 This morning, Sigma announced two new full-frame mirrorless lenses perfect for Milky Way photography. A 20mm f1.4 and a 24mm f1.4. These lenses are complete redesigns when compared to the older DSLR counterparts that were also in the art series, and I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to really dive into the world of mirrorless lenses from an astrophotographer's perspective. Like what makes these new mirrorless lenses different? What are the practical pros and the cons compared to the older DSLR lenses? And in a direct shootout, which lenses do better on the stars? So this video will be partly educational, I'm going to be exploring some of the things to think about when buying lenses for astrophotography, but it's also a review of all of these lenses in front of me here in my biggest Milky Way shootout yet. I'll be comparing 7 wide-angle f1.4 lenses, all in the same night, all with the same settings, all using the Sigma FPL full-frame mirrorless camera. Hi, my name is Nico Carver and this channel is all about the amazing hobby of astrophotography. Today I'll be reviewing 7 lenses and with any review, it's my policy to start with disclosures. The Sigma FPL camera and these brand new mirrorless lenses from Sigma, the 20 and 24DN, were loaned to me by the nice folks at Sigma America. Sigma has no input into the making of this video and I'm going to be returning these three items to them tomorrow morning. The Rokinon 24, the Sigma 28, and the Skywatcher tracking mount that I'll be using are all items I already owned. And the last three lenses, these two Sigmas, the older counterparts, the HSM versions, and this Zeiss Milvus 25, were all rented from LensRentals.com using income from my Patreon campaign, which I'll say a little bit more about at the end of the video. So let's first jump into the basics of mirrorless versus DSLR cameras and then that'll help us explain why mirrorless cameras can use older lenses but also support these new mirrorless lenses. So DSLR, it's an acronym, it stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex. It's the same basic design as an SLR that used 35mm film, except instead of film, you have the digital sensor in the back. But the idea is the same, which it allows the photographer to frame their shot more accurately than a rangefinder because the mirror and the prism inside the camera body reflect the light directly through the lens up to an optical viewfinder and right into your eye. And the big advantage over, you know, an electronic viewfinder or an LCD is there's no lag. So many sports photographers or anything, you know, with fast motion, those kinds of photographers still prefer a DSLR because you're actually looking through the lens optically. And then when you take the picture, the mirror flips up, light passes through the lens right onto the image sensor. Same thing happens for live view, except when you switch to live view, the mirror snaps up and it switches into a kind of video mode. It gives you a video feed of what the lens is seeing. And so when you're in that feed, of course, the optical viewfinder isn't working because the mirror is up. This is different than a mirrorless camera, whereas the name suggests you get rid of the mirror, you replace it with an always on live view for framing your shots. You can either look through an electronic viewfinder if they have one or the back of the camera LCD. Now, in astrophotography world, we've probably always used live view since the start of digital cameras because it's better for framing and focusing in the dark. An optical viewfinder is really only good for something really bright like the moon. So the only two reasons that DSLRs are still so popular for astrophotography are one cost because there's so many DSLRs, you can buy them cheap, used and get them modified, and then two, native lens selection. And if you haven't heard this term native lens, it just means one that is designed natively to mount to a particular camera body. So for instance, if I have an EF mount DSLR and then an EF mount lens, that's native glass for the camera. Now, the interesting thing about mirrorless is because the mirror has been eliminated, the camera bodies are really thin now and the sensor is much closer to the front, much closer to the mount. And so this means you can adapt many different lenses to a mirrorless body with the appropriate adapter. For instance, this is a Sigma FPL and if I attach the Sigma MC21 lens adapter to it, the front, I can now attach any EF mount lenses to this mirrorless camera. And this camera has an L mount, so I'm adapting from EF to L. And this works pretty well. They don't always function completely as well as native lenses, but we'll get into that. But why does adapting lenses work at all? Well, this has something to do with focal flange distance, that's what they call it in the photography world, or back focus in the astronomy world. And these are different terms for the same concept. It just means with a particular lens, it's designed to reach focus at a particular plane behind the flange, behind where it mounts. So with Canon EF lenses, this is 44 millimeters behind the flange with Nikon F lenses, it's 46.5. And those are both SLR standards, so they give plenty