A 35 for stars--and one more question

[bcorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey, if a guy wanted to shoot milky way photos or star-scapes generally with his newly acquired M10-R, and if that guy wanted a lens that would give pinpoint star images across pretty much the entire field without coma or color fringing--and this at or near wide open aperture, what 35mm lens would you recommend to him from your experience?  It needn't be a Leica lens necessarily, just M-mount.

The one more question: in non-35mm territory, how would the WATE do in this regard? 

Ta!

[FrozenInTime]

Without a tracking mount you have something like 10 to 20 seconds before the earth's movement shows up as star trails, so lens speed is important.

The 35 Summilux ASPH was to me a revelation when it launched as it's sharpness and very low amount of coma wide open was so much better than other non-aspherical lenses.

With digital sensors you have more flexibility over sensor ISO setting than with film; the highly corrected Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar ( 35mm APO Summicron is practically unobtainable  ) is going to perform better across the whole image.  

Though if you seek faint objects as well as stars, without tracking or stacking, the VC 35/1.2 or ZM 35/1.4 would also be worth a look ( I don't have these, but the VC 40/1.2 is quite good )

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bcorton]

Thank you much for the recommendation.  Yes, tracking and I are old friends. And with tracking one can use higher f/ numbers and still get the goods.  But for larger vistas, those that also include landscape elements, the old tripod and max aperture (or near it) has also been my friend. But, as I mentioned, I just got an M10-R and am toying with the idea of selling off my other system. I don't like having too many cameras about.  Weird, huh?

I do know too that the M is NOT the best system for astrophotography--but it does allow one to leave the shutter open longer than my TL2, which has been sufficient in regards to landscape/star photos.  I can afford to stop down a bit too--f/2.8 still gives marvelous results with the right lens.  I'm just trying to figure out what the "right lens" is.  I know it isn't my 35mm Summicron v. 4--way too much coma.  Does anyone know how the 1.4 FLE does stopped down to f/2 or 2.8?  Or the Zeiss 2.8 Biogon at full aperture?

Or what would be the better lenses in the shorter focal lengths?  21mm, say, or thereabouts.

Edited April 24, 2022 by bcorton

[a.noctilux]

Just an opinion,

@bcorton

The Summilux-M 35mm FLE was released to have less problems than plain non FLE lens, mostly for near distance and closed aperture.

I never have the FLE as I'm happy with the non FLE at distance this lens is better corrected than non asph. previous Summilux-M 35mm that I used.

It's not perfect for coma even far less present than pre-asph. 35mm.

For me, you can go with non FLE Summilux-M 35mm, then why not try the other Elmarit-M 21mm asph. of about same period.

I'm happy with these two asph. lenses for very long time, but I don't use them for stars, just tried some time ago searching for "defects", stars are good for this "test".