Milky Way with FE 16-35 anyone ?

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by izTheViz, Jul 25, 2015.

  1. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Guys,

    I am wondering which lens I will bring with me to Hawaii. For sure the 16-35, the 28-70. I will certainly bring 1 or 2 FD primes. Recently felt the need for a 70-200 but can't afford it right now. Hence, I will certainly also go for my 100/2.8 or 135/2.5. As I plan to go to the Mauna Kea for some stargazing I wonder whether the 16-35 is fast enough. Has anybody tried to shot the milky way with it ? Should I take my FD 20/2.8 for more safety (infinity focus also) ?

    Thanks

    Yannis
     
  2. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    FWIW, I tried shooting the Milky Way with my old FD 20/2.8, and it turned out to be unacceptably soft at f2.8, with coma galore. Even when stopping it down to f/4, it still did worse than my old SEL2470 did at f/4, so I would expect the SEL1635 to considerably outperform the FD lens as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    • Like Like x 1
  4. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Thanks guys.
    Think I will let the FD at home (and sell it by the way)
    Gary, this time Hawaii is for personal vacations. I recently spent some time in Florence in Italy and came back with some (not much) pretty shots (I hope, still need to process them).
     
  5. dannat

    dannat TalkEmount Regular

    86
    Jun 22, 2014
    VIC
    i would take the soggy 19/2.8 -the sigma lenses were very good when i compared them with the 24/1.8 & tout lenses -the don't rely on as much auto correction as the sony/zeiss offerings - i used them wide open. i agree re the FD, most of the old film lenses can't compete on stars -soft & lots of CA
     
  6. pbizarro

    pbizarro TalkEmount Veteran

    358
    Nov 24, 2014
    Portugal
    Sure you can do it with the 16-35 f4, it's just that the dimmest stars will not be registered. What you can do to mitigate that to a certain extent is to shoot several frames, and later on stack them in something like Deep Sky Stacker. That way, you will get more exposure time.
     
  7. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Hey,

    This is what I could achieve using the 16-35. Not the best for sure. Should have better take 2 exposures, one for the roof and the other one for the sky but the result is quite decent. I think 30s is also a bit too much but I didn't want to go higher than 3200 ISO. F4 is not ideal, 2.8 is definitely better unless using the A7s maybe. Anyway, I had fun.

    21014350969_4a128c3fc1_b. Mauna Kea Stargazing by yannis marigo, sur Flickr
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 11
  8. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Funny when I was looking on mobile, I was thinking you were looking for perfection, but on the desktop I see your gripes. totally agree with the multi exposure and the 2.8. That aside, I still feel that this is a great shot. The lens is certainly usable for Milky Way shots as long as you are realistic about the expectations. Now as soon as I can find a place in the city without light pollution, I will have at it. :)
     
  9. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Yeah the photo is not that sharp. I could probably do better in terms of focusing but man what a hassle with those electronic lenses. For a first experiment it's quite fair but look on youtube what you can get from an A7s coupled with a Nikon 14-24 2.8 and you will understand my small frustration.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. mattia

    mattia TalkEmount Regular

    143
    Dec 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  11. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Is that with the FE 16-35?
    Cool photo!
     
  12. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Nice one too but again best combo is a7s + nikon 14-24 2.8
     
  13. mattia

    mattia TalkEmount Regular

    143
    Dec 13, 2013
    I'm not saying it's ideal, but it works. I may yet get the Samyang 14/2.8 - hard to beat for value for this type of shot
     
  14. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    154
    Sep 1, 2011
    I haven't had a chance to get to particularly dark skies to shoot the Milky Way with my 16-35mm yet, but I'm eager to try. The lens doesn't rate particularly highly on the Lonely Speck rating system. The Rokinon 14/2.8 or 24/1.4 are better options. So is the new Sony 28/2. The fast aperture makes a bigger difference than the wide angle of view. Even the 55/1.8 rates higher than the 16-35/4, although you'll have to do some serious stitching to get a decently wide view of the Milky Way.

    Still, I think the shot you showed demonstrated that you can get great Milky Way shots with this lens. I viewed it as large as possible on flickr and it seems decently sharp, but maybe any larger it loses a bit of bite. 30 seconds is a good exposure time if you're at 16mm, going by the 500/FL rule of thumb. Your shot may just have missed perfect focus. I know it's difficult on these focus-by-wire lenses and "infinity" doesn't necessarily hit the right focus for stars. When I've tried shooting stars on an old Pentax 17/3.5 fisheye, I looked for the brightest star in the sky and zoomed in to focus. Still, it is difficult and reviewing your shots on site is good to make sure things look good.