The 14-35 is simply too slow, I would not consider that.
The 16/2.8 is pretty good for an "always in the pocket" lens. Also for aurora you shockingly don't need the fastest lens because you have a tripod (unless you're shooting aurora from a plane, like I do). Aurora is less about speed than you think, in contrast to a normal "new moon starry night landscape" shoot. That's where the super fast lenses really come in handy.
The 20/1.4 is brutally sharp and small. I love it for that. But the 14 will give you twice the sky (by area), which may or may not be something to consider. Having used both for "starry night" shoots, the 14 wins every time because I get more sky. But on the occasions that I can't or don't want to lug the big 14 around, the 20 is a great little lens to have in the pocket. It's decidedly sharper than the 16/2.8, but it's also about 3x the size.
On speed, I'd read that aurora is exactly when speed counts bc you want to get the sharp striations, so like 2s or under. That's why I was struggling with the 1.4 vs 1.8.
Well yes speed matters but not to the point of f1.8 or 1.4. That difference should be your last consideration between the two lenses. Size, weight, cost, focal length are much more relevant.
I would suggest also looking at the Samyang 14mm F2.8 lens. Not as fast as the Sigma, but very compact and I've been able to do some nice starscapes with it on Maui. Looking online, people also seem to have had good success using it for Aurora shots. Good luck!
In terms of speed, what are the faster shutter speeds that you use for aurora's and what % of the time are you using those? Meaning if 1.5 seconds, is that 10% or 90% of your shots.
Camedia74 wrote:
In terms of speed, what are the faster shutter speeds that you use for aurora's and what % of the time are you using those? Meaning if 1.5 seconds, is that 10% or 90% of your shots.
From the airplane, less than 2s 100% because "the ground" is moving. From the ground, 15-30s will be just fine. Flickr is a fantastic resource for that as you can view thousands of images with metadata embedded.
I found f/2.8 was fine for aurora. 14mm is great if the aurora is filling the sky. 20 or 24mm is better if the aurora is closer to the horizon. If I was making an aurora trip (like I did last year), I would take both.
In my case I brought the Sigma 14/1.8 and the RF 15-35 f/2.8. I primarily used the zoom.
I would recommend the RF 20 1.4. It's a great lens all around, close focus, good colors, and so sharp it easily bests my 24 ts-e. Also, the best night sky lens I have used (I have not used the sigma 14 1.8).
I don't have either of these lens. I used Zeiss 25/2 and Zeiss 15/2.8 for aurora. I have shot lots in Whitehourse Yukon which is just south of the aurora belt. But here are my thoughts.
Range - I personally have found the 25mm range more used than 15mm. 15mm will give you a big sky but I have just found the aurora usually more confined. 15mm from my experience is less likely to be used unless there is a really intense aurora. 15mm is more challenging if you are bothered (I am ) by bent trees. Then you need a fast shift lens or throw away 1/2 the mpx and make it level. 25mm results in less bowed trees and less mpx thrown away.
Lens speed - typically I have found that a sharp f2.8 or f4 is okay because with my R5, I get pretty good pictures up to iso 3200 or 6400 with some noise adjustment. What's critical is that if you want bigger less defined 15s ( f4/ 1600) is fine but if you want it more crisp 2s is better (f2.8, f2). But this as well will depend on the aurora intensity. Eg iso 6400 is okay. 2s crisp. 10-15s is okay for less defined.
Not mentioned in your post is that one of the challenges is that many lens have poor coma (spots elongated and blurred) at edges. I have always looked to lenstip.com to find good lens for avoiding same. The Tamron 15-30? 2.8 does a good job at this. My Zeiss are pretty good. My point is to find a measure of coma so you are not surprised. Dxo might have some measurements too.
Another challenge is finding focus at night. I like my Zeiss because the infinity is very near the hard stop. [I have had to recalibrate the EF lens after putting on an adapter with tape and a marker.] But all non hard stopped are harder to focus because it's so dark and hard to focus at infinity quickly. Just make sure you put painters tape on, and focus at infinity and mark it so you can quickly focus.
Thanks for sharing, an interesting perspective. People seem to always recommend going as wide as possible, like 14mm, but I see your point about distortion. Also good to know you get 2s with the 2.8
In general aurora tends to be wide as in 21-15mm FF wide. This helps with keeping the stars spotty, at 2-4s and ISO at +-3200. I even took out my old Sigma 8mm FF fisheye with good results one time last winter when the whole sky was in flames. The colours were spectacular and I wanted it All and got it.
I was actually surprised by how well the fisheye did, in most all possible ways. This was partly due to the centre of the action being straight up. But the freeform nature of aurora also helps. No one will criticize aurora for being out of shape. On the contrary, the worse the better!
If you plan to have some architecture or mountains in the foreground a narrower angle of view may be preferable. Aurora is not very cooperative in that regard though and vigilance is of essence, especially if itīs of the fast kind.
It illustrates that
- f2.8 and f4 are okay, particularly on a really bright/strong night.
- hi iso eg 10,000 yields pretty good
- shift lens result in non distorted trees.
- you don't have to spend huge money to get aurora
This was on a brilliant night in Banff National Park.
It illustrates that
- f2.8 and f4 are okay, particularly on a really bright/strong night.
- hi iso eg 10,000 yields pretty good
- shift lens result in non distorted trees.
- you don't have to spend huge money to get aurora
This was on a brilliant night in Banff National Park.
Camedia74 wrote:
wow, beautiful pictures. hope I get see that someday - incentive to keep trying.
My other tips is that
Whitehorse and Yellowknife [and Churchill] are quite easy to reach (737 out of Calgary) and are very near the centre of the aurora belt.
[Whitehorse is as good as Sveldvard but still requires a good aurora forecast. And Churchill is better than Norway for polar bears in Oct/Nov and Mar (babies emerge)]
[Iceland is pretty cheap for airfare too and easy to find dark night areas]
Go when the moon is not up on the night you go. Moon light is a killer
The university of Alaska Aurora forecast is my go to for predicting good days.
Go when the forecast is for clear skys and moon on opposite side from night time
