If you want to shoot sharp photos of stars, it helps to have the right lens for the job. After all, a good lens during the day might be a dud for resolving pinpoint stars in a photo’s corners at night. Here, I’ve tested five popular wide-angle lenses for astrophotography: the Laowa 12mm f/2.8, Rokinon 14mm f/2.4, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, and Irix 15mm f/2.4. How do they compare?
Before getting started, I’d like to mention that this only covers a small sample of the total number of good astrophotography lenses out there. I’ve personally used the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 and Nikon 20mm f/1.8 before with success, and at Photography Life we’ve tested everything from the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 to even the new Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 for their abilities to capture the stars. I created this comparison in the first place because I had access to these five particular lenses at one time, but it doesn’t mean they are the only good choices out there. Check out our list of more than 20 astrophotography lenses for Nikon cameras alone, and you can see how many good choices exist.
All that said, let’s get started.
Table of Contents
Full Images
I’m going to include full images, center crops, and corner crops for all five lenses below. Here is the order in which they will appear below:
- Laowa 12mm f/2.8
- Rokinon 14mm f/2.4
- Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (same company as Rokinon, under a different name)
- Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
- Irix 15mm f/2.4
Since the Irix and Rokinon lenses are f/2.4 rather than f/2.8, I’m including photos at both apertures rather than just wide open or just f/2.8. The difference in light gathering capabilities between these two apertures is half a stop, which is not massive, but still matters. The wider focal length of the Laowa also allowed capture at 25 seconds, while the rest of the photos were taken with a 20 second shutter speed. You can click on the photos below to scroll between them and compare how the images look.
Laowa 12mm f/2.8 – 25 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.4; and 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 14mm
Irix 15mm f/2.4 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.4; and 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Mid-Frame Crops (click to see 100%)
Laowa 12mm f/2.8 – 25 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.4; and 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 14mm
Irix 15mm f/2.4 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.4; and 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Top-Right Corner Crops (click to see 100%)
Laowa 12mm f/2.8 – 25 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.4; and 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 14mm
Irix 15mm f/2.4 – 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.4; and 20 seconds, ISO 3200, f/2.8
Results
There are some clear winners and losers in this comparison – more so than I thought there would be.
These lenses have more optical problems than just coma, which is the classic issue with astrophotography. Specifically, each one has relatively strong vignetting, although some have more than others. The non-star portions of the frame also vary significantly in sharpness from lens to lens. And, interestingly, some of the lenses – especially the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 – have spherical aberration that adds a “glow” halo around the brighter stars, even in the center of the frame. I consider this to be an issue, not a feature (after all, you can always add a glow in post-processing, but you can’t get rid of it very easily); however, some may see it as a benefit, adding an etherial look to the sky.
Before delving into the specific pros and cons of each lens, here is my list in order from most to least recommended based upon image quality:
- Rokinon 14mm f/2.4
- Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
- Samyang 14mm f/2.8
- Irix 15mm f/2.4
- Laowa 12mm f/2.8
Be aware that there is a noticeable drop-off after the Rokinon and Nikon, and another when comparing the Laowa 12mm to all the other lenses tested. If I had to recommend any of these lenses to buy, I would only pick one of the top three – the first two for maximum image quality, and the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for its bargain price and still very solid photos.
Specifically, the lens that impressed me the most was the Rokinon 14mm f/2.4. That lens had remarkable sharpness for the foreground landscape, almost no visible coma even at f/2.4, and among the lowest vignetting in this test. It also has the f/2.4 advantage, although that isn’t as big a deal as it may seem; that aperture leads to enough vignetting that, functionally, it only brightens the center compared to f/2.8 (and even then not by much). The Rokinon is also $800 new, which is not the cheapest lens in this list, but isn’t unreasonable either.
The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 presents a close challenge to the Rokinon, but there are a few issues that prevent it from taking the top prize. To start, the Nikon costs $1900 new, although you can find it for significantly less used. In terms of image quality, it has more coma in the corners, as well as being just a bit less sharp on the landscape itself. But this is splitting hairs; choose between these two lenses based upon factors like price, zoom vs prime, and manual vs autofocus instead, since it takes an extreme side-by-side comparison to make the image quality differences visible.
The next lenses in this list are a step down in quality, though still respectable. The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and the Irix 15mm f/2.4 are very close in performance – practically a tie. Although the Samyang has more spherical aberration, leading to halos around the stars, it beats out the Irix in terms of sharpness and coma. The Irix is built better, but it costs $425 (Firefly version) to the Samyang’s bargain price of $299. It should be clear why the Samyang is so popular among astrophotographers! If build quality or minimal halos around the stars are especially important to you, get the Irix, but otherwise the Samyang is the better deal – and the better performer, too, though not by a wide margin.
Last on the list is the Laowa 12mm f/2.8, which ticks none of the boxes. It is unsharp, has huge levels of vignetting, experiences comparatively high coma in the corners, and adds noticeable halos to the stars. At a price of $950, unless you absolutely can’t live without the 12mm focal length, my conclusion is that you should stay away from this lens. I’ve even tested two different copies of the Laowa, both of which were exactly the same in that regard – and I triple checked that the Laowa’s photo in this article was properly focused, which it was. The lens itself just isn’t good for astrophotography.
