A Video On the Lenses I Use

 

Photography Gear: My Lenses

Having been asked recently what lenses I used with my Sony cameras I compiled a list and thought about whether I needed all these lenses. Here’s what I came up with. Note that my cameras have APS-C sensors so the focal lengths need multiplying by 1.5 for the full frame/35mm equivalent

Sony 18-135mm f3.5-5.6        My most used lens, sometimes the only one I take on walks, due to the      

                                            wide focal range.

Sony 10-20mm f4                  The second lens I take on walks - for wide angle shots.

Sigma 18-50 f2.8                   My newest lens, an alternative to the 18-135mm - less reach  but                                             better in low light.

Sony 11mm f1.8                    The third lens I often take on overnight trips, for night shots and       

                                            astrophotography.

Sony 70-350mm f4.5 - f6.3      For wildlife, 525mm 35mm equivalent at long end! Quite heavy so                                             local use and occasional day walks. 

Sony 30mm f3.5 Macro          Mostly used for photographing slides on a lightbox.

Sony 50mm f1.8                    Portraits & sometimes low light shots of gear and other items. My               

                                            only full frame lens – it works fine.

Sony 35mm f1.8                    Low light lens - often used for gear photos and on evening walks.

Sony 55-210mm f4.5-f6.3        My oldest lens (2010), much lighter but less reach and poorer      

                                            quality images than 70-350mm.

 

Sony 16-50mm f3.5-5.6          Tiny & ultralight kit lens that came with the a6000 camera in 2014.

                                            My main lens for a few years but poor quality compared to 18-135 and   

                                            18-50 lenses.

The last two are the only lenses I could easily dispense with.

I’m not thinking of any new lenses this year as I bought three last year – the 11mm, 10-20mm, and 18-50mm, the first two to replace a 12mm and a 10-18mm, which I sold. The only lens I’d really like doesn’t exist and probably never will – an 18-135 f2.8 that doesn’t weigh much more than the f3.5-5.6 one. Oh, and it would be nice if it was 16-135! 

That said, a macro lens with a longer focal length would be nice. 30mm can be hard to work with. Maybe ........

Cameras & lenses I've used for backpacking over the decades

Everest & Lhotse at dawn, October 2005. 6mp Canon 300D, Canon 18-55mm lens at 55mm, ISO 400, f5.6 at 1/160 second. Raw file processed in DXO PhotoLab

Backpacking with a camera and producing good photographs is a balancing act between performance and weight, especially when you need to produce pictures for publication, as I do. What’s the lightest gear with the best image quality and the most versatility? I’ve been trying to work that out for over forty years! Here, for anyone interested, is a rundown of the camera gear I’ve used on long-distance walks and some of the reasoning behind my choices. Plus a few photos to break up the story.

I first took photography seriously when outdoor magazine editors asked me for pictures to accompany my writing and said no, prints from cheap point-and-shoot cameras were not what they meant. So I bought a second-hand Pentax S1a SLR with 55mm lens and taught myself how to use it. That was a fully manual camera with a separate light meter that could be clipped on the top. I hated the hassle involved in learning how to make it take half-decent photos but it was an excellent way to learn about aperture, shutter speed and focusing.

The editors also said the maximum acceptable ISO speeds (or ASA as it was then) were 64 for colour transparency film and 400 for black-and-white so I had to learn how to hold the camera steady too. Later the acceptable transparency ISO crept up to 100.

Old habits die hard, as the saying goes. I still mostly stick to ISO 100, and I still mostly stick to manual mode for exposure with f8 at 1/125 second my standard setting.

Mount Shasta, Pacific Crest Trail, 1982. Pentax MX, Pentax 50mm lens. Kodachrome 64 transparency film

That first SLR was stolen in a burglary and replaced by a lighter one with built-in light meter and automatic exposure options (the Pentax ME Super). Having learnt the limitations of only having one fixed focal length prime lens I did some research (magazines and books – no Internet of course) and found that zoom lenses were not recommended other than in the 75-150 range so I got one of those and a 28mm wide angle prime to supplement the 50mm prime that came with the camera. That combination came with on the Pacific Crest Trail in 1982, along with a second body, the manual Pentax MX. I was to be glad of the latter as the ME Super failed after a few months. I was also glad I had two prime lenses as the zoom was wrecked when it got soaked during a creek crossing. Something that also taught me that my waterproof camera and lens bags were not actually so when submerged.

