Best lens for shooting the 'Aurora borealis' Northern Lights

ndwgolf

ndwgolf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,692
Name
Neil Williams
Edit My Images
No
Guy's
I am going to be shooting the 'Aurora borealis' next year and want to know which would be the better lens to use out of these two lenses;
I have the Nikon 14/24 f2.8 or the 24mm f1.4
Tips advice on shooting these 'Aurora borealis' would be much appreciated
 
Both lenses are great for that, but if i were you i will go with 14-24, this lens is a gem, nie for Aurora and more, landscapes in general, while with 24mm even it is a fast prime but i will look for wider many times if i shoot outdoor or some landscapes, if you want something cheap then look for Samyang 14mm, or Nikon 14-24 and Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f1.4, Sigma has 24mm that is not much expensive and it will be a good addition to Nikon 14-24.
 
TareqPhoto said:
if you want something cheap then look for Samyang 14mm, or Nikon 14-24 and Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f1.4, Sigma has 24mm that is not much expensive and it will be a good addition to Nikon 14-24.
Click to expand...
Im not looking to buy anymore lenses I already have the two lenses mentioned above, I was just looking to see which one would be best f1.4 or f2.8
 
I used my Sigma 12-24 on my 5D3 off Greenland recently and got some good results. I used it wide open, manually focussed on infinity, ISO 400 for 25 or 30 seconds. You may want to play around a little with those settings: the ship's photographer had suggested ISO 100 and 15 seconds but I got next-to-nothing so went back to what I had used on a previous trip.
 
Ah sorry, i thought you don't have, ok, then from those two i will go with 14-24
 
digital said:
I used my Sigma 12-24 on my 5D3 off Greenland recently and got some good results. I used it wide open, manually focussed on infinity, ISO 400 for 25 or 30 seconds. You may want to play around a little with those settings: the ship's photographer had suggested ISO 100 and 15 seconds but I got next-to-nothing so went back to what I had used on a previous trip.
Click to expand...
Did you get your pictures off the ship or on land........ Just thinking about the ships movement with a 20 plus second exposure???
 
daugirdas said:
Take both. At 24mm you will certainly want to use that prime.
Click to expand...
I want to but I am already taking a bunch of other gear so trying to take just what I need but knowing me I will end up taking both...................main reason for taking the old lady is to utilize her hand carry allowance :) :) :) :)
 
If you want to take photos wider than 24mm, then take the zoom. If you want to take photos at 24mm, take the prime.

The prime will give you more options with exposure and shutter speeds. The aurora isn't very bright, so a wider aperture will give you more to play with. The zoom of course will give you more options for composition.
 
ndwgolf said:
Did you get your pictures off the ship or on land........ Just thinking about the ships movement with a 20 plus second exposure???
Click to expand...


I think I'd want this one question answering before thinking about anything else.
 
Last edited:
On the ship surely a no-no. You need to be on a tripod on solid ground.

Keep exposure times to 20 secs. max - anything more than that and you're pushing the limits of getting sharp stars due to their movement in the sky becoming visible in images over 20 seconds exposed.

I used my 16-35/4 and got acceptable results over there. I wanted the 2.8 though to keep the ISO as low as possible. The 1.4 would of been even better of course. Fortunately now I also have the new 20mm 1.8G which is an absolute gem of a lens. I'll use that on the next trip.
 
P.S. just pop your 24mm in your pocket :)
 
It depends on what you're shooting in the foreground and how much of the sky is covered with the Aurora. I used a 16-35 f4 & a 24 f1.4, if I could only take one it would be the 24 f1.4 to keep the shutter speed lower (to reduce the ISO / avoid tails on the stars)
 
14-24 all the way. Even 14mm might be too narrow an FoV.
 
ndwgolf said:
Did you get your pictures off the ship or on land........ Just thinking about the ships movement with a 20 plus second exposure???
Click to expand...
On the ship, which was anchored off Ittoqqortoormiit.

I'm starting to build a new website at www.longhaultyke.uk and the first, very random images, including some Northern Lights are on there. Only some cropping, nothing else...
 
