Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 or 10mm f/2.8

Discussion in 'This or That?' started by NoSeconds, Apr 15, 2016.

  1. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 9, 2014
    The Desert - Western Australia
    Real Name:
    For landscape, Milky Way and star-trails... Which one would you choose and why?

    I'm leaning towards the 12 at the moment because of smaller size/weight and the ability to use filters....
  2. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Are you getting one for price or performance? For performance I'd go for the Kowa 8.5mm f/2.8 or Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fish eye. First one takes filters directly, second gets way more light and sky in. Both control aberrations very well even wide open, very good for astrophotography. I wish Samyang would release faster and wider lenses for m4/3 actually...
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Considering the "500 rule" the 12 is better:

    Milky Way Exposure Calculator

    With the 12 you have 21 seconds at f/2 versus 25 seconds at f/2.8. You'd need 42 seconds at 2.8 to gather the same light.

    This is on par with the 25/1.4 you own as light gathering without trails goes. The FoV can be too tight but you can use this lens to do some tests, especially if you plan to use the E-M1 that suffers with long exposures. If you plan to do more complex things like stacking I suppose that the "500 rule" gets less relevant. Even less if you are looking just for star trails where a longer lens helps.

    For landscapes you already have a few wide lenses, for classic landscapes you use them stopped down, so the speed difference does not matter, and even the IQ differences get less relevant.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Honestly, the P8mm/3.5 you already have should give you very good results. I actually prefer a fisheye to a rectilinear for night sky photography. Less edge stretching as long as you have an organic landscape scene and don't need to defish, and dramatically larger field of view.

    I found my 11mm/f2.8 (basically splitting the difference between your two options) quite inadequate for Milky Way photography unless I exclusively wanted to shoot the sky without much foreground, which I found gave me boring compositions. My 7.5mm/3.5 FE gave me so much more freedom.

    In my mind, the 8mm/1.8 is the clear winner for astro-landscape. Realistically, it is one of the best lenses in any system for that!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Have you tried your 15mm f1.7? I know it could be a little wider, but it technically beats the 12mm f2 or 10mm f2.8 on exposure for milky way, etc. Agree with the above that your fisheye should be great, too.

    For star trails, the exposure will be long enough it shouldn't matter too much what lens you use.
  6. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    If you don't want star trailing, the 15/1.7 is actually near enough to identical to the 12/f2 because with the longer FL you can only get away with a 16s exposure instead of 20s (1/6th stop difference in favour of the 15/1.7). The Samyang also has slightly better coma correction, which matters more for astro than most any other type of photography, but probably not enough to matter in this case.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Yeah, the Samyang is great other than it isn't wide enough on m4/3 to be worth the purchase over what he has, though, IMO.

    What I think would be a great idea for an astro-specific setup would be to get the Samyang 12mm in Sony mount and pick up a cheap E-mount camera for it. I think you could stay under $600 total for that.
  8. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 9, 2014
    The Desert - Western Australia
    Real Name:
    Thanks for all the replies, I did have a crack at Astro with my P8 fisheye when I first got it but didn't know enough about what I was doing to get any results that I was happy with...

    Will have to give it another try - to be honest it's one of those lenses you forget you have until you're going through your gear or someone points out its in your signature on a forum... :biggrin:

    I have tried my PL15 but found myself wanting something wider... also part of the reason for looking at the Sam-Roks was the manual control but I suppose I can live without that...
  9. palombasso

    palombasso Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 31, 2014
    Intruding on the thread just to thank you for the link.

    As the OP I was looking around for lenses like the 10mm 2.8 thinking of putting it on a speed booster to try out night sky shooting, but the calculator has given me enough starting points to try a bit harder with what I already have (or had) and made me look back to pictures I took in the past and realize I am already quite satisfied as it's not a usual subject for me.

    GAS attack avoided for now (very important as finding or importing these lenses here in Brazil is hard/expensive).

    GX7 with the 20 1.7:
    Paint Splatter in the Sky
    Always look up
    Petropolis' Sky V

    Nikon D5000 with the 10-24 3.5
    Milky II
    • Like Like x 3