of room for the mirror. But if we look at mirrorless lenses, both Leica L mount and Canon RF mount have a focal flange distance of just 20 millimeters, with Sony E mount it's 18 millimeters, and with Nikon Z mount it's only 16 millimeters. So you can adapt DSLR lenses to a mirrorless camera just by adding an adapter with the right focal distance in there, but you can't go the other way around. There's no way to adapt a mirrorless lens to a DSLR, and there's probably not even going to be a way to adapt a mirrorless lens to another mirrorless camera system, because you can't make an adapter short enough. So this is a disadvantage of mirrorless lenses, because you have to sort of stay with the mount that the lens is designed for. But there are positives to mirrorless lenses too. So because we have that shorter light path on the back, we can now make the lenses shorter. So if we compare this Sigma 20 millimeter f1.4 for mirrorless versus the older DSLR version, it's much, much lighter. It's substantially lighter. I can feel it right here. The mirrorless version is only 635 grams, while this older version for DSLRs is over a kilogram. So they've shaved 400 grams off the weight, and this is possible because of the shorter focal flange distance with mirrorless. So you can make, you know, the lenses closer together. And it doesn't have to be this huge, large bulbous front lens element. They actually have made it so that it has a front flat, and I can put 82 millimeter filters on there. So that's great. I love to be able to put a threaded filter on. I often use like a Kenco Soft-In to add some glow to my constellation shots. I can also remove this lens hood now, and that makes flats so much easier. I hate when they have this, you know, permanent undetachable petal lens hood because it makes flats with a flat panel so impossible. Another possible advantage to mirrorless lenses is that through these new optical formulations, we're going to see innovation. And these lenses are going to be very impressive, possibly optically. So we're going to take a look at that when we get to the star tests at the end of the video. But I first want to talk about another thing to think about, which is focus systems in these lenses. Specifically, how the manual focus works, because this could be a big issue for astrophotographers. Many new mirrorless lenses coming out, I've noticed, don't have true mechanical manual focus. Instead, they have something called focus by wire. So traditionally with a lens, the focus ring for the manual focus is mechanically coupled to the focusing group of lens elements. So there doesn't have to be any electronic communication to focus the lens. You could have a completely manual film camera and still focus the lens. And so for an astro camera, that's great because we can just use a bare metal adapter and you can still focus. With these new mirrorless cameras that are focused by wire, that won't be the case anymore. These kinds of lenses need to get power from the camera and they need to be able to communicate with the camera to focus the lens at all, even manually. Because what focus by wire means is that this focus ring, it has no hard stops, it's not mechanical, it's actually electronic. When you move it, you're just telling a little wire how you're moving it and that sends information to the camera. And then it sends that information back to the lens for how to move the lens elements inside to focus the lens. And so why do they do this? Why not just stick with the actual manual ring? Well, I think it's to make the lenses smaller and lighter. They had to get rid of some mechanical components inside the lens and do things more electronically. So it's a trade-off because we now have lighter, smaller lenses, but they don't have true manual focus, so there's not going to be as adaptable. But because of the short focal flange distance, these might not be that adaptable anyways, so it might not matter too much. It's also possible that someone can come up with a smart adapter so we can use these with astro cameras, because I mean, for instance, there's astromechanics adapters for EF lenses, but those kinds of things are not yet. Now, there are some possible pros with Focus by Wire 2 that I've only seen introduced in these new Sigma mirrorless lenses that I think are really interesting. With a mechanical focus ring, if you bump this, you know, you're screwed. It's going to change your focus. And you can't even let it creep due to gravity or things like that. So sometimes astrophotographies will literally tape this ring with some electrical tape to make sure it doesn't shift, because we're taking many photos in a row without refocusing. With these new Sigma lenses, after you've found focus, what you can do is you can literally just lock manual focus with a manual focus lock switch. And after you put this switch into the lock position, you can turn this ring all you want and it doesn't affect your focus, because it's basically turned the electronics and this focus ring off. So that's pretty cool. I did I did test this with these lenses and this manual focus lock system worked great. Next, I want to give a quick overview of the specifications of every lens that I'm going to be reviewing here. And