Me² said:
. Fortunately now I also have the new 20mm 1.8G which is an absolute gem of a lens. I'll use that on the next trip.
Click to expand...
Looking at some reviews of this lens I think I will get this and leave the bigger 14/24 at home...........I like Prime lenses :)
 
ndwgolf said:
Looking at some reviews of this lens I think I will get this and leave the bigger 14/24 at home...........I like Prime lenses :)
Click to expand...
Love the speed but not wide enough for me I had the samyang 14mm and wanted more!
 
I'm getting lots of my mates telling me to forget the 20mm f1.4 and use my 14/24 F2.8
I'm confused I thought the idea was a faster lens will be better???????
 
The faster lens means you can use shorter exposure times but the zoom will give you more flexibility in composition. My own preference would be for the 24mm 1.4 - with this you could even take multiple shots to composite together (making up for the tighter focal length) and the wide aperture collecting more light is more valuable. If you absolutely can only take one, I'd go for the faster glass.
 
ndwgolf said:
I'm getting lots of my mates telling me to forget the 20mm f1.4 and use my 14/24 F2.8
I'm confused I thought the idea was a faster lens will be better???????
Click to expand...

Put it this way, 1.4 (even though the 20 is 1.8 - but only a small difference) to 2.8 is what, 2 stops? So that's the difference between shooting at around ISO 6400 and shooting at or nearer ISO 1600. Depends on how good your body is, but I know where I'd rather be - especially at night with lots of darks in the frame.

Jayst84 said:
It's personal preference, I'm sure you've owned and used enough gear - including fast, exotic primes - to come to a decision.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
ndwgolf said:
I'm getting lots of my mates telling me to forget the 20mm f1.4 and use my 14/24 F2.8
I'm confused I thought the idea was a faster lens will be better???????
Click to expand...


Sort of depends what type of shot you're after. If you want the curtain type effect, you'll probably need a few seconds of exposure time but if you get a particularly vivid display, you might want to freeze it and just get the ribbon(s). Since you probably won't be after particularly fine details, don't be afraid to up the ISO and deal with any excessive noise in PP (if necessary.) I used 3s for the fisheye shots and about 60s for the 14mm one in THIS SET IIRC.
 
ndwgolf said:
I'm getting lots of my mates telling me to forget the 20mm f1.4 and use my 14/24 F2.8
I'm confused I thought the idea was a faster lens will be better???????
Click to expand...

I invariably used the wide end of my 12-24. The aurora stretched a long way across the sky and missing any more of it than was absolutely necessary wasn't an option.
 
There is no quick and easy answer to your dilemma. There are different styles of aurora photography - some try to cram in as much of the aurora as possible whilst others find the composition is more powerful if you zoom in a little and have less sky but projected against a fantastic foreground feature. Only you can decide. I would suggest you look at some aurora images ( on something like 500px etc) and look at the meta data too see what lenses were used. Once you find a style you like you can then try to match your lens focal length, f number etc to what you need to succeed. For example, I prefer to sometimes shoot at focal lengths longer than 24mm and f number of f4 or even more. You may like what I do, you may not, but the choice must be yours.
Hope that helps
James
 
I was in Iceland earlier this year and caught a great aurora (KP3) . Using Canon 17-40L and I wished I had a wider lens, the display covered the sky horizon to horizon. My advice is take the zoom! I'm off again at the end of this month and have a Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye and a 16-35 f4 L, hopefully I'll get another display like the last one.
 
ndwgolf said:
I wonder if stitching software could get a pano.......probably not but knowing me I will try :)
Click to expand...
I have successfully stitched aurora panoramic images - depends on the aurora. Some aurora are fast moving and others are more slower - the latter are very suitable for a pano project. Also, you can try focus stacking if you find an interesting foreground object - David Clapp has some info on his site about focus stacking during an aurora display.
However, if this is your first time seeing an aurora can I suggest you don't make things too complicated and just focus on finding a great location with the aurora acting as a backdrop to the scene. If your first clear night has no aurora then use that time to practice getting ultra sharp night shots of the stars. Lastly, enjoy it !
James
James
 
24mm 1.4L is the way to go. I know this from experience having also used 14mm 2.8 (both samyang)
The 1.4 is 2 stops faster so at same iso you're looking at something like 6 secs versus 24 secs exposures. You get less noise, less blur, sharper stars and can take more images.
The aurora are miles away from you so you don't need ultra wide as much as you might think, and you can't shoot them all at once so concentrate on getting decent composition and shooting the best parts of them.

