Milky Way lens recommendations?

[Steveinslc]

Looking for recommendations for a lens to go with my Oly M1.3 for Milky Way photos. I'm reasonably experienced on that front, and have a Pentax 645z that's my main landscape camera. This would mostly be as an alternative when I didn't want to lug the Pentax around, so looking for something moderately priced, low coma, not too big. Manual focus is OK.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

 

[Stanga]

Have a look in the thread at https://www.mu-43.com/threads/milky-way.76144 for a host of images and lenses that they were taken with.

 

[Mike Peters]

I've used the Laowa 7.5 f2.0 with good results.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

I’ve used both the Oly 17 1.8 and the PL 15 1.7. Those focal lengths work for me, and both do very well with the Milky Way.

Oly -

PL

DELETED

 

[travelbug]

heres a sample of mine with the laowa 7.5/2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Underwater]

My vote goes to the Oly 8mm f1.8 fisheye. These were taken a few years apart within a couple of miles of each other...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Interceptor121]

Looking for recommendations for a lens to go with my Oly M1.3 for Milky Way photos. I'm reasonably experienced on that front, and have a Pentax 645z that's my main landscape camera. This would mostly be as an alternative when I didn't want to lug the Pentax around, so looking for something moderately priced, low coma, not too big. Manual focus is OK.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

I have looked a lot into this and settled on the Panasonic 12mm 1.4 because it is a lens that can contain the milky way fully in portrait mode in most cases
With this lens you can do single stacked and tracked shots and the results are pretty good
In general terms what you want is a wide aperture lens sharp in the centre
Many people talk about coma but the reality is that nothing interesting will be at the edges and vignetting will mask it so don’t worry too much about it
While wider lenses give you more exposure time fast lenses are always better
So a sigma 16mm or an olympus 17mm pro will drive the same ISO of a laowa 7.5mm
Using fisheye lenses is probably the quickest way to get a single shot with everything in focus however you can’t stack overly distorted shots so those lenses are only good if you have one already
If you plan to buy a lens for this always get a rectilinear
In terms of field of view 12mm is ideal 15-17 require mosaic
Here my list
1. Panasonic 12mm 1.4
2. Olympus 17mm 1.2
3. Sigma 16mm 1.4
4. Laowa 7.5mm f/2

The Panasonic has an edge of 1/3 ev on the rest of the pack however when you look at practical results longer lenses seem to work equally well due to higher magnification
If you use a tracker you can use pretty much any lens but yet faster lenses win as you will be still only doing 30” exposure to avoid hot pixels or other issues
Other slower lenses will still produce some results but they will lack colors as high iso will have eaten most of it example in this thread are a good illustration

 

[fadeslayer]

I have looked a lot into this and settled on the Panasonic 12mm 1.4 because it is a lens that can contain the milky way fully in portrait mode in most cases
With this lens you can do single stacked and tracked shots and the results are pretty good
In general terms what you want is a wide aperture lens sharp in the centre
Many people talk about coma but the reality is that nothing interesting will be at the edges and vignetting will mask it so don’t worry too much about it
While wider lenses give you more exposure time fast lenses are always better
So a sigma 16mm or an olympus 17mm pro will drive the same ISO of a laowa 7.5mm
Using fisheye lenses is probably the quickest way to get a single shot with everything in focus however you can’t stack overly distorted shots so those lenses are only good if you have one already
If you plan to buy a lens for this always get a rectilinear
In terms of field of view 12mm is ideal 15-17 require mosaic
Here my list
1. Panasonic 12mm 1.4
2. Olympus 17mm 1.2
3. Sigma 16mm 1.4
4. Laowa 7.5mm f/2

The Panasonic has an edge of 1/3 ev on the rest of the pack however when you look at practical results longer lenses seem to work equally well due to higher magnification
If you use a tracker you can use pretty much any lens but yet faster lenses win as you will be still only doing 30” exposure to avoid hot pixels or other issues
Other slower lenses will still produce some results but they will lack colors as high iso will have eaten most of it example in this thread are a good illustration

I have Oly 17 f/1.2 (incidentally my widest lens) so I'll stick with it for Milky Way, if I get chance to go out shooting one

 

[Interceptor121]

I have Oly 17 f/1.2 (incidentally my widest lens) so I'll stick with it for Milky Way, if I get chance to go out shooting one

May make sense to stop it down to 1.4 as resolution increase a lot compatible with where you shoot

 

[timeit]

Maybe the upcoming PL 9 f/1.7 would be fine - wide, fast, lightweight.