I'll point out any interesting features as well as the size, weight, current price, all those kinds of things. And so let's start with Sigma 20 millimeter F 1.4 DG DN Art. My copy here is Leica L mount. So it'll work with Sigma's FP and FPL mirrorless cameras, but it'll also work on some Panasonic and Leica digital cameras. And this lens will also be available for Sony E mount for Sony mirrorless cameras. It weighs 635 grams or 1.4 pounds. It's approximately 111 millimeters long, which is 4.4 inches. And the lens has 17 glass elements inside and 15 groups. Four of those are a spherical and two are special low dispersion glass. It comes with this pedal style lens hood that locks on like that and has a nice button for releasing it. Like I said earlier, the really nice feature is it has a flat front with filter thread, 82 millimeter filter thread. And it also accepts gel type filters in the rear. Sigma designed this lens with astrophotography in mind. So one really cool feature is this lip right here. What this is for is they said that it's a dew heater band retainer. So you put your dew heater band around the lens like this and then that lip prevents it from sliding up and getting into your shot and causing vignetting. And so I think this is a really cool feature. Wish more lenses would do this because I've actually run into that problem, especially with fisheye lenses where I thought I was being careful. But somehow the dew heater strip got into the shot and causes some ugly vignetting. I've already talked about the manual focus switch, which can lock the focus ring, which is right there. There's also an AF-MF switch, of course. And then this is interesting. This is do you want the aperture ring to click or not? So you can turn off the clickiness and then it will just be silent. And that's, I guess, for filmmakers who want to control the iris while they're shooting and don't want that click. But I usually have it on. Speaking of the aperture ring, this I think is, again, electronic only. So it feels like it's a manual mechanical thing, but it's actually just sending information back to the camera. But anyways, it has one third stops. It's very satisfying to turn and very clear what F-Ratio you have the lens set to with that. This lens will retail for 899 US dollars in the US from authorized Sigma dealers. And it will be available later this month, late August 2022. The new Sigma 24 millimeter DGDN is very similar in terms of the buttons and the physical design to the 20 millimeter. Biggest differences are it has 72 millimeter thread as opposed to 82 millimeter for the front filter. And it doesn't have that lip for the dew heater band. Other than that, it is 520 grams, so very lightweight. That's 1.1 pounds. It is only 95 millimeters long or 3.8 inches. And the lens design uses 17 glass elements in 14 groups and four are spherical elements. Three are some type of low dispersion glass. It also has the detachable lens hood. This lens will retail for 799 US dollars in the US and will also be available later this month in August 2022. This is the older 20 millimeter F1.4 DGHSM from Sigma. It has a permanently attached plastic pedal style lens hood with this big bulbous front glass element. So it can't attach thread on front filters. And it doesn't seem to have anything for rear filters either. So only way you're going to use filters with this lens is to use one of those map boxes in front where you can slide in big rectangular or square filters. It has a nice big mechanical manual focus ring with a nice focus indicator in a window right here. And then the only switch is AF or MF. Now this is a very heavy lens. This is 1035 grams. So over a kilogram. That's 2.3 pounds. And it's about six inches long. The design is 15 elements in 11 groups and two elements for a spherical five are some type of low dispersion glass. This is the L mount version, but this is a DSLR lens. So it's also available for Canon EF Nikon F. And then they also make an adapted version for Sony E mounts. And it retails for 899 US dollars. So they're keeping the price consistent with the new versions. The older Sigma 24 millimeter 1.4 DG HSM. It has 77 millimeter filter threads. It has their older style lens hood, pedal lens hood that doesn't have the button, but just still sort of locks into place. And it's very much like the 20 millimeter I just showed as the manual focus window there and AF MF switch. This one weighs 755 grams or 1.6 pounds. The design is 15 elements and 11 groups to our spherical and seven are low dispersion. This is the L mount version, but like the other lens, you can get it in Canon F Nikon F and Sony E. It retails for 799 US dollars. So again, when we have gone up to the new lighter weight mirrorless version of this lens, they kept the price consistent. And one more Sigma art. This is the Sigma 28 millimeter F 1.4 DG HSM. This is my copy. I really like this lens. They basically all, you know, share the same physical characteristics. This one though has the new style, pedal style lens hood with the button that gets removed. And then it has 77 millimeter filter thread. And this one weighs 865 grams or 1.9 pounds. So almost two pounds. It's a little heavier because it's a bigger lens, 28 millimeters in front. The