DA 35/2.4 for astro/nightscapes?

Piotrek K · 01-18-2019, 01:00 PM

Has someone any experience using "plastic-fantastic" wide open for star images? I use for SMC-PENTAX M 28/2.8, which is quite OK, but tried panoramic night shots last summer and realised it gives better results than expected. I tested some of my lenses but was wondering if DA 35/2.4 could do the job being relatively fast, distortion-free and wide?

sqrrl · 01-18-2019, 01:24 PM - **1 Like**

Sort of. I'm not super serious about astro and have focused more on night landscape stuff, but the 35 2.4 has worked fine for my usage (highlights well controlled, minimal internal reflections from point sources etc.), I have seen some distortion when stitching panoramas which has taken some fiddling about to get edges to mate properly. When I was using it for straight astro stuff I did find it best at about f4 to avoid issues like coma in the corners of the frame.

**ehrwien** · 01-18-2019, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by sqrrl

When I was using it for straight astro stuff I did find it best at about f4 to avoid issues like coma in the corners of the frame.

There's no word on coma in the in-depth review on here, but at Lenstip it was regarded as well corrected in that aspect. Is it noticably worse wide open compared to stopped down to f4?

sqrrl · 01-18-2019, 01:51 PM - **1 Like**

No, it's actually pretty good wide open, it's probably my favorite lens, and it's my go-to for night photography, but stopping it down one stop does improve it - it's really very good for a cheap lens, but it's still a cheap lens. In the very corners I could see coma and a bit of blurring on star points when wide open, for daylight photography I'd say it's negligible and just ignore it, but with bright points of light I personally find it noticeable and distracting.

Personally I'd look at the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm f2 if I were to get more serious about astro (which I'll freely admit I'm not), there seems to be a consensus among astro photographers that it's among the cheapest 'decent' astro lenses.

Piotrek K · 01-18-2019, 02:07 PM

Thank you! As you see I really use best of budget gear with M28/2.8 and K-r. If I could afford Samyang I would most probably got K-5 instead. Anyway I apreciate the opinion on the nightscape/starscape use of DA 35.

01-18-2019, 01:00 PM	#1
Piotrek K Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,384	DA 35/2.4 for astro/nightscapes? Has someone any experience using "plastic-fantastic" wide open for star images? I use for SMC-PENTAX M 28/2.8, which is quite OK, but tried panoramic night shots last summer and realised it gives better results than expected. I tested some of my lenses but was wondering if DA 35/2.4 could do the job being relatively fast, distortion-free and wide?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why are my nightscapes dark all of a sudden?	donkey	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	09-10-2017 02:58 AM
Which 35mm lens? (DA 35/2.4, FA 35/2, DA 35/2.8 Macro)	LincolnR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	48	07-19-2017 11:03 PM
Night Nightscapes	takis63	Post Your Photos!	4	07-11-2016 06:33 AM
Night Airport Nightscapes	FruitLooPs	Post Your Photos!	2	08-31-2015 08:55 AM
Cityscape Singapore nightscapes	vinceloc	Post Your Photos!	7	05-30-2010 05:46 PM

01-18-2019, 01:24 PM - 1 Like	#2
sqrrl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Otago, New Zealand Posts: 422	Sort of. I'm not super serious about astro and have focused more on night landscape stuff, but the 35 2.4 has worked fine for my usage (highlights well controlled, minimal internal reflections from point sources etc.), I have seen some distortion when stitching panoramas which has taken some fiddling about to get edges to mate properly. When I was using it for straight astro stuff I did find it best at about f4 to avoid issues like coma in the corners of the frame.

01-18-2019, 01:31 PM	#3
ehrwien Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 2,782	Originally posted by sqrrl When I was using it for straight astro stuff I did find it best at about f4 to avoid issues like coma in the corners of the frame. There's no word on coma in the in-depth review on here, but at Lenstip it was regarded as well corrected in that aspect. Is it noticably worse wide open compared to stopped down to f4?

01-18-2019, 01:51 PM - 1 Like	#4
sqrrl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Otago, New Zealand Posts: 422	No, it's actually pretty good wide open, it's probably my favorite lens, and it's my go-to for night photography, but stopping it down one stop does improve it - it's really very good for a cheap lens, but it's still a cheap lens. In the very corners I could see coma and a bit of blurring on star points when wide open, for daylight photography I'd say it's negligible and just ignore it, but with bright points of light I personally find it noticeable and distracting. Personally I'd look at the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm f2 if I were to get more serious about astro (which I'll freely admit I'm not), there seems to be a consensus among astro photographers that it's among the cheapest 'decent' astro lenses.

01-18-2019, 02:07 PM	#5
Piotrek K Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,384 Original Poster	Thank you! As you see I really use best of budget gear with M28/2.8 and K-r. If I could afford Samyang I would most probably got K-5 instead. Anyway I apreciate the opinion on the nightscape/starscape use of DA 35.