Possible Northern Lights lens?

We are booked to fly to Iceland in April and there is a chance we may see the light show, so I am wondering which lens I should take/loan/buy. I know light is important but all my lenses are f4. Currently thinking about the 16-35 mkII as a do all solution, one lens for all landscapes. But would one need something like 24mm f1.4 for night skies?

I shoot Canon but wonder if the Nikon 14-24 might also be an option?

Thanks

A faster lens is definitely better. Most experienced Aurora shooters shoot with f/2.8 or faster lenses. You can put a Nikon 14-24 on a Canon body with an adapter and many do that as it is a superior lens to the Canon 16-35. But if you don't want to go that route, the Canon 16-35 II is definitely a viable option.

Fast primes are even better as they tend to be a little sharper at the wider apertures. You can shoot an f/1.4 lens at f/2.8 and be pretty close to optimal optics while most f/2.8 zooms doesn't come into it's own until f/5.6. At f/2.8, the difference between a good fast prime and a zoom is pretty stark in most cases. But there certainly ahve been many great night sky photos taken with fast zooms.

I don't have any experience shooting Northern Lights, but I recently purchased a 24-70ii and hope to do night sky photography with it. It's VERY sharp at f2.8 and if you don't need to go wider then 24mm then it might be a great option for you. Also in my opinion it is a fantastic landscape lens... which might come in handy in Iceland.

Depending upon your body the Zeiss 21mm maybe a good candidate.  Not as versatile as the zooms, but the image quality is great.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1257307/0

I would suspect that the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art lens would be one that meets your needs, as it comes in a Canon mount.

signgrap wrote:I would suspect that the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art lens would be one that meets your needs, as it comes in a Canon mount.

Might be just a bit long for most Aurora photography though.  My personal favorite for this sort o thing is the Zeiss 25mm f/2

I' was on a special phototrip for shooting Northern Lights last February. For the most part I had used the Nikon 14-24mm/f 2.8 + Novoflex Adapter on the Canon 1Dx/5DIII. This zoom is the best option as for flexibility and corner sharpness. However, the adapter doesn't actually give you f/numbers...it just has indicators for wide open, halfway closed, and fully stopped down. The aperture adjustment is a bit awkward if you don't want to remove the gasket of the lens which is not necessary by using the newer versions of the Novoflex, though. You will have to shoot at f 2.8 most of the time anyway. I also had used the Canon 14mm II which is very good, too, but lacks the flexibility of the zoom, of course. My third option was the Canon 24-70mm/f 2.8 II which is excellent @ f.2.8 as others have said, but for shooting Northern Lights a lens with wider zoom range will be better most of the time. BTW, The 24mm/ f.1.4  (I have version I, though) needs to be stopped down to f 2.8 for acceptable sharpness - provided you will include the landscape and not just the display. So I would not recommend this lens, the more as the 24-70mm @ f.2.8 is at least on par optically if you want 24mm. The 24mm/f1.4 II is said to be a bit better than the version I, but I wouldn't go for that lens nonetheless just for shooting Northern Lights. The Zeiss 21mm/f 2.8 is a good option for sharpness, too, but for me the Nikon was more useful. It's almost as good as the Zeiss and has less corner shading @ f 2.8mm. Vignetting shouldn't be a big problem when shooting at night, of course and it can be removed in PS but nevertheless the fall off  towards the corners was very remarkable when including snow-covered landcapes.
 
Wolfgang  .

Hmm, had not considered the 24-70, could be useful. My problem with the Nikon is when shooting those amazing waterfalls, not being able to use my Lee kit would be a drawback.

The 24-70 is now 1900€
The 14 1.4 is over 2000€
The 24 1.4 is 1400€..... my goodness... cheapest option is 16-35 at 1300€. Although I can pick them up used under a grand.
Zeiss is raved about but wow, pricey too.
I am not going to hire a lens, finding a used one and selling it later if I do not need it usually works out cheaper. But I have some food for thought. thanks.

