definitely feeling the need to practice my post-processing because as an end result sometimes my pictures at ISO1600 look grainy on my computer. I have not delved into star trail photography but perhaps I can experiment next time I'm out in the middle of the woods listening to coyotes cry in the faint distance.
I live in Portland, OR and that shot was taken in Central Oregon near the Cascades. I had not considered Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 but I will look into that one for certain. The Rokinon 24mm/F1.4 was often mentioned by others in different forums and it fit my budget but your suggestion definitely gives me another option. I have the 35mm/1.8G prime also which I have not tried yet for night photography. I figured that would not capture enough of the night sky in view and I like shooting at 18mm but F3.5 definitely forces me to up my ISO quite a bit which could be a source of the grainy pictures also.
You assumed correctly. This was taken wide open at F3.5 at 18mm. I am definitely feeling the need to practice my post-processing because as an end result sometimes my pictures at ISO1600 look grainy on my computer. I have not delved into star trail photography but perhaps I can experiment next time I'm out in the middle of the woods listening to coyotes cry in the faint distance.
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The BDH name is a long story, but I'd imagine there are enough "Hippies Use Back Door" signs up in Portland for you to at least get the starting point.
What I meant by "star trails" is that at 18mm you have an effective focal length (due to the DX crop factor) of 27mm. If you use the "600 Rule" that means that any exposure over 22 seconds (600 divided by 27) will show motion in the stars, and that's evident in your 30 second exposure. So, if you want the stars to be pure spots in the sky and not a little blurry ("with trails") then you can't shoot beyond 22 seconds, so you're going to need to be about 1.5-2 stops brighter to get the same exposure, and a f1.8 lens will more than do that for you.
Are you using any kind of noise reduction? I highly recommend Dfine 2.0, which is part of the Nik Collection. If you don't want to spend that kind of money then play with the Noise Reduction in Lightroom. You should be able to come up with something usable, even at ISO 1600.
What I meant by "star trails" is that at 18mm you have an effective focal length (due to the DX crop factor) of 27mm. If you use the "600 Rule" that means that any exposure over 22 seconds (600 divided by 27) will show motion in the stars, and that's evident in your 30 second exposure. So, if you want the stars to be pure spots in the sky and not a little blurry ("with trails") then you can't shoot beyond 22 seconds, so you're going to need to be about 1.5-2 stops brighter to get the same exposure, and a f1.8 lens will more than do that for you.
Are you using any kind of noise reduction? I highly recommend Dfine 2.0, which is part of the Nik Collection. If you don't want to spend that kind of money then play with the Noise Reduction in Lightroom. You should be able to come up with something usable, even at ISO 1600.
shl3608
Senior Member
Geoff, Tokina 11-16 has been on my list for some time for landscape photography but you're correct that it would take wonderful night pics based on what BDH has explained to me. But in all honesty I'm hoping I can inherit my manfriend's Nikon 10-24mm when he moves up to full frame. I will at least try to convince him
my pictures at ISO1600 look grainy on my computer.
ISO 1600 will likely look grainy no matter what lens you use so more/faster light would be needed to lower the ISO. Lightroom does offer some noise reduction I am told. Also your camera probably has high ISO noise reduction selections.