Milky way lens for R5

Since there are no RF primes perfect for milky way images, looking for advice on the current best lens to consider . . . Given that with the EF adapter, there may be some compatibility risk using a Sigma, Rokinon, Irix lens attached.  I do not see a Canon EF prime recommended anywhere. Rokinon 14mm F2.4 getting higher quality reviews than the budget 2.8.  Irix comma not ideal per reviews.  Sigma art lenses expensive. Just not sure what to consider for the occasional summer milky way subject with a desire to do stacking vs single shots.

I have the Rokinon f2.4 for Nikon, it is a step up from the old f2.8, nice lens...

Tamron 15-30 gets good reviews both ver 1 and 2.

Another vote for the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 (I).

I haven't tried to do any Milky Way shots with it yet, but I recently got the Sigma 14-24 2.8 and it blows away any of the Canon EF ultra wides I've owned such as the 14mm L II and the 16-35 f4 at the wide end. It's not cheap, but it is very reasonably priced for what you get. (Amazon has the lowest price.) Dustin Abbott has tested all these various Tamron, Sigma, and Rokinon/Samyang lenses. I have found his reviews to be good for the after market lenses and have mirrored what I've found in the few lenses I have used that he tested. There are lots of good ultrawide alternatives to Canon lenses out there nowadays.

I have the Rokinon 14f2.8, and I would recommend it, especially if this an occasional subject. I also have the Sigma 14mm f1.8, and it's a beast but excellent for Astro. The Rokinon 14 f2.4 is a better lens than the f2.8 version by all accounts, but it's more expensive. If you buy Rokinon, make sure the return policy is easy because I've heard of a lot of copy variation.

Here's a review on the fast 14mm lenses, with samples.
https://amazingsky.net/2017/09/22/the-f ... -face-off/

It's interesting that, so far, Canon has stayed away from the prime lenses. All the others, including Nikon have a fairly complete set of primes that are excellent for this use. Canon shooters, unfortunately, don't have any native R-mount fast wide primes.

Canon prime wide angles have, in general, not been stellar performers for coma and vignetting.  Why buy a fast lens if you have to stop down to f4 to solve these problems.  Frankly even for zooms, there are better 3rd party lenses for astro landscape.  Even the vaunted Nikon slr 14-24 is being equaled or overtaken by lenses like the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 or Sigma 14-24 f2.8 depending upon your point of view.
A lot of talk about fast wides.  I remember when I was finding a lens for northern-lights.  I'd read the books and they would talk and talk about fast wide lenses.  When you looked that the picture credits, they were shot mostly with wide zooms like the nikon 14-24 or a 16-35 f2.8.   As I stood north of Fairbanks in the dark in sub zero weather almost up to my waist in snow with freezing hands, the ability to zoom rather than change lenses helped me understand why the books preached one thing but their authors were apparently doing something else.  It also eliminates the need for a collection of fast primes in the 12-35 range.  Of course milky way in the summer is different.

Wildflower-nut wrote:Canon prime wide angles have, in general, not been stellar performers for coma and vignetting.  Why buy a fast lens if you have to stop down to f4 to solve these problems.  Frankly even for zooms, there are better 3rd party lenses for astro landscape.  Even the vaunted Nikon 14-24 is being equaled or overtaken by lenses like the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 or Sigma 14-24 f2.8 depending upon your point of view.
A lot of talk about fast wides.  I remember when I was finding a lens for northern-lights.  I'd read the books and they would talk and talk about fast wide lenses.  When you looked that the picture credits, they were shot mostly with wide zooms like the nikon 14-24 or a 16-35 f2.8.   As I stood north of Fairbanks in the dark in sub zero weather almost up to my waist in snow with freezing hands, the ability to zoom rather than change lenses helped me understand why the books preached one thing but their authors were apparently doing something else.  It also eliminates the need for a collection of fast primes in the 12-35 range.  Of course milky way in the summer is different.

Not the mirrorless 14-24 f/2.8 by Nikon - it runs circles around the Tamron and Nikon DSLR 14-24 lenses which has always been grossly overrated.  In general if you want the best performance, get a lens made for the native mount with the short flange distance rather than trying to add a spacer (adapter or DSLR lens lengthened at the mount end by the manufacturer and pawned off as a mirrorless lens).  If Canon were to make actual R-mount wides with that wide lens mount, the lenses, in all likelihood, would not have the IQ problems of the wides of the past.  

As a Canon Guy, I was not aware of the new mirrorless 14-24 Nikon f2.8. I have corrected the post. The SLR version has always been highly thought of but old age is catching up. Hope you are right about Canon's future RF lenses.

I have narrowed it down to the better Rokinon SP 28mm F2.4 or Irix Blackstone 15mm. The Irix is built better. The Rokinon handles coma better wide open.

Laowa 15mm Zero-D might be worth a look. I've not read the reviews on it for this purpose.