The Chinese Wall, Continental Divide Trail, 1985. Pentax MX, Tamron 35-70 lens. Kodachrome 64 transparency film

I replaced the 75-150 zoom with the same model and changed the prime lenses for a 35-70 zoom that had good reviews for the Continental Divide Trail a few years later. This combination, along with the Pentax MX, survived the walk. Rather than a second body I saved weight by taking a little Olympus XA compact as a back-up camera. This had a 35mm lens.

I missed the 28mm lens on the CDT and so swapped the 35-70 for a 28-70 zoom for my walk the length of the Canadian Rockies in 1988. I also daringly bought a 24mm prime lens – it seemed frighteningly wide at the time – and changed the 75-150 for a 70-210 zoom as longer zooms were getting better reviews than a few years earlier. The MX having failed shortly after the CDT I replaced it with the similar manual Pentax LX and bought a second body, a Pentax Super A, about which I remember nothing! I also carried a tripod for the first time on a long walk, making a total weight of 4.5kg, the heaviest amount of camera gear I’d carried on a long-distance walk. (I wrote about my tripods here.  The 281-gram Velbon V-Pod is still my main tripod. I haven’t found anything better at that weight).

On the Rockwall Trail, Canadian Rockies, 1988. Pentax LX, Tokina 28-70mm lens. Fujichrome 100 transparency film. Tripod essential for this shot.

A revolution in cameras occurred around this time, the introduction of auto-focus. This had been around since the 1970s but only really took off when Minolta introduced the first SLR with integrated auto-focus in 1985. Other camera makes quickly followed. Having too many blurred shots of animals and birds due to lack of time to focus I could see the advantages. I was also fed up with Pentax bodies failing – the Super A had gone the way of the ME Super and the MX. Nikons were said to be the most durable SLRs so, although I heavier than the Pentaxs, I decided to change. Nikon introduced auto-focus before Pentax too.

My new Nikon cameras were an F801 and an FM2. The first had auto-focus, the second was fully manual. Although heavy the F801 is my favourite of all the film cameras I owned because it had a thirty-second self-timer. The relief of not having just ten seconds to run in front of the camera and try and look normal! I still miss that timer.

Tombstone Mountain & Talus Lake, Yukon Territory, 1990. Nikon F801, Nikkor 35-70mm lens. Fujichrome 100 transparency film.

For my walk through the Yukon Territory in 1990 I took 24mm, 35-70mm, and 70-210mm lenses with the Nikon bodies. The weight was a touch less than in the Canadian Rockies

Lapland, Sweden, Scandinavian Mountains Walk, 1992. Nikon F801, Nikkor 28-70mm lens. Fujichrome 100 transparency film.

Why not a 28-70mm zoom? I don’t know. Maybe there wasn’t a good one available for Nikon. There must have been two years later as I took one on a length of Scandinavia walk with the other two lenses and the Nikon bodies. And why zoom lenses and not just lighter, smaller fixed focal length prime lenses? I’d found that zooms were just more versatile when hiking and taking photos where there were often few options for “zooming with your feet” because of cliffs, rivers, dense vegetation and more.

Camp on Stob Coire Easain, Munros & Tops, 1996. Nikon F50, Nikkor 28-70mm lens. Fujichrome 100 transparency film.

So far, the long walks had all been end-to-end ones, with many sections where the walking was relatively easy. Four years after the Scandinavian walk I set out to walk all the Munros and Tops in the Scottish Highlands, 517 summits over 3,000 feet (914 metres) high. There would be much ascent and descent, often steep, every day, and often not much of anything else. The heavy loads I’d carried on the other walks needed trimming drastically. And that included camera gear. I bought a new, lighter weight Nikon, the F50, and took just the 28-70mm lens., total weight just 907 grams, 1275 grams with padded camera bag. I missed having a longer lens but not the extra weight. I also hated the F50, the worst film SLR I used – no, the worst camera I’ve used. It had tiny, fiddly buttons that were unlabelled, so you had to try and remember what they did. Obviously practise for some digital cameras. Ironically, it’s the only film SLR camera I still have. I’d feel bad passing it on to anyone else.

Digital, of course, was the next big thing happening in the camera world. An enormous thing in fact. I dipped a tentative toe into digital waters in 2000 when I hiked the Arizona Trail. My main camera was a 335-gram Canon 300 SLR – the F50 had put me off lightweight Nikons – with a 24-70mm lens. Film backup was a tiny Ricoh GR1s compact which weighed just 212 grams and had a 28mm lens. I still have this lovely little camera and use it on the very rare occasions I shoot film.