design is 17 elements, 12 groups with three spherical and five low dispersion. This is the Canon EF version, which is also available for Nikon F, like L and Sony E. And this one retails for 799 in the US. Okay, this is the Rokinon 24 millimeter F 1.4 or T 1.5 Sine. This is actually the Sine version. But it's just a different housing with this special thing for geared focus and geared aperture. It really is the exact same optically as the photo version. So get either one. It doesn't really matter. I just have this one because I was really into filmmaking and stuff when I bought this. And so it made sense and it was actually cheaper. This has a removable pedal style lens hood. It does have a flat front, even though the front element is quite curved. So it can accept 77 millimeter threaded filters. There's no AF switch or any switches of any kind because it's a fully manual lens. If we look at the lens mount, there's no electrical contacts because it's just everything is controlled with these mechanical rings here for iris and for focus. And it weighs only 580 grams or 1.3 pounds. It is 13 elements in 12 groups for low dispersion and to a spherical. This is the Canon EF version, but it's also available in Nikon F, Sony E, Pentax K and Fujifilm X. And it retails for 549 US dollars, but it's often on sale for less than that. And then finally, this is the Zeiss Milvis 25 millimeter F 1.4. It has a detachable metal pedal style lens hood. It has 82 millimeter filter thread and it's a manual only focus. So there's no autofocus with this lens and something that sort of threw me off is this whole barrel is the focus ring. So you can move it anywhere along this. I've never seen a lens like that. Feels very premium, very heavy. While the focus is mechanical, there is no aperture ring. So the aperture has to be controlled with an electronic system using the camera. And it is 123 millimeters long, which is 4.8 inches. It's also the heaviest lens in the group at 1,225 grams or 2.7 pounds. This is the Canon EF version, but it's also available for Nikon F mount DSLRs. And this retails for a whopping $2,474, but I have it rented from lens rentals. Okay, now we've reached my favorite part, which is how these lenses actually perform under the stars. And the truth is we're starting with a great batch of lenses here for Milky Way shooting. These all have a bright maximum focal ratio of F 1.4. And I personally think that the 20 to 28 millimeter focal length that I'm testing here is my favorite for Milky Way with a full frame camera. But there are going to be definite differences, which I'm going to do my best to highlight here as we go through a bunch of comparisons, including very zoomed in comparisons on the stars. I tested each of these lenses with focal ratios. You're saying here they were all tested with this Sigma FPL camera, which has a pixel pitch of 3.78 microns. They were all done at ISO 1600 and tracked with the Skywatcher EQ6R mount. I used shorter exposures for the brighter apertures, longer exposures as I stopped down the lenses. Okay, so we're looking at vignetting here. This is a crop in on the right hand corners of each frame, which gives us a pretty good idea of how each lens vignettes. And this is at F 1.4. I would say the mirrorless versions are vignetting a bit more dramatically than their DSLR counterparts. But the Rokinon is vignetting a lot too, as is the Zeiss. I mean, they're all vignetting quite a bit. I did make this a little bit more dramatic through a curve just to make it clear, but the same curve was applied to all the shots to make it fair. But just to show the vignetting clearly, I just applied a little bit of an S-curve. Okay, so this is wide open at F 1.4. Let's now stop down the lens to 1.8. And you can see they all get better. But look at the difference here with the older DSLR lens, which is a much bigger lens. The vignetting almost disappears, just stopping it down to 1.8. While with the mirrorless lens, we're not getting as dramatic an improvement. We are getting an improvement though. So then here's F2. At this point, a lot of the DSLR lenses, I would say the vignetting is no problem. Actually, the only lens where I'd say the vignetting is still pretty noticeable is this Sigma 20 millimeter mirrorless. But by F2.2, it's getting really pretty minimal. And by F2.8, I wouldn't say it's a problem on any of the lenses. You just get a little bit of darkening in the extreme corner, which you might crop off anyways just for framing purposes. Or if you're tracking, you often just crop off the edges for one reason or another. So I would say, yeah, vignetting is fairly bad on the mirrorless versions. And at F1.4 and 1.8, by 2, it's pretty manageable. And by 2.2 and up, it's really not a problem at all. Oh, one other thing to say about vignetting before we leave this topic is when I was testing some telescopes with the Sigma FP and the MC21 adapter, I did notice some strange vignetting. And I was thinking it was maybe from the MC21 adapter. But here, I didn't really see a problem. Like if we look at, you know, some of these, this lens, I mean, it's maybe, maybe that little bit of vignetting left is from the adapter. So it may be more, it's a little bit more investigation. But if