I’ve been wanting to try my hand at Astrophotography for ages. One small barrier is that I live in Houston, Texas and light pollution in Southeast Texas is, errr, prolific. A look at the map of light pollution shows that to get anything approaching a dark sky you have to head west – a long way west. So when I knew I had a business trip to San Antonio coming up, with several days there and a modicum of free time, I started planning.
Using the extremely good advice from Ian Norman at Lonely Speck, I checked weather and viewing condition forecasts and made a plan to head out of San Antonio on I-10, then drive into the hills to the west. I hunted on google for suitable places, but there isn’t much documented out there, so I wasn’t going to get something interesting in the foreground like some photographers manage. I didn’t mind, this was a learning trip for me.
I left San Antonio, headed out to a speck on the map called Garven Store, the headed south on highway 83. At around 00:30, I stopped at a roadcut where I could be safely off the road, and admired the beautiful night sky.
This post contains references to products from one or more of my advertisers. I may receive compensation when you click on links to those products.
For this exercise, I was shooting with my X-Pro1 and I was keen to try a variety of lenses to see what worked for me. As a result, because I was experimenting and learning, I have similar shots taken with a variety of lenses, all primes and some highly rated for this specific purpose. Click on the image to see the full size post processed images.
First one on is the Rokinon f2.0. Following Ian’s excellent tutorial, I set up and started shooting. Manual focus is a bit trickier than I thought when you are looking at a black screen and I rapidly found out that I couldn’t access the exposure calculator on the website – no cell service. Duh! I did remember the settings for the Fuji 16mm, so I guessed for the 12mm. And I guessed wrong. Of the images shown here, this one needed the most postprocessing and adjustment. Pure user error.
Click on the image to see the full size rendition (opens in a new window).
The correct settings for this lens should have been about 28 seconds at 3200 ISO, and I underexposed by at least 2 1/2 stops, so this is way noisier than necessary.
The sky isn’t perfectly clear, with haze and light pollution causing problems down by the horizon, but it’s usable.
I’d been itching to try this lens out for this purpose. In theory, it should be superb, wide and fast. In practice it is, although it does show some astigmatism in the corners. This makes the stars out there look like Jupiter with rings – very annoying. If you don’t pixel peep it’s not horrible, but once I noticed, there is no going back.
Because the sky isn’t completely clear, the image was underexposed by about 1 1/2 stops. Recoverable, but not perfect. At the calculators recommended shutter speed of 21 seconds, I struggled to get the cleanest image, so I sacrificed noise for speed. Not sure that was the best move.
I got this lens thrown in when I bought my 56mm off Craigslist. Stealthy little lens is surprisingly good! It doesn’t exhibit the corner astigmatism of the 16mm and has a nice field of view. For those on a budget, this little gem is an outstanding performer and is probably my most used lens due to it’s flexibility. Works really well for astrophotography as well.
Again, underexposed. I’ve lifted it 1 1/2 stops again, but it could probably have been better with another stop or so exposure.
Now we’re into the longer focal lengths. This is again underexposed by 2 stops, and it has been pulled up by 1 1/2 stops. Unsurprisingly the 23mm is a very good performer, but I struggle with the more restrictive angle of view.
The 35mm f1.4 surprised me by it’s poor performance. The astigmatism in the corners is very pronounced. I know this is an early lens design for the system, but it really bugs me when I see how bad the corners are. This image is the closest I got to getting the exposure “right” with the underexposure limited to about 1 stop, which has been corrected.
So which lens is best? I’ll let you decide which one you prefer, but for me my personal favourite all round lens is the 18mm, and for astrophotography, the budget Rokinon is an excellent choice. I think my biggest challenge in the field was focusing. I’m not sure I nailed it with any of these images, but they do look pretty. As for the lenses, all of them are very capable. You certainly don’t need the speed of the 16, 23 or 35, although I’ll need to expose to the right and get better images to really appreciate the faster lenses. The astigmatism is noticeable on the 16mm, pronounced on the 35mm, still apparent on the 23, but that is the cost of speed and a better noise profile that comes with it.
At the end of the night, all of these lenses are capable of delivering, except the 35mm. I’m just not a fan of that lens. The angle of view I find too limiting and the quality of the optics at the edges are not where I’d expect it to be, i.e. much better. The center seems fine though and for most things it’s a “nifty fifty” equivalent, just not in this application.
