High Sierra Topix

Funny, I've been debating the 14 2.8 vs the 24 1.4. I am looking for a lens specifically for night shots. The 14 seems more popular for a few reasons, cost being the primary one I'm sure.

24 seems like it might not be wide enough for some milky way shots.

The folks who specialize in night time time lapse seem to prefer the 24mm f/1.4 over any 14mm by a good margin. For best results you need to record as much as possible in less than 20 seconds, otherwise you will get earth rotation issues (few will carry an astro-tracker to compensate for that into the backcountry).

Best setup is a camera that can shoot high ISO at low noise, and a lens that is sharp at f/2.8 or faster. At f/1.4 you get twice as much light on the sensor compared to the f/2.8, and even stopped down to f/2.0 you are still 50% ahead. When it comes to recording faint light, that's a pretty big deal. Also, not shooting super wide increases the size of the stars on the sensor surface, increasing their visibility. 24mm on a full frame camera is still almost 90 degrees FOV, so you do get a large chunk of sky. The 14mm has a field of view of 114 degrees, which is rather extreme.

Yes, the highest scoring lens is the 24mm/1.4 which offers the best mix of field
of view and aperture size. But the Canon ver II is $1700 ($1500 after $200 rebate),
quite expensive unless your really into night photography and/or make good sales
on your night photography prints.