we look at this 28, that's not very vignetted at all. And that's with the adapter. Now we're at 300% crops of near the center of the frame. And usually when I test central sharpness on lenses, it's pretty boring because there's not, they're all, all modern lenses are reasonably sharp in the center. But actually this time it was quite interesting because I don't know if you can see it from this view, but I'll zoom in here in a second. But the Sigma 20 millimeter DGHSM, the DSLR version of the 20 millimeter and the very expensive Zeiss Milvis are both quite a bit softer than the other five lenses. So let me zoom in so you can really see what I'm talking about. Okay. So here's the Sigma 20 millimeter mirrorless. And this is the Sigma 20 millimeter DSLR. See how soft it is. And my first thought was, oh, well, maybe I missed focus. Same thing with the Zeiss. I thought, oh, well, maybe I just missed critical focus. But then the more that I looked at these shots, the more I became convinced that isn't it. Instead, I think these two particular lenses are just poor copies. Maybe they've been banged around too much from being rented. For instance, if we look at the full Zeiss result at f1.4, you can see there's a lot of strange variability in star performance across the field because the stars look very distorted and out of focus with a lot of coma on the right side of the photo, but very sharp and in focus on the left side in the same photo. Now with the Zeiss, you could argue that that's because this is such a heavy lens that what we're seeing is tilt from the adapter not being able to keep its square with the sensor. And that could be, but I'm personally doubtful. So I think it's a bit of a mystery here. I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what is going on with these two lenses and why they are so soft, but it allows me to actually bring up an important point with any kind of review like this, which is copy to copy variability when we're doing something as demanding as a lens, photographing the stars with a full frame, small pixel camera. The difference is between a poor copy of a lens and average copy in an excellent copy can really show up. Copy variation between lenses is really a thing and you can actually get a lemon. It's happened to me. It's hard to know that you have a lemon until you actually photograph the stars with a lens, zoom in on them like we're doing here. So this is why I mostly buy my expensive lenses from reputable dealers. So I can return the lenses if anything looks off. In any case, I'm going to include these two lenses in my result, but I would like to retest with different copies at some point because I don't think these particular copies are up to stuff. So the only other real thing to say while we're zoomed in here about these center crops is if you look at the Rokinon and then compare it to these sigmas, you can see the Rokinon does have a lot more chromatic aberration and it's most obvious in this star right here. You can see it looks pretty neutral on these two lenses and on the Rokinon it has a quite the magenta flare. And then if you look carefully at some other stars, you'll also see they have a magenta or red flare to them. So that's something you can take care of with de-fringing, but it is a little bit annoying sometimes. Okay, moving on, here's f1.8. There's really no surprises. All the lens get sharper as a little bit, you know, just a tiny bit sharper as you stop down the lens. Just to zoom in and show you some results, this is at f2.2 and you can see here's the Sigma 20 millimeter mirrorless nice round sharp stars, no problem there. Again, I think there's something wrong with this version. So let's skip over that. Here is the Sigma 24 millimeter mirrorless compared to the DSLR version and you're really not going to see many differences here in central sharpness. This is the 28 millimeter. This is the Rokinon and that's the Zeiss. So same story as we stop down the lenses. Nothing surprising except for the soft two lenses, which we've talked about. All right, and I save the most dramatic interesting comparison, I think for last, which is our corner crops at 300%. So these are the far, this is the far right corner of each photo. And again, these are tracked photos with the EQ 6R. So there's not going to be any problems with tracking here. So everything that we're seeing in terms of elongation of the stars is just from the optics acting up. And I think what you should be able to see even at this view is that the Sigma 20 and 24 mirrorless are on par with my Sigma 28, which before now I considered, you know, the sharpest wide angle lens I've ever seen. So it's on par with that and much better than the DSLR counterparts that these are upgrading and then also much better than the Rokinon or the Zeiss. But let's zoom in to see what I'm talking about here. Okay, so here we have the mirrorless version on the left and the DSLR version on the right. And you can see there's just a faint little bit of this astigmatism, but nothing like on the DSLR version. I mean, barely visible on the DSLR version. These look like little birds or grasshoppers in flight. While on the on the mirrorless version, that's quite impressive. Now, if we look at a really bright