L series RF Lens For Astrophotography and Landscape Or do I go Macro?

[Far-Out-Dude]

I am looking for a L series RF Lens For Astrophotography and Landscape for my  R5 Mark ii.  I shoot a lot of landscape and am very interested in Astro, I would eventually like to get into some deep space stuff but that is not going to happen just yet. I am hoping someone could suggest an L-series rf lens that would be good for both? I had been looking at the 16mm RF lens but it is not a L series and I have gotten spoiled with the quality of images from my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens so I think I would like to stick with the L series, if I can afford them.

The other kinds distant thought is a RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens. I have a interest in Macro but can't kneel, squat or bend due to injuries and most of what interests me is on or near the ground so I am not sure, I would have to have a tree or a chair to use to get off the ground if I sat. I like the idea of photographing eyes, raindrops/ice droplets as they cling to a tree and other outdoor kinda stuff.

I am attaching some of my landscape shots to give you and idea of what I like to shoot, I almost always shoot from a tripod and from the sitting position as standing is quite painful for me. I am having problems uploading the ones I want, they all need to be resized and I am not good at getting them to the right size, stupid numbers again.

[Ron888]

Yes i'm sure you could use the EF70-300 with extension tubes. The order would be (from the front) EF lens,then EF extension tubes and the EF to RF adapter.
There are also non canon brand extension tubes suitable for RF mount if you want to go that way.
Sorry i have very little experience with landscape or astro so not confident recommending lenses for those.

[Far-Out-Dude]

Thank you for the reply, I will start to look at them. I am looking at the prices of the L series suggested and yes right now I can get them on payments but I think I am going to be stuck with what I have or I am going to be cutting my own throat and not leaving my self money for basics. I will have 4 things paid off by February and then I can afford one payment of a pricier object than. I am also getting ready to buy a new office/deck chair and that is going to cost me $500.00 USD so that does not help.

[ebiggs1]

"I had looked at the 16mm very heavily but would rather have an L-series. I am not the greatest at editing..." "I am looking for one that will do Milky Way shots, maybe so other space stuff in that range like some nebula's though that may be deep space..."

First an "L" lens is not going to make post editing unnecessary. Forget that thought if great photos are your goal as I would expect with the camera you recently bought.  Milky Way, deep space, nebula's are all the same thing basically. They are so far away that even the biggest telephotos don't make any difference. That's why astrophotographers  prefer fully manual WA to UWA lenses like the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens.

[Far-Out-Dude]

I do understand that with the L series lens, but it will help if I do my job. I do not know much yet about Astro so I appreciate that information, guess I will be going for a landscape lens then as that is what I do much more. Any suggestion in the RF L series line? By the way, I had indeed looked at that Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens but wanted to stick with Canon. I think I have that lens on one of my wish lists on B&H I have to leave, I will reply later.

[justadude]

If you end up not sticking with a Canon lens for the Milky Way, I have a better suggestion than the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8.  Don't get me wrong... that's a great lens.  I owned three different variations of that lens over the years - two with Canon mounts, one with a Pentax mount.  

Last year I bought a Venus Optics Laowa RF 15mm F/2 FE Zero-D lens.  I found it so much better than the Rokinon that I sold the Rokinon lenses.  Less distortion, less vignetting, and what there is of both is much easier to correct.  In addition, this lens is built much more solid.  It just has the feel of a well machined lens as you are turning focus and changing aperture.  

Like you, I prefer Canon lenses.  However I feel this lens was well worth not buying a Canon lens for at $600 for this lens vs. $2,400 for the Canon RF 15-35mm F/2.8 

[Far-Out-Dude]

Thank you much. I may go that way. I had hoped for a crossover but was not sure that was possible, I knew that the macro would not work, somebody above misunderstood me, I knew that would be a whole other direction and no lens would do all three. I want to be able to shoot my landscapes at a high tier level so I am going to go that way first. I am going to make a Astro list in my B&H wishlist and will add that to the list. Thank you much.

[Far-Out-Dude]

I looked at my wish lists at B&H turns out it was not on any of my lists. Must have been something I had looked at one time or another, or at least the brand because I remember the name brand. Since things did not seem to be going well here I made a thread for just a Landscape lens and you can find it here. https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/forums/postsuccesspage/board-id/efandrflenses/message-id/34810

[jrhoffman75]

Best Lenses for Astrophotography (2024)

[Far-Out-Dude]

Thank you very much, I am just perusing it right now, but have saved it to my desktop so I could read it in further detail later.

[JamesHarvey]

FYI shot this with an R6ii, RF16 & Benro Polaris tracker; sky (tracked) and foreground (untracked) images were combined in post; both were 30s, f/2.8, ISO2000.  As others have noted, the lens does require a lot of digital correction: the foreground image, even after full lens correction in DPP required further correction in PS to remove the remaining pincushion distortion.  Interestingly, the tracked MW shot did not appear to require so much correction, there was no obvious stretching of corner objects.

If you are going to use a tracker then your lens choice will be dictated by the maximum head load it can turn.  No problem with any shorter lens, but for deep space work the heaviest lenses the Polaris will take (that I have used & had success with) have been the RF100-500 & RF800/11, and these are considered about the max load for that tracker.  To go heavier you need to look at a tracking mount designed for a similarly sized telescope.  Just remember that in astro you major limit is the atmosphere, even with the best lenses to get great images, tracking and multi-image stacking are required.