 

[albut]

Oly om-d em-1 mark iii with Oly 12mm f2.0

 

[Martas]

Has anyone had a comparison between the PL 9mm and the Rokinon 9mm? I looked at the tests and they should both be similarly sharp. But what about the COMA in the edges?

 

[Interceptor121]

Maybe the upcoming PL 9 f/1.7 would be fine - wide, fast, lightweight.

I own the 9mm 1.7
Contrary to popular belief is better not to go too wide otherwise you loose all the colors in the Milky Way that becomes monochromatic
Due to the sensor size MFT lenses are quite short so they have a small physical aperture
Based on my experience 12mm is the widest you want to go and it will require many shots to get some colors in the nebulas
at 16+mm you start getting good tones and at 24mm you have really good results
Obviously with narrower lenses you need to compose shots for sky and background however due to the size of the sensor this is a necessity so I do not spend any time doing single shots anymore
Clearly quality is subjective and people go and paint the milky way change white balance and all sorts of things to make it pop but you can see million miles away those are not the real colors and tones

 

[Martas]

I own the 9mm 1.7
Contrary to popular belief is better not to go too wide otherwise you loose all the colors in the Milky Way that becomes monochromatic
Due to the sensor size MFT lenses are quite short so they have a small physical aperture
Based on my experience 12mm is the widest you want to go and it will require many shots to get some colors in the nebulas
at 16+mm you start getting good tones and at 24mm you have really good results
Obviously with narrower lenses you need to compose shots for sky and background however due to the size of the sensor this is a necessity so I do not spend any time doing single shots anymore
Clearly quality is subjective and people go and paint the milky way change white balance and all sorts of things to make it pop but you can see million miles away those are not the real colors and tones

I've never done panorama compositing. Always stacking photos into one photo. Do you have a link or tutorial on how to do this?

Or does the wider lens really make the photo lose color detail?

 

[Interceptor121]

I've never done panorama compositing. Always stacking photos into one photo. Do you have a link or tutorial on how to do this?

Or does the wider lens really make the photo lose color detail?

From my practical experience aperture and f number are not really what matters when if it is really dark
I have shots at 10 12 15 and 18 mm sometimes in the same location ok not the same night but many samples
While one lens may be sharper than another the wider physical aperture definitely gives more colors.
I have shot at 12/1.4 and 15/1.7 the results are very close but the 15mm is a bit better. However when I have shot at 18/1.7 it was remarkably better
Physical apertures 8.57mm 8.82mm 10.58mm this is why I always ranked the Sigma 16m and Olympus 17mm at the top of the list (I had an no longer have any of the two unfortunately)
I use a tracker so the exposures are always blended anyway so am not worried about times I always shoot 30 seconds as that is a good compromise in case there is something wrong with a frame. You don't need to do a panorama this is only required when the Milky Way makes an arch. I have never seem the Milky Way making an arch best case it was 30 degrees where I have been. For verticals you just compose foreground and background separately and blend in photoshop never use multiple exposure and programs like sequator with MFT the lens is just too short and there are also too many hot pixels in the foreground unless it is really really cold

 

[TwoShoes]

I usually use my 17mm f/1.2 Pro, but in the past I used the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and my cousin uses the Olympus 20mm f/2.0 for Milky Way Shots.

 

[albut]

Some nice shots in this thread but all seem to suffer coma. Is there a wide angle fast lens that doesn’t?

 

[IanE]

Some nice shots in this thread but all seem to suffer coma. Is there a wide angle fast lens that doesn’t?

Really?