The Grand Canyon, Arizona Trail, 2000. Ricoh RDC-5000

The digital camera was a Ricoh RDC-5000 with a 2.3mp tiny ½” sensor and a zoom lens equivalent to 38-86 in 35mm/full frame. This was quite an advanced digital camera at the time. With its four AA batteries it weighed a fairly hefty 414 grams. It took big Smartcards which I mailed home and which then appeared on a website during the walk. This was a first and seemed amazing at the time. I guess it was.

In the next few years editors started asking for digital images and no, they didn’t mean ones from 2.3mp cameras with tiny sensors. A DSLR with an APS-C size sensor and at least 6mp was needed.  APS-C I discovered was the size of an obsolete film format a bit smaller than 35mm. These cameras were very expensive. I swithered for a while. Being told I would only get half the fee for a feature if I could only supply film images made up my mind. As did Canon bringing out the first sub-£1000 DSLR (£999.99!), which was still a great deal of money for a camera in 2004. The 300D came with an 18-55mm lens, equivalent to 27-82mm on 35mm/full frame – multiplying focal lengths by 1.5 is needed because of the smaller sensor.  I bought the 300D and my digital era really began.

The 300D only had a 6-megapixel sensor but images from it looked fine. I shot in raw from the start and I’m glad I did as it meant I can now get even better results with the latest processing software like DXO PhotoLab.

GR20, Corsica, 2005. Canon 300D, 18-55mm lens at 37mm. ISO 200. F8 at 1/125 second.

For the first few years I still shot film as well, taking both the Canon 300 and 300D on trips such as the trek to Everest Base Camp and the GR20 on Corsica. Digital was obviously the way forward however and I soon gave up film, with, I must admit, great relief. It was always a hassle. Digital photography was so liberating! Especially on long walks. No films to carry, no rationing how many photos I could take as memory cards were so light, no films to send home in small batches in case any were lost on the way. Wonderful! Digital was much easier for publication too. No more carefully packing slides, sending them insured, then checking them when returned for scratches, glue spots, or finger marks (they all occurred).

Glacier National Park, Pacific Northwest Trail, 2010. Sigma DP1. ISO 50. F5.6 at 1/100 second

As sensors with more megapixels came out and camera sizes and weights dropped (the 300D was a hefty beast) I changed the 300D for the 8mp 350D and then the 12-mp Canon 450D. I took the latter on the Pacific Northwest Trail in 2010 with the 18-55mm lens. As backup I had a 250g Sigma DP1, the first compact with an APS-C sensor (14-mp), which had a 28mm equivalent lens and took lovely images. This was my first long-distance walk with only digital cameras. It was also my first one with a smartphone, an HTC Desire, with which I took photos to send home for use online and even, quite small, in The Great Outdoors magazine.

The cameras and the PNT didn’t get on that well. The DP1 succumbed to a thunderstorm early on in the walk. The 450D limped to the end though the autofocus failed for the last month. Neither camera was worth repairing. That year the first APS-C mirrorless cameras had appeared, and they were much lighter than DSLRs and so an obvious choice for a new camera. From the four brands then available – Sony, Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic – I chose the Sony NEX 5 as it felt the most secure to hold and I liked the feel of it. I’ve stuck with that range ever since.

Loch Trool, Southern Upland Way, 2011. Sony NEX 5 with 18-55mm lens at 55mm. ISO 400. F8 at 1/60 second

The NEX 5 had a 14mp sensor and came with an 18-55mm lens. It was a good little camera but had one disadvantage. There was no viewfinder. I soon became used to just using a screen, but I never really liked it. It's longest walk was a winter one along the Southern Upland Way. Two years later I changed to the 16-mp NEX 6 and the 24-mp NEX 7 as these did have viewfinders. I also swapped the 18-55mm lens for the much smaller Sony 16-50mm and added the 10-18mm wide angle zoom.

In the High Sierra, Yosemite to Death Valley, 2016. Sony NEX 7, Sony 10-18mm lens at 10mm. ISO 100. F8 at 1/125 seconds

Those two lenses and the NEX 7 went on the Scottish Watershed, Yosemite Valley to Death Valley, and GR5 Through the Alps walks. The NEX 6 went on the first of those and was then replaced by the a6000 as it had the same 24-mp sensor as the NEX 7 so image quality was near enough identical.

