Author Topic: Any experience with Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for Astro Time-lapse? (Read 7216 times)

Mantis · « **on:** December 05, 2015, 16:39 »

A couple of my friends from a club swear by this lens for astrophotography and time lapse. The price is about $350 US compared to the Nikon 14 2.8 at $1850. The Rokinon is manual focus but has "in-focus indication" for most newer Nikons. I have read mostly all raves about it and a few people who got duds that had sharpness issues.

Was wondering if anyone has any experience with this lens, good or bad.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769555-REG/Rokinon_FE14MAF_N_14mm_Ultra_Wide_Angle_f_2_8.html

Copidosoma · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2015, 16:52 »

I've used one for night work (aurora mostly) and generally like it. I've only done one time-lapse but that is mostly for a lack of effort on my part.

Things I like:
- 14mm 2.8 is pretty high on the list of "best night/astrophotography" lenses. 24mm 1.4 or now the Sigma 20 1.4 are slightly higher rated as 1.4 rocks for night work.

- The lens is sharp and has very good coma characteristics. I think mine is showing some signs of abuse as the edges are showing aberrations. It was great when it was new.

- The price is right. Comperable lenses from Canon and Nikon are very expensive and (at least the Canon version) have pretty bad coma.

Things I don't like:
- I don't mind manual focus lenses but the focus mechanism on this lens is extremely sloppy. Forget setting it to infinity and thinking it will be anywhere near accurate (whether you approach the infinity, or any, setting from the right or left will result in a very different focus setting). That means that you need to use live-view for focusing (bright stars or planets can be used) or set it during the day and locking focus somehow (I use a wide rubber band). Some will claim that you can just focus it >40 feet away and everything will be sharp. I've found that to not hold true in the real world (i.e. outside of DOF calculators). Live view focusing is really the best way to go with this lens.

- The build isn't terribly robust in my experience. Having said that, I'm pretty hard on gear.

14mm is really wide. Sometimes too wide. Although night sky work usually involves pretty big things (milky way/aurora) you still have to worry about the foreground (light pollution, objects in the foreground, general issues with getting a good foreground frame).

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2015, 17:26 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on December 05, 2015, 16:52

I've used one for night work (aurora mostly) and generally like it. I've only done one time-lapse but that is mostly for a lack of effort on my part.

Things I like:
- 14mm 2.8 is pretty high on the list of "best night/astrophotography" lenses. 24mm 1.4 or now the Sigma 20 1.4 are slightly higher rated as 1.4 rocks for night work.

- The lens is sharp and has very good coma characteristics. I think mine is showing some signs of abuse as the edges are showing aberrations. It was great when it was new.

- The price is right. Comperable lenses from Canon and Nikon are very expensive and (at least the Canon version) have pretty bad coma.

Things I don't like:
- I don't mind manual focus lenses but the focus mechanism on this lens is extremely sloppy. Forget setting it to infinity and thinking it will be anywhere near accurate (whether you approach the infinity, or any, setting from the right or left will result in a very different focus setting). That means that you need to use live-view for focusing (bright stars or planets can be used) or set it during the day and locking focus somehow (I use a wide rubber band). Some will claim that you can just focus it >40 feet away and everything will be sharp. I've found that to not hold true in the real world (i.e. outside of DOF calculators). Live view focusing is really the best way to go with this lens.

- The build isn't terribly robust in my experience. Having said that, I'm pretty hard on gear.

14mm is really wide. Sometimes too wide. Although night sky work usually involves pretty big things (milky way/aurora) you still have to worry about the foreground (light pollution, objects in the foreground, general issues with getting a good foreground frame).

Thanks for the response. I have been eyeballing that Sigma 20 1.4 but just think wider is better for astro.

Freedom · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2015, 17:51 »

It's a good lens. Actually BH sold it for $250 last week.

Mantis · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2015, 18:52 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 05, 2015, 17:51

It's a good lens. Actually BH sold it for $250 last week.

*. Missed it.

Pilens · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2015, 19:47 »

I own one, too, and use it mainly for aurora night shots as well. Worked well even down to -40 degrees Celsius. I use live view for focus as I don't trust focus being preset at daytime because of the sometimes extreme temperature differences I am used to work with. The lens has a weird distortion resulting in pretty ugly "wavy" horizons that can be tricky to correct manually. Fortunately, I found a (free) LR preset for this lens (with Canon) that solved the issue for me. I can't remember where, though. Google might find it for you. - At this price you got to love it...

skubai · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2015, 04:23 »

I am using it for any utra wide angle needs and I love it and would love it even for double price. Only big complaints I heard about this lens is a dust magnet but I try not to use it in extreme dusty conditions. So so far I do not have any troubles with dust inside the lens.

It has unbelievable corner sharpness.

Yes, very big mustache distortion but either use PTlens (also as plugin for lightroom) or custom made lens profile for LR that work almost as good as PTlens.

Good lens profile for LR can be found here: http://www.svenstork.com/essays/rokinon-14mm-lightroom-lens-profile/

Mantis · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2015, 08:15 »

Quote from: skubai on December 07, 2015, 04:23

I am using it for any utra wide angle needs and I love it and would love it even for double price. Only big complaints I heard about this lens is a dust magnet but I try not to use it in extreme dusty conditions. So so far I do not have any troubles with dust inside the lens.

It has unbelievable corner sharpness.

Yes, very big mustache distortion but either use PTlens (also as plugin for lightroom) or custom made lens profile for LR that work almost as good as PTlens.

Good lens profile for LR can be found here: http://www.svenstork.com/essays/rokinon-14mm-lightroom-lens-profile/

I don't have LR but I do use Photoshop CS6. I could not find a plug-in for this software though.

JPSDK · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2015, 13:09 »

I have had that lens, and I do not recommend it.
it has mustage distortion, and first and foremost the manual focus is annoying.
Here is a photo made with the bamboo wide angle:

I recommend a Sigma EX AF 14mm F/2.8 Aspherical instead. They have gone out of production, I think but there are used specimens floating around, i got mine from ebay, and i havent regretted.

here is a photo taken with the sigma

'

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Any experience with Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for Astro Time-lapse? (Read 7216 times)

Mantis

Copidosoma

Mantis

Freedom

Mantis

Pilens

skubai

Mantis

JPSDK

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors