What lens for the Aurora Borealis - ultra wide or ultra fast?

StewartR

StewartR

Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
I've never seen the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) myself but I get a lot of people asking for advice regarding which lens to use. And I'm never quite sure what to tell them. Can anyone who's been there and done that help me out?

All the recommendations I've seen say you should use a lens which is wide and fast, but they don't say how you should trade off wideness against fastness.

I've looked at loads of aurora photos on Flickr and tabulated their EXIF data. It seemed to me that wideness was much more important. If your lens is only f/3.5 instead of (say) f/1.8 then you can give it a longer exposure or shoot at a higher ISO setting; but if it's not wide enough then you have no workarounds. That makes sense to me - but is it right?

I'd really like to hear from people who HAVE photographed the aurora.
 
Not done it myself but I would have thought that long exposures would be needed to capture the Aurora. My only basis for that is look at the Aurora photo backdrop on vista - it's a long exposure (look at the star trails).

I think I would opt for the wider the better for the same reason you've put and as I would be getting some landscape in there too I would want to have a bit of DoF anyway so probably shooting at f5.6 - f8. But as i said what do I know :shrug:
 
SimonTALM said:
My only basis for that is look at the Aurora photo backdrop on vista - it's a long exposure (look at the star trails).
Click to expand...
I haven't seen that one myself, Simon - never used Vista - but can you be sure it's not a composite created for artistic effect?
 
Have never tried to shoot it, but did see it for myself several years ago, on a trip to the ice hotel in Sweden. I seem to recall it being very wide to view, and moving quite quickly. This was long before I'd picked up anything other than a bog standard point and shoot, so wasn't looking at it from that POV.

The other half has just described it as, "glancing away and back again totally changed the view". Guess it was indeed moving quickly.
 
Ive been told your exposures should only be up to about 10 seconds to avoid a big blur rather than the defined colours you get with the lights as they move quite fast but, I'd say ultra wide is more important.
12-24 or 10-20mm for DX. Stick your ISO up until you get below 10 seconds for the exposure.
 
I used my 17-40 F4 at the 17mm end, manual focus on infinity, ISO around 800 with a shutter speed of anywhere between 10 and 20 seconds. Camera was a 5D mk1. The only problem I had was that the longer exposures created little star streaks.
 
It's been 7 years since I went to Iceland and shot the aurora. I used a Nikon bridge camera with a 24mm (equiv.) lens. Results are here. I would say that width is most important - with 24mm (equiv.) being just at the long limit. If I were to go again (or, when I go again) I'll be using my Tokina 11-16mm at f2.8. If I didn't have that I'd use my 10-22.

You don't really want too long an exposure - anything from 10 seconds (at 20mm) to 20 seconds (at 10mm). Longer than this and you'll start seeing the stars trailing and the movement of the aurora will blur out any fine detail.

Try to get something in the foreground - the more dramiatic the better.

Finally, if you're going on a trip with lots of people be aware of the inevitable idiots. We had lots of people whipping out their P&S cameras and trying to capture the aurora - with flash! The only other serious photographer and I had to wade through knee-deep snow to get away from them.
 
low aperture, sub 20/25 secs to minimise star trails, high ISO - guess it'll be similar to astro togging :)
 
Srewart, there's a feature in this week's AP on shooting the Auroras - probably worth a look. Suggested lenses are fast and wide which doesn't really help you much. It also suggests shortish exposures to avoid stars trailing, so maybe faster than wider if that makes sense. The 2 lenses named are both Nikkors - the 17-35 f/2.8 and the 14-24 f/2.8.
 
For canon's either of the following, for FF.

14mm F2.8
15mm F2.8
20mm F2.8
16-35mm F2.8

For crops its harder but maybe the 8-15mm F4 is the best of the bunch?
 
A decent tripod should be your priority. Depending on the intensity of the northern lights , you will be looking at 30+ second exposures. The Northern Lights aren't at their most potent right now . I saw them in Tromso last March. Awesome to see but virtually impossible to capture.
 
Moonrakerz said:
We are booked on a Saga cruise to see (hopefully !) the Northern lights.
Came across this in my research:-

http://www.alaskaphotographics.com/how_to_photograph_northern_lights.shtml#where
Click to expand...
That is an EXCELLENT reference. Thanks very much.

erding said:
This may be of interest to you Stewart:

http://www.my-photo-blog.com/how-to-photograph-the-aurora-borealis-northern-lights
Click to expand...
Cheers Tom, that's very helpful. But I think Moonrakerz has trumped you!
 
hollis_f said:
It's been 7 years since I went to Iceland and shot the aurora. I used a Nikon bridge camera with a 24mm (equiv.) lens. Results are here. I would say that width is most important - with 24mm (equiv.) being just at the long limit. If I were to go again (or, when I go again) I'll be using my Tokina 11-16mm at f2.8. If I didn't have that I'd use my 10-22.

You don't really want too long an exposure - anything from 10 seconds (at 20mm) to 20 seconds (at 10mm). Longer than this and you'll start seeing the stars trailing and the movement of the aurora will blur out any fine detail.

Try to get something in the foreground - the more dramiatic the better.

Finally, if you're going on a trip with lots of people be aware of the inevitable idiots. We had lots of people whipping out their P&S cameras and trying to capture the aurora - with flash! The only other serious photographer and I had to wade through knee-deep snow to get away from them.
Click to expand...
Cheers Frank. Very helpful.
 
Yup, Amateur Photographer. Cover date 11th December 2010, Hit the shelves yesterday.
 
Yep, wide as you can - they can spread over the whole sky if you're far enough north and they also change very quickly so as short an exposure as you can manage. I.E. as fast a lens as you can manage and higher ISO. Dark skies are best - no light pollution and no moonlight.

The displays vary greatly in character too - some are a lot more photogenic than others.
 
StewartR said:
I've never seen the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) myself but I get a lot of people asking for advice regarding which lens to use. And I'm never quite sure what to tell them. Can anyone who's been there and done that help me out?

All the recommendations I've seen say you should use a lens which is wide and fast, but they don't say how you should trade off wideness against fastness.

I've looked at loads of aurora photos on Flickr and tabulated their EXIF data. It seemed to me that wideness was much more important. If your lens is only f/3.5 instead of (say) f/1.8 then you can give it a longer exposure or shoot at a higher ISO setting; but if it's not wide enough then you have no workarounds. That makes sense to me - but is it right?

I'd really like to hear from people who HAVE photographed the aurora.
Click to expand...

Stuart, surely the best lens is the one which makes you the most money??!??

Only joking, I know that you want to give the right advice to keep people coming back to you, which is better business.

I would have thought, as you, the wider the better.
 
lawrie29 said:
Stuart, surely the best lens is the one which makes you the most money??!??
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha.

Actually, the way I've structured our prices is so that the rate of return the business earns is pretty much independent of which lens someone hires or for how long. And we don't make any margin on delivery or insurance. So the ONLY thing that matters is what's best for the customer, since we are completely indifferent.

... Which is why I have to ask questions like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top