Conclusion
The comparison above only covers a small sample of all the wide-angle, wide-aperture lenses on the market for Milky Way photography. Still, I hope it gave you a good idea of what to look for, including the image quality you can expect from top-of-the-line astrophotography lenses (and bad ones, too). If I ever get my hands on another set of lenses like this, I’ll run a second test comparing them as well. In the meantime, astrophotography performance is something we analyze in many of our reviews at Photography Life, so keep an eye out as we continue to test more night sky photography options in the future.
I love the Samyang 14mm 2.8 lens…it has its own “look” in the photos and seemed to have more contrast as well as brightness in the stars. Yes, if you’d like to pay $1900 for the Nikon vs. $300 for the Samyang you can, with perhaps some image improvement, but to me its not enough to justify the price. Also, these are individual versions of these lenses and, like it or not, the same lens will have variations from one lens to another, so who is to say there are not better versions of each lens out there?
Hello,
Happy 2022 all.
Thank you for the lens comparisons.
I am in the process of buying a lens for astrophotography and this information helps immensely. I have been going back and forth on which of the four Rokinon 14mm to buy after reading loads of reviews.
Any advice on optical quality ratings on the four Rokinon 14mm lenses? Not including the SP version.
Is there a particular Rokinon 14mm to avoid?
Thank you,
Patti
Thanks you very much for this comparison! I really appreciate it! I mainly do tracked Landscape Astrophotography and need a wide field choice that wont break the bank and still deliver reasonable quality images esp in the corners. Giving the Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 a try from Amazon so I can return it if needed… Fingers crossed!
Did you achieve proper focus on the Laowa and Samyang 2.8. As I find it hard to believe they are that soft on the wide shots. They look terrible compared to the others, but the Samyang looks OK on the corner crop??
I compared last year above mentioned Samyang and Irix. Irix outperformed the Samyang in every way. The images were noticeable sharper in the corners, more detailed, a lot easier to focus, both day and night. The Samyang had some really weird distortion problems with horizontal lines and a lot more of chromatic aberrations. In summary the Irix is worth the additionally money without doubt and outstanding performer below 1.000 money category.
This might give us one finding. Either Samyang has a big quality issue or Irix. Because of this Rokinon, Walimex, Samyang labeling roulette and the low prize would tip to Samyang.
(I do not own any of both lenses)
Hi! I am considering getting an Irix 15mm for my Nikon z6 for astro and after reading the post I was a little discouraged but then you pointed out that the Irix is (got?) better called my attention. Did the lens improve since this post was written? (I see your test is almost a year later).
I just wanna be sure because it is considerably cheap but if the quality is as low as mentioned in the post then I don’t mind paying a little more for better.
I’ve had excellent results with the nikon 20mm f1.8 for Milky Way shots – ISO 6400 15 sec. exposure but you will have to deal with the coma and it’s bad. That’s why the Rokinon is a good choice but then you have to probably 6 of them and send 5 back because they differ so much. I just sent back the Sigma 14mm f1.4 because of extensive coma. When shot at f2 it improved but there’s still coma. I also sent back the Sigma 20 f1.4. Great lens but again tons of coma. Both Sigma’s are great art lenses but astrophotography is so demanding and most lenses won’t hold up well wide open. Landscape doesn’t show so much coma but pin point stars do. my friends are using NIK define. Does anyone have a good noise reduction for astro?
DxO PhotoLab 4. I haven’t tried it on astrophotography, but the overall work reducing noise with their DeepPrime technology is amazing.Give it a try!
Interesting article Spencer.
I was also quite shocked by the noise levels. Even viewing just the pictures within the article I can see more blue and green flecks than either dark grey sky or white stars. Then if you view the enlarged pictures or the close ups, it’s as bad as a smartphone picture! What it shows to me is that at minimum the in-camera Long Exposure Noise Reduction (i.e. dark frame subtraction) needs to be applied. In the few times I’ve done astro, that makes a huge difference as soon as your exposure is longer than about 2 seconds.
I could be interesting to repeat this test with LENR on, because without the noise not only will the stars be more distinct, but also the landscape details should be sharper. Other types of NR could also obviously help a final print, but I think LENR is the one to add for comparing lens characteristics.
For those who shoot Sony FE a new option is the Tokina Firin 20mm f2. Reviews have found corner sharpness wide open good enough for astro photographs, f/2. I have the manual focus version, $650 new. Will use in Iceland in a few months on an A7iii. On my APS-C 24mp Sony sensors have been pleased with the very inexpensive and petit Samyang 12mm f2, used wide open at f/2. Example, photos.app.goo.gl/xhxLZCSUWeZp2rT18
Thank you for this post/comparison. Very helpful.
Dear Spencer,
Don’t miss Voigtlander 15/4.5
Reha Günay
That lens isn’t available on the camera he was shooting with so don’t count on it.