NG8JGFX wrote in post #17992579
Did you stitch these from vert. or horiz. shots? and how many stitched? whats the final WxH at 300dpi prior to saving down?..
I shot around with mine out back for a bit hand held on my 5D3 and was impressed overall with how well I was able to achieve a good manual focus at f8 and f11...
Still need to do some more testing but I'm primarily going to be using this lens for milky way and star shots...maybe some wide angle beach shots w stars and sky...
This one is a little over 55"x19" @ 300 DPI. There were 26 vertical shots, taken every 15° (I could have done 45° . . . 15° was a bit excessive). I used Photoshop's "content aware fill" on the sky to fill in the places where there was no data (along the "bumpy" top of the panorama). I cropped along the bottom, as the content aware fill didn't do a good job of dealing with the grasses and the fill was obvious.
For comparison, the one done with my 21mm was also built from 26 vertical shots taken every 15°. It is much larger at a little over 96x28 inches @ 300 DPI. I did the same thing with that one: filled in the bumps in the sky and cropped along the bottom. I haven't worked out the math to account for the discrepancy between the sizes of the panoramas, or determined if something weird happened somewhere in my process.
Here is the panorama from the Zeiss (heavily downsized). Interestingly, it flared worse than the Rokinon. When I shot this I was going for a blown out sun with sun and lens flares, and I thought the Rokinon would be the lens that would deliver the flares.
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
The two panoramas were processed exactly the same way. The Zeiss has better colour and contrast, but those are things that can be tweaked in post. The Rokinon picked up less detail and wasn't quite a sharp, but it may have been that I didn't have quite perfect focus. Without the chip in the lens Live View was very, very dark, and I wasn't able to focus using Live View and 10x magnification. I'll have to play around with that.
I think it will do very well for your wide field astrophotography. Many, many people get great results using it for that purpose, and that is one of the reasons I picked it up too.