I would suggest the Samyang 14mm

My vote also for Samyang 14mm. 
I was in Iceland last summer and visited most major waterfalls. 14mm was my main lens with D800. Honestly, I bought that Samy just few time before trip, cause wanted a lens that can get some moisture and I would not feel sorry about it. That was a right decision: when you are walking closer to waterfalls and wind is from right direction, keeping front lens as clear is impossible. You need to wipe it after every shot with gloves or shirt. Making this for Samy does not feel so bad than making it for ultra sharp Zeiss I had also 24-70G with me, but used that prectically as 24mm and used occacionally.
What comes for auroras, usually they give you some light and thus f1.4-2.0 lens is not necessity. Shooting auroras is not so critical to fast lens than shooting starscapes.

Hi Neil,
What camera body will you be using? If full frame or 1.3x crop that gives more options.

The aurora cane be quite bright and then you can get good images with f/2.8 and even f/4 lenses. But often the aurora is not that bright and you need to shoot wide open with the fastest lens. Unless you are OK with trailed stars, you need to keep exposure times really short, about 8 seconds max with a 35 mm lens. In shorter focal lengths, I stick to f/2 and faster. (Would be nice to image at f/2 at 300 mm, but I probably couldn't afford it if it existed.) On a 1.3x crop or full frame, I recommend the Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 and use it at f/1.4. I also do mosaics to get a larger field of view, and that works most of the time unless the aurora is moving fast. The Canon 24 f/2.4 is OK at f/2, but still not great in the corners. There are many 24 mm f/1.4 nightscapes here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/ga ... ghtscapes/
plus other focal lengths. The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is sharp to the corners of a 1.3 crop body at f/1.4 and is much sharper at f/1.4 than is the Canon 24 f/2.4 (latest version). (Thanks EJ for pointing out the Sigma 35mm.)
Here is an image with the Sigma (not a mosaic, no crop):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/ga ... n4x4s.html
And this nightscape is a mosaic with the sigma 35mm:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/ga ... x8shs.html

Some references that may be of interest:

Nightscape Photography with Digital Cameras
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/nightscapes

The Color of the Night Sky
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/col ... .night.sky

Aurora Photography
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/aurora.photography

Roger

Neilyb wrote: My problem with the Nikon is when shooting those amazing waterfalls, not being able to use my Lee kit would be a drawback.

I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 too, and there is a solution to CPL and ND filters being used on this lens. the company is Fotodiox here:  

http://www.fotodioxpro.com/index.php/

And here's the page for the kits:  http://www.fotodioxpro.com/index.php/camera-photo-accessories.html?cat=26

I ended up getting just the basic kit (adapter, hood, cap, $199.) and added separately the CPL and straight ND filters (I don't use graduated) These round filters are 145mm round, so there's no vignetting on a full frame camera.

They even list an adapter to go from Nikon to Canon, but I have no idea if it's any good. However, I am happy with the quality of the build and the glass they offer.

With regards to the 24/1.4 options - I have recently considered this combination for Aurora shots. After seeing a lot of high recommendations for the Rokinon 24/1.4 for nightsky work due to low coma, I thought this may be "perfect" for Nikon FF nightsky/Aurora images. However, there were also comments about issues with quality control. In response to a similar question I recently posted this comment.

"I tried to love the Rokinon lens but after trying 3 copies I gave up. The first had a significant issue in one quadrant (everything was streaked). The second copy was "perfect" optically with only a trace of coma in the corners when shot wide open (less than the Nikon 14-24), however the focus had way too much free play in it making critical focusing almost impossible. The third copy had too much coma but nice focus action! I sure if I kept going eventually I would have got a performer but three times is enough. So I will stick to the Nikon 14-24 for night sky shots."

So for now I will use the Nikon 14-24/2.8.

I recently saw a post by E.J. where the Zeiss 25/2 was used for the Aurora, followed by a glowing recommendation. I have considered this lens although I am hesitant after my Zeiss 25/2.8 experience which exhibited too much corner distortion.

