I'd choose the glass which best fits the purpose; brand is irrelevant. There are dozens of characteristics of glass which can be critical or irrelevant; it depe

I'd choose the glass which best fits the purpose; brand is irrelevant. There are dozens of characteristics of glass which can be critical or irrelevant; it depends on the application. The choice of glass like Arri or Zeiss is often made to achieve a certain aesthetic which is desirable in creative film-making. In this case, the only thing that matters is a specific subset of technical requirements, particularly due to their stitching workflow. I can only guess at their decision-making process but it clearly wasn't "hey let's get the cheap stuff". I suspect they considered properties like: — Corner sharpness — Distortions — Fringing — Spherical, lateral and axial aberrations — Chromatic aberrations — Flare — Coma — Haze / local contrast — Vignetting — Aperture blade configuration — Diffraction — Mechanical stability — Focus rigidity in the face of extreme g-forces — Copy-to-copy consistency That said, I suppose it's possible that the people who actually pulled off this incredible feat, and produced the objectively stunning output shown in the article, know less about what they're doing than l33tbro on Hacker News. (By the way, did you know that for astrophotography, some of the best glass is made by Samyang, Tokina and Sigma? These brands make exceptional glass, even if their marketing department isn't as well staffed as Zeiss.)