Wide-Angle for 5D Mark II, is two better than one?

[Blicher]

Hey,

I have for the past week drowned myself in reviews of a wide range of lenses, and started to stare myself blind in what to pick, so I thought i would ask here to get a living persons opinion and interaction instead of all the dry reviews.

I am a spare time photographer/cinematographer and I started to get more into landscape and astrophotography, so i was looking for something good for that and still be okay for shooting video.

My budget is around 1000 euro, so I ended up looking at the these three lenses,

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
Rokinon 24mm f/1.4
Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8

My first thought was I would buy both Rokinons, but I recently found the Tamron and was thinking it would maybe be better to buy that lens instead of both the Rokinons, since it has auto focus, image stabilization and is in the same focal length range as both Rokinons, I know the 24mm can take in alot more light but from what I'v seen the 14mm Rokinon does a pretty good job aswell, I just havent found many astro examples from the Tamron, so I was thinking how well it does with aberrations compared to the rokinons as I'v heard the Canon versions does a pretty bad job at it.

And i was wondering what people here thinks about these three or have suggestions to other lenses.

My current gear:

Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105 f/4 L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

Thanks for reading this, and your help.

 

[DB_Cro]

I'd get the Tamron even if I didn't shoot video, and since you do, it's stabilization (VC) will come in very handy.
It's a great lens. I wouldn't look at anything else unless I could afford the Canon 11-24 F/4.

 

[Blicher]

Wouldn't the aperture of the canon 11-24 be bad for astrophotography ?

 

[DB_Cro]

Wouldn't the aperture of the canon 11-24 be bad for astrophotography ?

1 click of ISO higher?
I don't know, I don't do it, you tell me if you could live with it.

11-24 has an insane resolution and just sheer beauty to the images, and also, the least amount of distortion I've ever seen from an ultra wide.
Maybe none of that matters for shooting stars but.. yeah.. I guess you need an answer from someone doing it daily, I've never pointed my camera
up.

 

[Ido]

The Tamron 15-30 is considered one of the very best ultra-wide-angle zoom lenses on the market, even doing very well in comparison to the legendary Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. But it's a big, huge, heavy lens … if that matters to you.

 

[Blicher]

Weight is no problem, only thing I was concerned about was its performance in low light compared to the 14mm and 24mm rokinon, but seems like it will be the tamron

 

[DB_Cro]

I've never seen a bad review on the Tamron, no one expected it to be THAT good.

 

[Blicher]

I can't see what the 14mm and 24mm can do that the Tamron can't other than the f/ goes to 1.4 on the 24mm, but I know you can get amazing pictures of the milkyway with 2.8, and the image stabilization and AF is really nice, also I've heard that the Rokinons often contains a tilted lens.

Unless someone comes with a really good point, Im buying the Tamron next week

 

[DB_Cro]

Lucky bastard.
Post images when you do.

 

[beagle100]

I can't see what the 14mm and 24mm can do that the Tamron can't other than the f/ goes to 1.4 on the 24mm, but I know you can get amazing pictures of the milkyway with 2.8, and the image stabilization and AF is really nice, also I've heard that the Rokinons often contains a tilted lens.

Unless someone comes with a really good point, Im buying the Tamron next week

the advantage is the Rokinon prime is a lot cheaper but if you do much astrophotography you'll want one of those star tracker mounts

 

[Blicher]

I can't see what the 14mm and 24mm can do that the Tamron can't other than the f/ goes to 1.4 on the 24mm, but I know you can get amazing pictures of the milkyway with 2.8, and the image stabilization and AF is really nice, also I've heard that the Rokinons often contains a tilted lens.

Unless someone comes with a really good point, Im buying the Tamron next week

the advantage is the Rokinon prime is a lot cheaper but if you do much astrophotography you'll want one of those star tracker mounts

I looked at some of them, for starters I will attempt to build one myself

 

[beagle100]

I can't see what the 14mm and 24mm can do that the Tamron can't other than the f/ goes to 1.4 on the 24mm, but I know you can get amazing pictures of the milkyway with 2.8, and the image stabilization and AF is really nice, also I've heard that the Rokinons often contains a tilted lens.

Unless someone comes with a really good point, Im buying the Tamron next week

the advantage is the Rokinon prime is a lot cheaper but if you do much astrophotography you'll want one of those star tracker mounts

I looked at some of them, for starters I will attempt to build one myself

yeah but look on the astrophotography camera forums - lots of advice and (less) expensive ways to take night shots

 

[Kalyt]

I have the 14 mm and I can only recommend it. Razor-sharp images. Full manual. What's not to like?