One really important thing I learned is to make a note of the slowest shutter speed you can use for a given focal length and have it with you! I should have done a better job of nailing the exposure, but that comes with practice. This was my first attempt, and I knew I’d have lots of learning moments. I also suspect that I may have some camera vibration from wind, so next time I’ll break out the heavier tripod, if I’ve driven to the location, or shorten up the legs on the travel tripod for more stability.
I should also try some of the more advanced post processing that Ian talks about on his site, such as exposure stacking for noise reduction. Next time I’ll use a single focal length, get the composition nailed and just work the single lens to get a better handle on astrophotography. It would be easier if a dark sky was just a little bit closer to home.
More to come……
Hi Jason
I’ve found your testing very useful as I’m thinking of buying the 18mm f2.0
it’s now firmly on my list.
One thing worth noting though, is the comparison of these modern lenses with vintage ones eg: late seventies early eighties. I’ve been doing wide field Astro for quite a while, old Pentax K100d (low ISO), home made motor drive mount and good old glass. With old glass you can never use them wide open, the “Coma” is just so bad, even fairly close to the center. You never see this in “Normal” photography and there are very few old lenses designed for night photography. My point is these modern lenses, for me, are Fantastic! and I love the versatility of my favorite XF35mm 1.4, Coma is gone at f2.0. I now have a Fuji Xt-1, no more motor drive needed.
Thanks again and all the best
John
John, I don’t have a major issue with coma, I’m more concerned with astigmatism and spherical aberration, but that me and I’m just beginning. I’m surprised at the 18mm performance, and it’ll probably be even better on your camera than my old X-Pro1. For playing at astro photography, it’s a great lens, and incredibly versatile. For a dedicated astro lens, I personally would go with the Rokinon. It’s a personal decision, but I’m glad my efforts can help you decide. Now I just need to get better at exposing the image! I tried printing one, it isn’t pretty. Good luck!
What do you think of 18mm and the 12mm for landscape photography? I understand that the 12mm Rokinon lens is the best for astrophotography. I currently own the 18mm Fujinon and satisfied with the results. I can take group pictures while also playing with astrophotography and landscape photography. I was wondering if the 12mm has any other advantage over the 18mm
Kel,
The 18 is an awesome lens, but if you want wider, then the 12 is a great option. I love it for landscapes, and it’s a very cost effective super wide angle. You lose autofocus, but with the DOF of a super wide it’s not a problem.
Not having any exif data from the lens is a bit annoying, but the quality of the glass makes this a very worth while acquisition. At typical working apertures, f5.6 & f8, the lens is lovely and sharp with good contrast. The edges and corners are clean, so no worries there.
A while back I had to make a choice between the 10-24 and a set of primes. I rented the zoom and the Fuji 14 to try it, but I didn’t like the 14 for Astro and I wanted wider. I took a chance on the 12 and I’m glad I did. I use the 12, 16 and 23 for landscapes, with the 18 as a substitute when I want to travel a bit lighter. You can cover almost anything with the 12 & 18 in a small light landscape package.
I hope this helps,
Jason
Was really hoping to see the 14mm in the comparison as well!!Have you had a chance to look at it?
No, I’ve no experience with the 14mm. I considered it too slow for Astro work at 2.8, and I preferred a bit wider. Now I’ve got the Rokkinon, I can’t see me ever justifying the 14mm, which is saying something from the guy with the 18mm who justified the 16mm to himself. Lonely Specklikes it though, but rates the Rokkinon higher. You could always rent it from Borrowlenses.com and try it for yourself.
Just tried to photograph the stars tonight for the first time (I’m in West Texas and thought I won;t see such a beautiful sky anytime soon) and I am puzzled about the settings everyone recommends. I had to up my iso to 12500 to get something decent, but very noisy (at 1.4 and shutter 15 and lower). Am I doing something wrong? At 3500 I get everything black. I used XT2 and 16mm 1.4.
Claudia,
Did you shoot raw? Can you send me the raw file? Load it to google drive or something similar and send me the link.
The 16mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens, and on a good night, 15-20 seconds at 1600 ISO should yield an excellent file. There is something not quite right with your setup.
What software do you use to process the astrophotos? Lightroom? I haven’t tried it yet but there is much talk that Lightroom does not handle Fuji X raw very well.
hi!
I just make my first steps in Astrophoto.
I shot with iso 1600 and 4 seconds. More than 10 seconds causes stars tracks.
Is it possible to avoid it without special hardware for camera?
Thank you!
Andy,
You should be able to shoot with shutter speeds of up to about 30 seconds without star trails. You need a good, stable, platform (tripod), shoot with a fast lens wide open, and depending on your lens, a high iso.
No special hardware needed.
What camera / lens combo are you using?
Jason