Camp in the valley of the Ruisseau de Charmaix, GR5, 2018. Sony a6000, Sony 16-50mm lens at 29mm. ISO 100. F8 at 1/320 second

I loved that combination as it was small and light and produced excellent images. I did miss a longer lens though and eventually acquired a Sony 18-135mm one (27-205mm equivalent) as it only weighs 325 grams. I took this on a 500-mile Colorado Rockies walk in 2019 instead of the 16-50mm and took many animal photographs I could never have taken with the latter. It’s now my favourite lens and the best I’ve used for backpacking.

Moose, Colorado Rockies, 2019. Sony a6000, Sony 18-135mm lens at 135mm. ISO 400. F8 at 1/50 second

This year I’ve replaced the ageing and battered NEX 7 and a6000 cameras with the a6600 and a6700, which take larger batteries that last much longer, and, for the first time with any of my cameras, have built-in stabilisation and weather-sealing. The a6700 in particular has many other advantages and is the best mirrorless camera I’ve used. It weighs 589 grams with battery, memory card and Peak Designs Leash. I also have two new small ultralight lenses -the 229-gram Sony 11mm and 205-gram Sony 10-20mm - as these are also weather-sealed, unlike the lenses they replaced. The 18-135 isn’t weather-sealed but there isn’t an equivalent that is, so it remains my main lens. The total weight of the bodies and lenses plus padded bags is 2.56kg. If I only carry the a6700 and the lenses in a Billingham Hadley Digital Bag (they all easily fit inside) the weight is 1.9kg.  

Sony a6700, Sony 11mm, 10-20mm & 18-135mm lenses. Sony a6600 with Sony 30mm macro lens. ISO 400. F5.6 at 1/8 second.

A week after writing this I’m off for a two-week autumn walk in the Cairngorms. It’ll be the first long trip with my new camera set-up. I’ll be posting pictures.

If you want to read even more about my new camera gear and the reasons I chose it see here, here  and here.

 

A New Lens for Backpacking: Sony E 18-135 f3.5-f5.6

Sony E 18-135 with lens hood

For several years my photography setup for backpacking and hillwalking has been Sony a6000 and NEX 7 bodies with Sony E 10-18mm and 16-50mm zoom lenses. This system went on the GR5 through the Alps walk last autumn and the Yosemite Valley to Death Valley walk two years before that. I've found it versatile and easy to use. Two cameras, two lenses, slung across my body in padded cases. Never any need to change lenses, always accessible.

Sometimes though I've wanted a longer lens - for wildlife, to zoom in on distant features, to pick out details. I've had the Sony E 55-210mm zoom lens for many years and this often comes with me on day walks, rarely on longer ones, as I like the two cameras and lenses system and I don't want to give up either of the shorter zooms. That leaves the 55-210 in the pack, where it too often stays, forgotten.

Sony E 18-135 fully extended

I accepted this two, sometimes three, lens system as there were no compact lightweight alternative lenses to the 16-50 that had a longer reach other than an expensive Zeiss 16-70, and the extra cost and weight didn't seem worth it for a measly 20mm increase.

Then, a year ago, Sony brought out the first new lens in many years for the a6000 series cameras, the 18-135 f3.5-f5.6. Light, compact and with a 7.5x zoom as opposed to the 3x zoom of the 16-50 this interested me straight away. I then spent a year deliberating!

Of course compared with the 16-50 the 18-135 is enormous and considerably heavier - 360 grams as opposed to 127 grams. The 55-210 is 380 grams so the saving over that lens plus the 16-50 is only 147 grams. I think though that the longer reach is well worth the extra 233 grams over the 16-50.

The big benefit of the 18-135 for me is that it extends my two cameras, two lenses system considerably. 10-135mm is a big range, equivalent to 15 to 202.5mm in 35mm/full frame. This is the biggest range in two lenses I've ever had.

I've had the 18-135 for nearly two months now and I've taken 310 images with it, half of them at focal lengths over 50mm. I'm pleased with the results. Reviews - and I read quite a few - suggested the image quality was good, better than the 16-50 in fact. I'm happy with that lens so I expected to like the 18-135. It's certainly sharper than the 55-210.

I did sometimes crop images taken with the 16-50 but this does mean lower quality and, more significantly to me, I found it harder to 'see' the image. With the 18-135 I can compose much more precisely. Looking at the data (ah, the wonders of Lightroom!) I can see that I've used just about every focal length at least once.