So a question for E.J. based on Full Frame image capture - I suspect you may have owned both these lenses and the Nikon 14-24/2.8, and if so, is the Zeiss 25/2 really that much better than the 25/2.8, remembering that while shooting the Aurora it would be nice to have "pinpoint " stars nears the corners if possible.

Also, how does the corner "star" sharpness appear for the Zeiss 25/2 compared to the 14-24/2.8 when shot at f/2?

The Zeiss lenses do not appear to be "weatherproofed" like the Nikon 14-24, have you found this to be an issue in damp or cold environments?

"The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is sharp to the corners of a 1.3 crop body at f/1.4 "

Roger I have read much of your interesting site over the years and was particularly interested in your nightsky images. After seeing your images and recommendations, I have been considering the Sigma 35/1.4 for nightsky images but wondered if you picked a 1.3x crop sensor for the advantage of cropping away the corners thereby "improving" corner performance. If this is the case, then it seems shooting with this lens on a D800 at 1.3 crop may be beneficial?

A follow up question for Roger - given the Sigma 35/1.4 is an AF lens, have you found the shorter focus throw to be a challenge for night sky photography? From your usage it appears to hold up well in colder environments, how about damp/rainy situations?

t6b9p wrote:A follow up question for Roger - given the Sigma 35/1.4 is an AF lens, have you found the shorter focus throw to be a challenge for night sky photography? From your usage it appears to hold up well in colder environments, how about damp/rainy situations?

I haven't used the lens in damp/rainy conditions.  I have used AF for indoor family pictures and it works great on my 1D Mark 4.  For night photography I use live view on a star to focus.  AF at the low light levels in night imaging is not accurate.

Roger

I have always been a fan of wiiiide, so I am thinking 35mm will not be wide enough. I already have a Lee kit and would not want to spend money on another filter kit, so the 14.24 will have to be out.

I am leaning towards the 16.35 still, the chance we see the northern lights in April is quite small I think so basing my trip and kit on that would be silly. As I am shooting 5DIII it should be plenty wide enough just that wide open it might not be brilliant. Ho hum....

Neilyb wrote:I have always been a fan of wiiiide, so I am thinking 35mm will not be wide enough. I already have a Lee kit and would not want to spend money on another filter kit, so the 14.24 will have to be out.

I am leaning towards the 16.35 still, the chance we see the northern lights in April is quite small I think so basing my trip and kit on that would be silly. As I am shooting 5DIII it should be plenty wide enough just that wide open it might not be brilliant. Ho hum....

Have you considered renting one of the options mentioned for this trip? Joerg

I have but like I said buying a lens used and selling later, if I do not like it, works out cheaper usually 14 and 24mm lenses seem to be going quite often here in Germany.

rnclark wrote:

t6b9p wrote:.....given the Sigma 35/1.4 is an AF lens, have you found the shorter focus throw to be a challenge for night sky photography?

I haven't used the lens in damp/rainy conditions.  I have used AF for indoor family pictures and it works great on my 1D Mark 4.  For night photography I use live view on a star to focus.  AF at the low light levels in night imaging is not accurate.

Roger

thanks Roger.

sorry now I re-read my question I realise I wasn't very clear - when inquiring about the short focus throw it was in reference to trying to MF with a short focus throw. As you are aware, some AF lenses are very hard to critically focus at night using MF due to limited focus ring rotation.

t6b9p wrote:I recently saw a post by E.J. where the Zeiss 25/2 was used for the Aurora, followed by a glowing recommendation. I have considered this lens although I 

The Zeiss 25/2.8 is considered to be one of the worst lenses in their lineup while the f/2 is a much newer design and is considered excellent.  They are nothing like each other and your experience with the 2.8 does not apply to the f/2 lens.  Completely different animals.

Additionally when you shoot the 25/2 at f/2.8 you are stopped down a stop compared to wide ope which is virtually always optically better.