Have to agree with Matthew on that, but It would be nice, despite being a zoom (I'm sure that someone else somewhere online has done a review/comparison similar to this).... I'm considering the 14-24 Nikon myself, but I have to agree, compare zooms with other zooms, and primes with primes, despite the price differences. There are some comparisons on here for the NIkon and the Tamron at least. I had the Tamron 15-30 and thought itwas a good lens for the price. I mean, it's $500 less than the Nikon version and gives about 90% of the image quality. Too bad I kept having issues with the AF motor after a year, so I gave up on it and sold it. If didn't keep giving me issues I would have kept it.

Have a look at my tracked test of the sigma versus the canon. unfortunately the rokinon is not included but as you see the the quality of the sigma is very high. In the end the price and weight is its only weakness for those that care ... https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59871149

Clear. Was the only one I had (and sold...). Nevertheless these are 100% pics so one can judge in absolute terms....

For me it's about flexibility. The 14-24 Nikon just has it in spades and above 4.0 beats my Zeiss lenses. The Roki is a real surprise and I think I paid $229 for my non-chipped example but it was the best of 3 and has that funky infinity in the middle of the throw.

If I were going to do this kind of shooting (and I typically don't) I'd use an Otus at 2.0. They all clean of well just off of wide open.

Traditionally 28mm's for some reason suffer heavily from sagittal coma flare when compared to other focal lengths

I'm terrified to think what an Otus 14mm f/2 would weigh. Probably five pounds or more?

But yeah, the existing wide Otus is already too heavy and expensive for me, considering its (admittedly slight, but certainly not flawless) sagittal astigmatism. For that kind of money and weight, I expect absolute perfection, sorry.

Also, I'm torn between wishing that Nikon would just update their 14-24 and make it sharper, (even if it's 3 pounds or so) and wishing that Nikon would instead make a lighter and smaller 16-35 2.8 like Canon's new mk3 16-35, which is incredibly sharp and still takes 82mm filters, allowing it to do double duty as a more practical, portable, general purpose landscape lens, compared to the 3-pound monsters that all require an absurd filter system if you want to polarize or something...

Matthew - not sure where you're getting your information from or maybe your confused but here's an accurate description of the Otus 28mm.

" The Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4, the pinnacle of wide-angle lens quality as of early-2016, and a lens that takes star photos wide-open with very low coma. At 28mm, this lens is particularly well-suited to taking multi-image stitched star photo compositions.

https://imagesbybeaulin.wordpress.com/tag/best-lenses-for-astrophotography/

OK, point taken but the word nightscape doesn't appear until the 3rd para. in the review so you might forgive us for being a little confused.

No Laowa 14's... ;-)

@matthew there is a 12 that gives you more sky and much less distortion :D

The 12/2 is a great lens, and wide enough for galaxy images at night. I have the Rokinon 14/2.8 for my Sony, but carrying it around except for specific local shoots is a pain.

Hope they aren't going the way of Sigma, as Rokinon puts out some very good glass.

no of course not, you should buy the more expensive lens for NO reason

Not so much with mirrorless where you can get a magnified view in the EVF, but with DSLR' I'd rather have it than not because I don't just use it for astro work, but yes DOF is so large it's not critical.

I'd be curious to know how the Laowa compares to the Sigma, in particular. Would love a MF FE-mount Zeiss in the 14-16mm range.

The Laowa 12mm is unfortunately not in the same league as these two new 14mms, in my opinion it is more of an architecture / landscape lens that is made for shooting stopped down. At 2.8 it's corners just aren't made for nightscapes...

@matthew saville have you only shot with one copy of the 12mm? My feedback from several Astrophotographer/nightscape photographers is a little different to yours. I know when it comes to ultrawides the 'bad copy' rate seems to be a bit higher with all manufacturers which I can understand.

You get the whole milky way with a 2800mm lens? On a full frame camera?
I guess that you are doing some SERIOUS stitching. LOL!.

I shoot planetary astro, but not DSOs. I live in a white zone and I don't have guidance equipment. Yeah, I've taken a few single frames of things like M13 and M31, but that's just goofing around, not true deep-sky astro.

But I wouldn't exclude someone like Damian Peach from the "astro" category because, well, just damn! That guy's images are amazing!

Google "Hubble vs Damian Peach".

Here's the thing about a 14mm lens and "shooting the milky way."

That's pretty much all you can shoot with it. Because by the time you dig around in the image for anything smaller, you're out of enough pixels to make a great photo.

Take an 85mm or 200mm lens and you can shoot all manner of things. You can't shoot the entire Milky Way, no, but you can shoot hundreds of other subjects. And for that matter, you can tile up a pretty sweet image of the milky way, too.

So if you're a one-subject astro shooter - the Milky Way - then sure, a 14mm lens will be great for you, and have fun. But it's not anything I'd put in my bag, that's for sure.

Taking photos of animals in a zoo, garden or park: wildlife photography?

Good to hear. I'm pleased that Irix is doing well. I think they're really new, right? One of these days i'll get one of those lenses! Probably whenever I get tired of not having filters for my Tamron 15-30 and sell it for something that can take filters. Use the relatively inexpensive Irix for astro!

Which Samyang? 2.8 or 2.4?