Carrying the 18-135 hasn't felt noticeably different to the 16-50 despite the difference in size and weight. I do have a bigger case of course but I carry it the same way.

I think for now I have found an ideal combination.

Here are some 18-135 images at different focal lengths, all taken in the Cairngorms on April 5.

18mm

24mm

31mm

71mm

95mm

135mm

Just One Lens: A Photography Gear Post. Updated July 28.

Since I wrote this piece in February I've found that I'm using the 55-210 zoom lens more than before as the limited reach of the 16-50mm often feels frustrating. I don't like changing lenses and I don't want to carry the 55-210 on long trips so I've almost decided to get the Sony E 18-135 mentioned in the last paragraph before the postscript. Almost.

Whilst I haven't bought the 18-135 yet I have bought another fixed focal length lens, the Sony E  35mm f1.8 (52.5mm 35mm equivalent). This weighs just 201 grams. I bought it for low light use. It's faster than the Sigma 60mm and is stabilised, which the Sigma isn't. How much will I use it? I'm not sure yet. It's been on one backpacking trip where I took the image below with it.

Ironically  in June Alex Roddie, who started this train of thought about fixed focal length lenses, posted  that he's ditched his Fuji gear for a much lighter Canon PowerShot G9x Mk II with a 10.2-30.6mm zoom lens (28-84 35mm equivalent). It's near the bottom of this interesting piece on the electronics he carries.

Anyway, here's the original post with minor edits.

As I've written before my favourite lenses are zoom lenses. It's over thirty-five years since I last took fixed focal length lenses on a long walk. That was on the Pacific Crest Trail where my most used lenses were Pentax 28mm and 50mm ones (I did have a 75-150mm zoom but that took a dunking in a creek and never recovered before I was half way). Back then wide angle and mid range zooms were generally regarded as poor quality. I wanted one though and just three years later I had one, a Tamron 35-70mm zoom that was judged pretty good. I took it on the Continental Divide Trail along with another Pentax 75-150 zoom and was pleased with the results. I missed a wider option though and over the years changed to 28-70mm and then 24-70mm lenses. These were always by far my most used lenses, as is my current Sony 16-50mm, which is equivalent to 24-75mm in 35mm/full frame terms.

However for quite some time I've been thinking about fixed lenses after reading a piece by Alex Roddie in which he said he saw the world at the 35mm (53mm full-frame equivalent) focal length and his favourite lens was a 35mm one*. I tried to imagine going out with just one fixed length lens and couldn't. When I analysed the 3500+ images I took last year I found that only a few hundred were taken around 30-40mm (see this post) so I clearly don't see the world in that range. My most used focal length by far was 50mm (75mm full-frame equivalent), a short telephoto length, so maybe that was how I saw the world.

*Update: after reading this Alex Roddie commented on Twitter 'I've gravitated towards 23mm (35mm FF equivalent) in the hills, as 50mm equivalent can sometimes be too tight, but still prefer 50mm for most other subjects. I rarely carry more than one prime lens now.'

To find out I've taken just one lens on several local walks in the last week. This is the Sigma E 60mm f2.8, which is equivalent to 90mm on full-frame. It's a sharp lens but one that I hardly use. I took just 36 images with it last year. At a weight of 215 grams it's very light but I've only ever used it on walks from home. All the pictures accompanying this piece bar one were taken with this lens on the Sony a6000 camera.

Just using one fixed lens surprised me. I didn't find it as restrictive as I thought and after the first day I started to 'see' at its focal length, that is I saw compositions that suited it and there were fewer times when I couldn't take the picture I'd seen because I didn't have the right focal length. I could, I thought, manage with this lens alone if I had to.

So will I start carrying and using the Sigma 60mm regularly now? Maybe. For a while. What this exercise has really taught me though is that the 50mm end of my 16-50mm zoom isn't long enough. In the hills and on long walks I usually just take that lens and the Sony 10-18mm wide angle zoom. I do have a Sony E 55-210mm f4.5-6.3 zoom that I sometimes carry and which gives me a huge reach as it's equivalent to full-frame 82.5-315mm. Maybe I should carry it more often. I prefer to have just two lenses and two bodies though, especially on long walks. Both are in cases and accessible while I'm walking and never changing lenses protects the camera sensors from dust and dirt. So ideally I'd like a lens that goes from wide angle to longer than the 16-50mm. Sony has offered a couple of these for a few years but they are quite heavy and bulky. There is the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f4 lens that is lightweight and compact. It's very expensive though and reviews are mixed with most saying it's not worth the money.

