Wide Angle Lenses & Nothern Lights

sarahhj

sarahhj

Messages
453
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
No
I am planning a trip to Iceland in October and thinking about what to do regarding lenses.

We are really hoping to see (and photograph, of course) the northern lights (and probably some star trails / milky way), but I don't feel I have a suitable lens. My 17-40 f4L probably isn't fast enough, and I don't currently have an alternative.

I have been thinking about the 24mm f1.4L II :love: as it would cover low-light situations and should be good in general for daytime lanscapes.

I don't really think I can afford to buy this though, so would consider renting it. My biggest fear is that I going to see a spectacular difference between it and the 17-40 when shooting at f11 to f16 and just not want to hand it back. Will this be the case? :shrug:

Can anyone offer any alternative suggestions? Should I be looking at a different focal length (on a 5D2)? Any views on Zeiss? :help:
 
Samyang 14mm f2.8 for wide angle? Manual focus, but you'd do that anyway for the Northern lights. Cheap enough and would complement your 17-40L. Maybe a bit wide though. Don't forget your 5D2 is one stop better than most APS-C cameras in noise performance - doubling ISO will get you twice the light - so F4 "becomes" f2.8.

I doubt the 24 will be THAT much better at narrow apertures....
 
I presume this is a bit of a one-off trip. In which case you might as well get the best for the job that you can afford, otherwise you'll be left thinking "I wish I'd plumped for the better lens" when you can't do anything about it.

I'd recommend buying one second-hand if you can find one and selling later if need be rather than renting, as you'll probably spend less money overall.

And nope, I'm not willing to sell you mine ;)
 
I am in a similar boat (haven't booked anything yet) and I can see how 17-40 and its usable f/8 - f/11 aperture won't cut the aurora. The closest to usable I have is 24-70mm f/2.8L except that 24mm is it's weakspot (heavy focus field curvature) - so 28-35mm f/2.8.

So I can see three options:
* 24 1.4 II like you mentioned. I'd like to see if f/1.4 is any good and if not what is good at that price...
* 24 TSE II - only f/3.5 but it is quite a lens at that. It would get plenty of use elsewhere too
* Zeiss 21/2.8 or some adapted fast Olympus OM fast wide glass.
 
Thanks for all of your replies.

The trip will probably be a one-off. I have had some success shooting star trails in America where we were able to avoid light pollution, using the 17-40 at f4. In general though, it doesn't form the basis of my photography and I can't see us re-visiting dark skies for some time, following the Iceland trip.

It looks like the 24 1.4L II will be the best option, so I shall keep my eyes peeled in the classifieds. I might even be better off buying new and re-selling it, rather than hiring.

DoctorBob... I appreciate you aren't willing to sell... so how about a free loan for a couple of weeks ;)
 
I've bought the samyang 14mm for my pending Iceland aurora trip. It cost me £220 secondhand.
I also have the zeiss 21mm and although its an expensive lens, I've noticed that you can now hire this from' lenses for hire' ;)
 
canon_togger said:
I've bought the samyang 14mm for my pending Iceland aurora trip. It cost me £220 secondhand.
I also have the zeiss 21mm and although its an expensive lens, I've noticed that you can now hire this from' lenses for hire' ;)
Click to expand...

I've just read a couple of reviews of the samyang (nikon version) which weren't great- are they wrong? (Don't mean that to sound funny btw!! :) )
 
Last edited:
I think you'll be fine with the 17-40 f/4 but you might find the FAQ over a timescapes a good place to start. Many of the faster lenses people use for star shots end up being stopped down for performance.

Certainly my 17-40 was just fine for capturing star trails and the milkyway in the South of France earlier this year. With regards to noise, take a look at Deep Sky stacker or something similar if you want clear star shots, its like noise processing turned up to 11.
 
Darthchaffinch said:
I've just read a couple of reviews of the samyang (nikon version) which weren't great- are they wrong? (Don't mean that to sound funny btw!! :) )
Click to expand...

I havent tested it for myself yet, but sample shots I've seen look good.
I'll report back when I get the chance to try it out properly :)
 
I had a wobble over both a s/h 24mm 1.4 II and a new I version. I managed to hold back from purchasing either... just!

Bennp2000... I have taken good star trail shots on the two occasions I tried this (one shortlisted in the APOTY!) with the 17-40. Even if I didn't shoot a 24mm wide open, I could get an extra couple of stops from it and still get a similar sharpness (or better) to the 17-40 at f4 I think.... I'm going to ponder on this some more as I don't want to be throwing money around if it's not needed, and I'm not in a rush. I'll have a look at the deep sky stacker you mention!
 
Since you've already mentioned hiring, Sarah, I think it's safe to offer my 2p worth without seeming like a shameless tout...

A couple of weeks ago I met a customer who'd just got back from a northern lights trip to Iceland. He had hired a 24mm f/1.4 L and a 14mm f/2.8 L and of course I asked him how he got on with them. He and his girlfriend were both shooting with Canon crop bodies (7D and 60D if I recall correctly); he preferred the 14mm but she preferred the 24mm. My interpretation of this is that they both have their uses; the 14 is better if the aurora is extensive, and the 24 is better if the aurora is faint.

(Most guides tell you that you need a wide and fast lens, but thy don't usually give much guidance regarding quite-wide-and-very-fast vs quite-fast-and-very-wide.)

A few days later I relayed this to another customer who was going to Norway. He owned a Canon 10-22mm, which is f/3.5 at the wide end, but he was starting to get concerned that it wouldn't be fast enough. He was looking at the Sigma 10mm f/2.8 fisheye and the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L. However I suggested to him that the extra ½-stop they would give him wasn't a big deal, but the 2½ stops he'd get with the 24mm f/1.4 L might make a big difference.

When he got back, this is what he said:
I can't thank you enough for convincing me to go with the 24mm 1.4.

My 10-22mm @ 3.5 just didn't cut it. We didn't see massive amounts of northern light acitivty, but of what we did see your lens performed well. Even taking long exposures at 2.8 / 800 ISO didn't do the job very well.

Everybody else I was with didn't get any decent pics, so again, thanks!
Click to expand...

If I were going, I would definitely take a 24mm f/1.4. I might not need it, but if the display is faint then it's probably the only solution.

Hope this helps.
 
Hi Stewart,

Thanks for the input... One way or another I am sure that a 24mm 1.4 will be in my camera bag for this trip! Of course I have already checked out your prices ;) Do you have more than one copy of the II version?
 
Well the samyang 14mm was ok for the money I suppose, sharp enough in the centre but the distortion in the corners annoyed me a bit and the focus scale was pretty useless.
So......I sold it on and today I took delivery of a shiny new canon 24mm F1.4 L ii from Kerso.
Expensive lens but I think its going to be worth it, especially for northern lights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top