Lens choice for Aurora Borealis

Kondwani

Kondwani

Messages
53
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the following lens choice for capturing the Aurora Borealis on a forthcoming visit to Tromso but not sure which of my lens will give the best chance of achieving some reasonable shots should the AB make an appearance. I will be using a Canon 7D Mkii . All comments welcome but I'm not looking to buy another lens. Thanks
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 DC HSM
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC
Tamron 16-300mm f3.5-6.3
 
The one with the widest aperture, from your list, that's the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5. But I would suggest you'd be better off with the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 (constant). Photographing the aurora you need as much light gathering ability as possible with the widest aperture you've got. You could also go down the route of buying a Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual focus lens just for the aurora, then flog it afterwards (AF is pointless anyway as you just focus on infinity and leave it).
When I was in Norway a few of years ago, I tried to photograph it, but didn't manage it very well due to having to borrow a tripod, not getting clear of light pollution, not having a fast enough lens. My best shot (which wasn't great) was at f2.8, 5sec exposure and ISO 2000 (which on the 60D I was using, was rather noisy).
The Sigma 10-20 f3.5 might work ok, but it might be too wide, in which case you might lose the aurora and it'll look too small.
The Sigma 17-70, stick it at 17mm to keep it wide open at f2.8. Good aurora shots need some landscape to give it scale.
I wouldn't bother with trying the Tamron, as it's a superzoom, it's not going to be as sharp as the other two.

Before you go, install one of the Aurora Watch apps on your phone which will notify you when the aurora is going to be at it's best. So you don't bother leaving your accommodate and getting cold for no reason.
 
Thanks for your comments all of which are taken on board.
My first intention was to take the 10-20 until I realised the 17-70 was faster and all that I had read was that I should go for the fastest possible. If space / weight will allow I might take both or investigate the prime lenses mentioned.
 
If you do think about purchasing one specifically, you could also look at the old Sigma 20mm f1.8, which would be wide, but not too wide on crop and get you a lot more light than the f2.8 zoom. But you're looking at £200ish second hand. ebay link
The Samyang (aka Rokinon/Walimex) 14mm might be cheaper: see ebay but you can't easily fit filters to it if you wanted to use it for any landscapes.
Those are the ones I would be looking at anyway.
There's also a Canon 20mm f2.8 but that's £300 or more s/h. Or the Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 but again that's way more expensive.
Alternatively, look at the Canon 24mm f2.8, it's an EFS fit pancake lens, but at £100 it's worth a thought. It'll also give you a fast-ish small prime lens, equivalent to a 35mm field of view.
Or there's the Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC. Loads of extra light capability there, and the older version is less than £200, but it's not so wide.

Lots of options in fact, if you have a little budget. In your situation, I'd be tempted to sell the Tamron 18-300 to buy one of these.
 
As wide and as fast as possible. The Aurora is a fickle beast at the best of times and if it shows for you might be a flicker in the distance or a full sky overhead. What I would say is that once you've made your lens choice, stick with it rather than mess around with lens changes in the cold. I'd go for the 10-20 in your shoes and I'd have a play before hand to see how high an ISO still gives results that aren't too noisy, remembering that a slightly (or even very!) noisy image is better than a very blurry or no image. Most importantly, don't forget to use your Mk I eyeballs and watch the display - a few photos will then serve as a reminder for your memories of the show.
 
ABTog said:
If you do think about purchasing one specifically, you could also look at the old Sigma 20mm f1.8, which would be wide, but not too wide on crop and get you a lot more light than the f2.8 zoom. But you're looking at £200ish second hand. ebay link
The Samyang (aka Rokinon/Walimex) 14mm might be cheaper: see ebay but you can't easily fit filters to it if you wanted to use it for any landscapes.
Those are the ones I would be looking at anyway.
There's also a Canon 20mm f2.8 but that's £300 or more s/h. Or the Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 but again that's way more expensive.
Alternatively, look at the Canon 24mm f2.8, it's an EFS fit pancake lens, but at £100 it's worth a thought. It'll also give you a fast-ish small prime lens, equivalent to a 35mm field of view.
Or there's the Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC. Loads of extra light capability there, and the older version is less than £200, but it's not so wide.