 
This year though there's a new Sony E 18-135mm (27-202.5mm full-frame equivalent) that sounds like it might be ideal. It's quite compact and weighs just 325 grams. Reviews have been mostly positive. Maybe this is the lens to pair with the 10-18mm. It would certainly give me a much greater range than the 16-50mm at a penalty of 200 grams extra to carry and more bulk. In the meantime the Sigma 60 and the Sony 55-210 are likely to see more use. Otherwise I'll miss that extra reach.

Postscript. Sometimes blog posts bring up entertaining and valuable responses. This one led to interesting threads on social media. Amongst these was this fascinating and useful comment from photographer and writer David Kilpatrick on Facebook  "The 60mm Sigma is a superb lens. It's the one I picked for my article on macro - add extension tubes to it and it beats most macro lenses. I think it is a natural fit. After all, the 'Mountain Elmar' from Leica was 105mm, and the 'Lightweight Elmar' which inherited that title was a 90mm f/4 in a special skinny lightweight mount for alpinists - 90mm being considered the ideal field of view for peak-to-peak photography (the view from the ground always diminishing the apparent height of the mountain or hill - best to get half way up the height of the target). The 60mm is lightweight, and exactly that angle on the A6000." 

I never knew that about 90mm and mountain photography. I'll definitely be taking the Sigma 60mm on my next hill walk. I'd never thought about using extension tubes with it either. I've now ordered some. David's article on macro is on the PhotoclubAlpha site here. David has just started a blog too - so far the only post is a link to this article!

Night Photography With The Samyang 12mm f2 NCS CS Lens

More stars than you can see .... but the camera can

Photographing starry skies and campsites at night Is something I’ve done for decades but only in the last few years have I started to take it seriously and think about the best way to get good results. Experimenting with different settings on the camera, different lenses and different ways to use headlamps to illuminate camps has been an interesting exercise.

One of the first things I learnt was that all my lenses distorted stars slightly so they appeared to have short, comet-like tails or else were elongated into ellipses (an effect known as coma). Not having a fast lens was part of the problem as it meant I had to use long shutter speeds that recorded the slight movement of the stars during exposure. It also meant I needed to use higher ISO speeds, which resulted in more noise in the images. Most lenses aren’t that sharp at their biggest apertures either.

Research on the Internet came up with one fairly unique fast wide angle lens designed for mirrorless cameras like my Sony NEX 6 and 7 – the Samyang 12mm f2 NCS CS – that was recommended for star images and said to produce good quality wide open at f2. The price was low and the lens lightweight (278 grams) so I bought one. And after my initial use I can say I’m pleased with it and feel it’s certainly worth the money.

The Samyang 12mm f2 lens fitted to the Sony NEX 7.

 

The lens is fully manual with aperture and focus rings. There’s no electronic connection. All you can set with the camera body is the ISO and the shutter speed. Having used lenses like this for many years with film cameras the lens didn’t feel unfamiliar though it probably would to anyone only used to fully automatic digital lenses. Manual focusing isn’t a problem for two reasons. Firstly 12mm (equivalent to 18mm on a full frame/35mm camera) is so wide that depth of field is enormous even at large apertures. Secondly the NEX cameras have ‘focus peaking’ that gives sparkly coloured edges to the areas in focus. For night photography I’ve used the lens set to infinity anyway and wide open at f2.

Compared with night shots from my other lenses the Samyang 12mm definitely produces more pinpoint stars with less coma. It also lets in enough light at f2 that I can use lower ISO and shutter speeds. The night image accompanying this piece was taken at ISO 400 with 8 seconds exposure.

 

Crop from the image below

A fast lens like this plus a digital sensor can capture far more of the stars than you can actually see. The two versions of the image here show this. The darker one approximates what I could actually see, the second one what appears when the exposure is increased in Lightroom. 

Closer to what I could see ... though there's still probably too many stars

The Samyang lens was used for the night photos in my post on camping on Ben Macdui – link here. That’s the only backpacking trip I’ve taken the lens on so far. I doubt I’ll take it on trips of more than one or two nights because of the extra weight. My Sony E 10-18mm f4 zoom lens is more versatile though not quite so good for star images. However I will carry the Samyang on shorter trips when the forecast is for clear skies.