star like this one right here, you still can see some weirdness. You know, we're now zoomed into something like 600%, but that's really pixel peeping for the most part. This is a really incredibly sharp corner and especially compared to this one. Same deal with the 24 millimeter comparison. So again, maybe not quite as impressive as the 20 millimeter in terms of sharpness, but so much better than the older DSLR version, which is quite soft and has a lot of astigmatism and a lot of actual chromatic aberration as well here, where we're getting separation of the colors. Now, if we compare those two to the 28 millimeter, I actually think they're a little bit better at f 1.4 than the 28 millimeter, but not not leagues better about about the same, but a little sharper, I think. And then here is the Rokinon and the Rokinon has that classic coma plus astigmatism equals little birds kind of thing and probably chromatic aberration to boot. The Zeiss looks a lot like the the Sigma DSLRs where it's just like it's mostly that line of sagittal astigmatism. OK, and then something always interesting about corner crops is how much the lenses improve as you stop down. F 1.8, slight improvement, not much difference. F 2, we're starting to see a lot better sharpness in the 20 millimeter. But again, I don't know what's going on there because that lens, I suspect is a poor copy, but it does seem to be improving quite a bit. The other ones are staying pretty much consistent. And then here we have 2.2. OK, by the time we get to 2.8, let's see what's happening. So by 2.8, you can see it's evened out a bit. They're a lot closer now. Mostly what we're getting, what we have left with the DSLR version is some corner distortion, but the astigmatism is pretty much gone. But the mirrorless version looks a little bit better too. If you remember that bright star was a little bit wonkier before. This is now quite acceptable. Here's the comparison with 24 millimeter. And this is quite interesting. I mean, this shows a lot of corner distortion. These are lines. They look almost like trailed because of the tracking, but I swear this is just optical and compared to the mirrorless version. That's night and day in terms of corner performance. The 28 millimeter looks quite good. And is pretty consistent with the new 24 millimeter mirrorless. The Rokinon, we don't have birds anymore. Now we have comets that's quite common as you stop down. You get rid of the astigmatism, but you keep the corner distortion. And that's what we have there. And the Zeiss looks pretty good by F2.8. And then it's really just the same story from F2.8 to F3.2 to F4. Things continue to get better. But we still can see market differences between the mirrorless and the DSLR. Although here it's getting pretty close. Here you can see the mirrorless version on the left is a lot better than the DSLR version. This is the 28 millimeter. There is the Rokinon and the Zeiss. So to wrap up, I was really impressed with the optical performance of these new Sigma mirrorless lenses that I was sent. They are as well corrected in the corners as my Sigma 28 millimeter, but substantially lighter and wider angle, which is a plus for getting in more of the Milky Way, more of the night sky and landscape in one image without doing a panorama. And the only downside optically to these new lenses is that they had a bit more vignetting the dark corners with the brighter apertures compared to the bigger DSLR lenses. I do think this new manual lock focus feature and the retainer for the DewHeater band on the 20 are really nice nods to the astrophotography community. And let me know if you think of something else that Sigma should offer for astrophotographers in their new lenses and I'll pass that on. I considered also talking about Sigma's cameras, the FP, which I own in the FPL, which they lent to me. But this video is already getting quite long just reviewing lenses. So I'm going to save reviews of Sigma's mirrorless cameras for a future video sometime. But I will just say here that these are really neat cameras, the smallest full frame mirrorless cameras available. And an excellent French astrophotographer named Thierry Legault has been using them very successfully for astrophotography. And he's already released a review of them in a French magazine, Ciel Espace. And he's been talking about these cameras on his Twitter feed as well. Since this video is over 20 minutes long, you're now seeing all of my current members on my Patreon campaign. If you want to see your name and the credits, you can sign up over on patreon.com slash nebulaphotos. And signing up has a bunch of perks outside of your name and the credits, including exclusive videos, a few of those monthly zoom chats. We can ask any questions, a really awesome discord community, monthly imaging challenges with prizes, group imaging projects, other competitions to win gear from me, a direct way to message me. And so you can give me all your comments, questions. So if you like my videos, you want to accelerate your learning and astrophotography quicker, consider joining over there on Patreon for as little as $1 a month. And again, the link is patreon.com slash nebulaphotos. Until next time, this has been Nico Carver. Clear skies.