Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
Thread started 01 Sep 2017 (Friday) 12:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Milky Way...Canon 17-40 f4 versus Canon 40/2.8 Pancake

Senior Member
715 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Sep 01, 2017 12:18 |  #1


I'm a wildlife shooter and not a landscape photographer, but I will be in Algonquin PP in Canada over the weekend and would like to try shooting the Milky Way. I've watched a few tutorial videos to give me some idea of what to do. I'm sure I'll screw it up, but I want to try anyhow!

I have a Canon 1Dx which I will be using. I also have a 17-40 and a 40mm f/2.8. Should I use the wider lens, or the faster? And what is the 500 I divide 500 by the focal length to get a suggested shutter speed? That would give me roughly 30 seconds at 17mm and 12.5 seconds at 40mm. Sound correct?

Any tips, I'm all ears!

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
They have pills for that now you know.
53,992 posts
Likes: 1551
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 01, 2017 12:24 |  #2

For milky-way, I would think that the wider, the better. The milky-way is gigantic carving a swath across the entire sky.

Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
::Flickr:: (external link)

"Looks rough and well used"
12,673 posts
Gallery: 1080 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7954
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 8 months ago by MalVeauX.
Sep 01, 2017 12:33 |  #3


There's a lot more to milky way (wide field astro) than just focal-ratio speed and exposure time to avoid star trails from a static mounted camera (tripod; no tracker). Coma is a big deal. Zooms tend to be very poor at wide field and the shape of stars and the coma can really wreck a wide field and make it look like a swirly oblong weird star mess.

The 40 F2.8 is pretty good. It will show some CA wide open on really bright large stars, but it handles coma decently for what it is, and is fast enough to work with. Coma gets worse the faster you go sometimes; depends on lens design. The 1DX can easily do ISO 6400~12,800 and with a 40mm, you can expose for 10 seconds, so you can get what you need to work with. Exposure of the sky is not the same as exposure on terrestrial subjects. Your histogram is in a good place if you see a single spike about 1/3rd into the histogram from the left. Any further left (1/4th) and you're underexposing likely. Any further right (1/2 histogram) and you're overexposing and will get a lot of sky glow, and you're not getting more signal from it, but just more problems. So do a test run on getting your settings in to get you to 1/3rd histogram fill and you'll be good, regardless of what lens and settings you use for wide field milky way.

The 17-40 at 17mm is awful. Even stopped down a little, it still has a lot of coma issues, and bright stars have a weird shape due to glare and stuff.


40mm F2.8 STM @ F2.8 (ignore most things, just look at coma quality and CA as this is wide open); there's a little CA going on, but its not too distracting at this scale. I have a little blur from either vibration or too long of an exposure (ignore my times, I'm not static). But the idea is to see how it is wide open.

IMAGE LINK:​TM  (external link) IMG_5171 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr


Here's a cheap ancient Tamron 28mm F2.8 manual lens (adaptall2 mount) that costs $40~50 on Ebay for reference to compare, also wide open at F2.8. You'll notice the coma is much stronger and see the shape of the stars and more CA is noticeable.

IMAGE LINK:​pD  (external link) IMG_5164 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr


Here's the 17-40L at 17mm and F5 (stopped down just a little bit to help with the awful coma and distortion). It's not super bad, but it's bad. Forgive the really bad star spikes, was trying to mask how bad the glare and shape of the big stars were due to the awful coma of the lens at 17mm. Also, this was cropped, it's 17mm on APS-C, and the edges were really bad, so this is a cropped FOV from even the original so you won't see how bad it was on the edges, but it was bad enough I cropped it out (worse than the adaptall2 old lens above).

IMAGE LINK:​4X  (external link) MilkyWay17mm_07082016 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr


Ideally on a full frame, you may want to be at 24mm or 28mm for galactic core milky way on full frame. Going wider just gives you more room for landscape foreground stuff or a lot of cropping room. You don't want to be at 17mm unless you're incorporating a foreground most likely.

If you have a 24mm prime laying around, that would be a good start.

If you just have the 40 STM and the 17-40L, you could try the 17-40L at 24~30mm and stop it down a little (F5, etc) and just push ISO harder (that's totally ok!). Or just use the 40 and focus on the galactic core where the interesting stuff is anyways and do 10 second exposures.

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)
For sale: Sekonic Litemaster L-478D (Free Shipping)

I could have been worse....
6,632 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 455
Joined Dec 2013
Location: All Along the Natchez Trace (Clinton, MS)
Post edited 8 months ago by Nogo.
Sep 01, 2017 12:37 |  #4

What's wrong with using both? One is wider and one is a 2.8. There is advantages to both.

I would also take multiple shots of the same scenes. Then later if you really get into it you can merge the shots to get even more detail.

Does the TF actually know about the soda cans and PVC pipe from 30 years ago?

Senior Member
994 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 1869
Joined Aug 2012
Location: OC, California
Sep 19, 2017 00:49 |  #5

That 40mm STM is damn impressive actually. I may have to pick one up since I already have an iOptron.

http://RyanLunaPhotogr​ (external link)
IG: @01ryanluna10 (external link)

51 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Sep 2017
Location: St. Augustine, FL; USA
Sep 27, 2017 10:48 as a reply to  @ 01Ryan10's post |  #6

So envious of those Milky Way pictures. When we were without power for Irma, I figured I'd just go try some night sky pictures, and NOTHING turned out.

V/r, Garrett
Current Equipment:
- Nikon D750 | D3400 | MB-D16 | SB-700 | Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART | Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART DG HSM | Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye | Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR | Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX |

Senior Member
926 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 383
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Oct 01, 2017 21:33 |  #7

GESWhoPhoto wrote in post #18461431 (external link)
So envious of those Milky Way pictures. When we were without power for Irma, I figured I'd just go try some night sky pictures, and NOTHING turned out.

OK so expand on the bolded part

what camera, lens, settings etc
tripod ?


A picture is worth 1000 words ;)
Canon 5D3, 6D, 700D, a bunch of lenses and other bits, ohhh and some Pentax stuff ;)

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,453 views & 2 likes for this thread
Milky Way...Canon 17-40 f4 versus Canon 40/2.8 Pancake
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is ChrisS76a
780 guests, 424 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.