>>3394092>>3394093Have you ever taken night photos in general?
While I won't deny that the stars move considerably in relation to their starting point during a 15/30/bulb second exposure, I typically wouldn't jump for whacking on the highest possible ISO; I tend to slow-cook instead.
That being said, the widest possible aperture (smallest f-number) with good infinity focus will give you the widest possible field of view and let in the most light. Considering its a 3mm difference in range for nearly $180 for an f/2.8, as
>>3394098 mentioned, the Tamron would be a good bet.
Spend the difference on a _very_ good tripod, and perhaps an antifog lens coating.
Also a 5L thermos, gloves and blanket. Rug up, anon, its cold in the desert, especially at this time of year.
