10mm f3.5 vs 17mm f2.8 - Milky Way

[dd999]

I've recently purchased my very first dslr. 

I'd like to try my hand at shooting the milky way. I can have a go with my 18-55mm kit lens but I'd rather something a little more suited. 

Given the option would you opt for a 10-14mm lens at f3.5 or a 17mm lens at f2.8?

Im leaning towards the 17mm f2.8 lens to give me a relatively wide but faster lens - but would a 10mm lens at f3.5mm give me a better wider shot, and the f3.5 fast enough for the Milky Way? 

Edited August 3, 2020 by dd999

[MarkAR]

I would opt for the 17mm. Prime lenses are generally better than zooms and F2.8 is plenty fast.

[dd999]

2 hours ago, MarkAR said:

I would opt for the 17mm. Prime lenses are generally better than zooms and F2.8 is plenty fast.

Ahh the 17mm would be a Zoom too, it's not a prime lens either 

Its a 17-50mm f2.8 lens

Edited August 4, 2020 by dd999

[happy-kat]

If it's use is for astro then I'd choose a prime lens

[MarkAR]

Also you wont need autofocus, manual focus lenses save quite a bit of money.

I would consider Samyang, Irix or Sigma lenses.

You really don't need to go any wider than 14mm either

[Captain Scarlet]

Even at f/2.8 you may well still need to go beyond, say, 15 second exposures which is more or less the limit before you get noticeable star-trailing.

By which I mean to say you may want to consider some form of tracking, if you don't already, such as a SW Star-Adventurer. I use an AstroTrac. My default option for MW shots is to shoot it with 40-second exposures using my Samyang 24mm f/1.4 at ISO 1600 on a Canon 6D, though I am at a very dark site. 3 of those 40-second subs using just that set-up, stacked and stretched gets you this, which some may consider overdone but I like it:

 

[dd999]

5 hours ago, happy-kat said:

If it's use is for astro then I'd choose a prime lens

Unfortunately for just a passing interest in this at the moment it's outside my budget for a lens

[dd999]

4 hours ago, Captain Magenta said:

Even at f/2.8 you may well still need to go beyond, say, 15 second exposures which is more or less the limit before you get noticeable star-trailing.

By which I mean to say you may want to consider some form of tracking, if you don't already, such as a SW Star-Adventurer. I use an AstroTrac. My default option for MW shots is to shoot it with 40-second exposures using my Samyang 24mm f/1.4 at ISO 1600 on a Canon 6D, though I am at a very dark site. 3 of those 40-second subs using just that set-up, stacked and stretched gets you this, which some may consider overdone but I like it:

 

That's a really nice shot! 👍

I have a tracker in the AZ GTi - so in eq mode I could achieve longer subs than just 20 seconds or so. I guess I wanted foreground in at the same time - but a little bit of post editing can sort that out.

If that is the case would I achieve good results with my stock 18-55mm (at 18mm) lens at f3.5 on a tracker - post edit the foreground in PS - and save on an extra lens purchase?

  

Edited August 4, 2020 by dd999

[happy-kat]

If you've got the gear already then I'd use it and continue learning then decide what you like doing to help in a future addition to your gear.

[Alien 13]

I am not sure if primes are actually better, I have the 50mm f/1.8 STM lens and the std kit 18-55mm IS and guess which one is better, its the same with my 70-200mm against a 200mm prime. The problem with some primes is that they have to be stopped down to f/4 anyway while most zooms work ok wide open, obviously very good primes like the Samyang range will win out at a price.

Alan