Lots of options in fact, if you have a little budget. In your situation, I'd be tempted to sell the Tamron 18-300 to buy one of these.
Click to expand...

With respect a 24mm lens on a crop body is the equivalent of 38mm; probably too long for most aurorae unless they are very far north........
 
I'd take the 10-20 and leave the others unless you want a backup lens

There's only 2/3rds of a stop difference between the 10-20 at any focal length and the 17-70 at wide end.

at 10mm you can have an aurora exposure before star trails of around 500/(10*1.6)= approx 30 secs
at 17mm you can have an aurora exposure before star trails of around 500/(17*1.6)= approx 18 secs

So in terms of light getting in you're looking at losing the 2/3 stop aperture advantage at the wide end of the 17-70

probably equal then unless it's compositional choice in which case add the 17-70 as a backup but be prepared for shorter shutter speeds as you increase the zoom, e.g. at the 70mm end you're at a shutter speed around 5 seconds and at f4.5 before star trails
 
definitly a Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual focus!
I got unlucky i had one which couldn't focus as far as infinity as my only reason to buy it was for northern light/ milky way it was a reel pain. But i think in 99% of the case it's the best lens for the job. It's way cheaper that any lens with same focal and apperture and the result are as good,

Jim_Tod said:
I'd take the 10-20 and leave the others unless you want a backup lens

There's only 2/3rds of a stop difference between the 10-20 at any focal length and the 17-70 at wide end.

at 10mm you can have an aurora exposure before star trails of around 500/(10*1.6)= approx 30 secs
at 17mm you can have an aurora exposure before star trails of around 500/(17*1.6)= approx 18 secs

So in terms of light getting in you're looking at losing the 2/3 stop aperture advantage at the wide end of the 17-70

probably equal then unless it's compositional choice in which case add the 17-70 as a backup but be prepared for shorter shutter speeds as you increase the zoom, e.g. at the 70mm end you're at a shutter speed around 5 seconds and at f4.5 before star trails
Click to expand...

If you are picky and you look close up 30 second is really the max you can get, 20 second is better.
 
A second hand Tamron 14mm is arguably better, is cheaper and has the advantages of AF and auto aperture over the Samyang's fully manual operation. Might have to wait a while for one to show up anywhere though.
 
Yes, hence my post #6. Post #10 was in answer to post #9.
 
Yes a little naïve of me to believe in a straightforward answer but thanks everyone for their input and especially Jerry and Nod for your comments.
The cost of a new lens would just about pay for a couple of meals out in Tromso, so it's a toss up whether we go hungry and I get good photos or I keep the peace with my other half ( ps. I know the answer to that !!).
Seriously though , I accept that my existing lens (10-20mm) may not be the fastest and I may not get professional quality photos but as Nod commented they will be as a reminder should we be fortunate enough to see the Northern Lights, and the lens should serve me ok for other landscapes during the trip.
 
I would think that you should be able to capture it ok with your 10-20mm lens at F3.5 ok yes a faster lens would be better but I have managed to capture the Aurora off the NE coast in the UK fine using my kit lens at F3.5 yes my results weren't as good as some of my friends but I was still happy with them
 
It all depends on the strength of the Aurora. I've used an old sigma 10-20, samyang 24/ f1.4 and a 16-35 /f4 with good results
 
Among the most memory jogging shots we got on an Iceland trip a few years back are the ones Mrs Nod snapped using a Fuji X-20 compact braced against a fence - slightly soft focus, camera shaky and motion blurry but great as a memory jogger. The ones I got with a D750 and a fisheye might be technically better but the snaps are as "good" in a different way.
 
For the aurora, you ideally want a lens which is wide and fast. You know that. But if you have to choose between wide or fast, I'd recommend wide every time.

If you see a good display, even your 10-20mm lens might not be wide enough to do it justice. I'd rather have 10mm f/3.5 than 17mm f/2.8 any day.
 
If it helps I took this on the Moray coast maybe 18 months ago. CAn't find the origina;l at the moment but it will be either the 16-35f4 or 24-105f4 on full frame amd wide open.

A half decent show of the aurora and a clear night in Tromso and your 10-20 f3.5 will be fine. No mater how fast your lens, it wont deal with the clouds any better

Bird s*** Rock Aurora 2 by Jim Tod, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top