An example at 24mm f1.4

887318_577087928983010_966489499_o.jpg
 
Nod said:
14-24 all the way. Even 14mm might be too narrow an FoV.
Click to expand...
madmackem said:
Using Canon 17-40L and I wished I had a wider lens, the display covered the sky horizon to horizon.
Click to expand...
I would agree with these two. I went to Norway last year with a Canon 17-40L and a Canon 15mm fisheye, and when the aurora came out the 17-40 quickly went into the bag.

However....
canon_togger said:
... concentrate on getting decent composition and shooting the best parts of them.

An example at 24mm f1.4

887318_577087928983010_966489499_o.jpg
Click to expand...
This is persuasive, assuming you get a good aurora in a good location with compositional opportunities.
 
Last edited:
digital said:
Is that straight out of the camera, or has it been processed?
Click to expand...

Well as soon as you convert from raw to jpeg its 'processed' so yes its been processed.
Or did you actually mean to ask how much pp has been done?
 
Why not put the two lens on your two bodies ? Your not going to want to be changing lenses once your outdoors.
I would personally take with me the Nikon AFD 16mm f2.8 full frame fisheye lens.
I find set up correctly you get very little distortion that can if needed be easily corrected in P.P. :)
 
digital said:
Of course, that's a 'given'.



Yes, that was the question I asked.
Click to expand...

Its probably easier if I post a screenshot. This was shot in 2013, one of over 100 shots taken that night in Lofoten standing almost knee deep in snow and with a wireless remote in my gloved hand. Turns out this was a 4 sec exposure @iso2000, I mainly open up raw files with acr in ps6 and move the sliders to bring out the elements that the raw file has captured e.g. shadows, highlights etc until I like how it looks.

Here's a screen grab of the acr that will give you a better idea of what I mean.
image.jpg


After that I would have cloned out the 'blobs' in the lake and likely sharpened the hills if needed. Then resize and save.
That's pretty much my workflow most of the time.
Feel free to ask any questions.
 
ndwgolf said:
Guy's
I am going to be shooting the 'Aurora borealis' next year and want to know which would be the better lens to use out of these two lenses;
I have the Nikon 14/24 f2.8 or the 24mm f1.4
Tips advice on shooting these 'Aurora borealis' would be much appreciated
Click to expand...

You've already been given some good advice re lenses (I used a 10-24mm up in Finland), but I can give you some practical tips. I presume you'll be going in the winter?

- A solid, sturdy tripod (without this even the best lens is a non-starter since you'll be either in bulb mode or taking long exposures)
- Spare batteries fully charged before you set out (they drain very, very quickly in the extreme cold)
- A pen light to fiddle around with camera settings
- Gloves that are easy to remove, preferably ones with removable mittens because it's going to be bloody cold
- Remote shutter release

I realize that some of this advice is mundane, but is necessary when trying serious photography at -25C. It you get a good show, then I think a 14-24 f/1.4 mm should be a brilliant choice. You won't need anything longer.

Good luck.
 
Put one in your pocket and take both.
The biggest bit of advice I will give is to be fully prepared to get nothing at all night after night! We did eventually get a show on two nights but we had to stay up all night for one of them and it wasn't the most spectacular show ever! Also don't underestimate the power of a good foreground in your shots, it can make the diff between a "oh it's another boring horizon and lights shot" or an amazing photo imho.
 
canon_togger said:
24mm 1.4L is the way to go. I know this from experience having also used 14mm 2.8 (both samyang)
The 1.4 is 2 stops faster so at same iso you're looking at something like 6 secs versus 24 secs exposures. You get less noise, less blur, sharper stars and can take more images.
The aurora are miles away from you so you don't need ultra wide as much as you might think, and you can't shoot them all at once so concentrate on getting decent composition and shooting the best parts of them.

An example at 24mm f1.4

887318_577087928983010_966489499_o.jpg
Click to expand...
It's a lovely picture but do you not have a nagging thought about if it would look even better with more aroura? [emoji12]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top