20 1.8 z for a z5?

[chrismitchell]

For z5

My Rokinon 14 mm makes stars look good.  I'm talking long exposure.  Buildings are, not so good.  A tree or cactus in the center of the shot looks fine, with star trails in the background.  (Is that Canadian smoke in the skies,  blocking out the stars?)

This winter and next winter I plan to visit isolated ruins in Guatemala.  With permiso especial I will be able to take night photos with star trails with Mayan pyramids in the pictures. 

My Rokinon 14 makes buildings misshapen.  

I found a lunar calendar in the jungle.  Hidden in plain sight.  3,000 year old pyramid, dedicated to studying the cycles of the moon.

At the center of the lunar cycle I was standing all alone watching the moon rise in the center window.  In about 18 months the moon will reach it's southern most point in the sky.  I want to have the proper lens to capture the moment.  I don't mean a telephoto lens to capture the moon.  I mean a lens good at night photos, that holds the shape of the near by ruins and also captures excellent astrophotography..

I was reading about the z 20 1.8 today.  Is this the best choice?

[mike_halliwell]

I asked the forum a month or so ago about the 14-24mm f2.8 Z for astro and didn't get anything useful.

Nikon seem to push it's night-time use here..

https://www.nikon.co.uk/en_GB/product/lenses/mirrorless/nikkor-z-14-24mm-f2.8-s

This seems to show pretty bad coma problems..

https://www.lenstip.com/587.7-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_20_mm_f_1.8_S_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

although optical distortion isn't so bad.

Edited July 6, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[robert_bouknight1]

I don't know much about astro photography to offer any advice, but your photo project does sound very interesting.  I hope you are able to find a good solution.  Keep us posted.

In general, using AF Nikon lenses on the Z should result in at least some decent lens correction applied by Nikon software.  Using 3rd party lens corrections in, for example, Lightroom may not have as effective corrections, but this is another area that I don't have much experience with.

[chrismitchell]

I bought the Rokinon because side by side comparison of star photos looked best from that one. Buildings did not look so good.

This is what Nikon says about the 14-24

"Many wide lenses misshape pinpoint lights like stars. Not the NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. Advancements of the Z Mount and the use of Aspherical elements keep point-light sources like stars and city lights round, sharp and clear, free of sagittal coma and flare. "

Will the 20 make stars non round?

[chris_gibbons2]

It strikes me that with 18 months to go before the moon is in the right position, you have ample time to experiment with a couple of variations. You could hire both of the Nikons to try them out or, if hiring is not an option, buy carefully second-hand. At least that way, if you don't like the lens, you should be able to sell it on for close to what you paid. You could even ask your local camera club if they have any members who have either of the Nikons and see if they'd be prepared to let you try some test shots. One of the local camera stores I used to use would even allow me to take a lens out to try it and then either refund me the full amount or swap it for something else.

It does sound like an interesting project, though - please keep us posted.

[mike_halliwell]

Will the 20 make stars non round?

If you follow the Lenstip link I posted above, you see what stars look like in the corner of full frame. Very non round... in fact the dots grow wings.

[Niels - NHSN]

2 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Will the 20 make stars non round?

If you follow the Lenstip link I posted above, you see what stars look like in the corner of full frame. Very non round... in fact the dots grow wings.

Admittedly I have no knowledge of night sky photography but the example linked at F/2.5 on a 1.8 lens; that doesn't look bad to me. What ultra-wide lenses looks better half a stop from wide open?

Do you have to shoot wide open for astrophotography?

[chrismitchell]

"If you follow the Lenstip link I posted above"

I did follow the link.  The 20 1.8 got my attention because the photos posted on nikons web page most resemble photos   I like to take.  If you click any z lens and scroll down, they post photos.  Presumably the ones Nikon thinks that lens is good for.

Mean while.  While I was hiking in Olympic national park.  The head came unscrewed from my tripod.  I spent a whole entire day searching for it, no luck.

Any ideas on a good tripod for back country hikers?

Eagles look a lot better when the camera is on a tripod.  I got a couple of good ones this time.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by chrismitchell

[mike_halliwell]

Ball Head, Pan & Tilt etc...? 

Heads are a very personal choice!

[chrismitchell]

Ball, pan, tilt?  

I have a two pound Silk with a small ball head.  I have a four pound Manfrotto which has no head any more.  Both are old.  

I lost the head last week while cycling to a remote trail head in Olympic national park.

Last night while photographing some dear, the camera fell of the cheap tripod I bought at Goodwill.  About three feet into some grass.  400 4.5 on a z5, ouch.  Good thing I went with Nikon.  No damage.

On Monday I will be in Seattle.  This time I am willing to pay $$$ for a good tripod.

[chrismitchell]

As a guess, I would say a ball head would work best for birds and bears and things that move around.  One with a larger ball perhaps?  I have to ask because I don't know.

[mike_halliwell]

I use a Leofoto LH-55 Ball head, it's a clone of a more expensive name.

(55 = 55mm ball diameter)

Edited July 14, 2023 by mike_halliwell