Aurora Borealis - I need the sharpest wide angle that is fast!

I'm going to Alaska to photograph the Aurora Borealis. I want the sharpest

glass in a wide angle lens that is also fast. I must have it sharp in the

corners stopped down no more than 2.0 If I don't have a body for it, I will

borrow one. Many people say get the Nikon 28mm 1.4 lens, even though they are

hard to find and VERY expensive! Regardless of price, I need a wide angle that

is very sharp in the corners wide open or at least by an f-stop of 2.0 in

Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss. Another issue is will I get better results shoot

digital or film? Average exposure is 30 seconds or so. As far as wide goes, I

do own a Nikon 17-35 2.8 and also Hasselblad 38mm Biogon, 60 CFE and 100 CFI,

but I don't think they are fast enough/sharp enough in the corners for this

project. For the price of a used mint Nikon 28mm 1.4 I can almost buy a Canon

35 1.4L and a Canon full frame 5D body! Thanks for your help :o)

FWIW, the '16-9.net' site has some fairly extensive wideangle reviews; the verdict is that the

Canon 24/1.4 is the best 24 mm lens available. Not sure about the 28-35mm range. You

can also see some useful lens tests on the PhotoZone site (they got pretty poor results from

the Nikon 28/1.4, but their tested sample had a centering defect).

 

For exposures out to 30 sec, digital works fine, especially compared to film at ISO 400-800

or so (at least, the Canon cameras I use do). For multi-minute exposures you may be better

off with film (less sensor noise) but I've little experience here.

If you want so save some money and can borrow a camera body consider renting a lens. Check lensprotogo.com or rentglass.com to see what's available.

When, by the way, are you planning on coming up to Alaska to shoot the aurora? If it is anytime soon you will find that you are roughly at least 3 months too early. (In Anchorage today (07/20) official sunset is 11:08 p.m.; twilight won't hit fully until an hour later with sunrise occurring shortly after 5:00 a.m. At this time of year the day lengthens approx. 5.5 minutes per day -- figure it out from there.)

 

As far as your question goes: unless a winter night sky is well lit up by the aurora (does happen depending on solar activity, but not that common), a lens wider than a 'normal' really won't be that useful a large part of the time -- a short to medium tele would be more appropriate in general.

I don't think you'll truly get sharp, coma-free point sources in the corners with any lens at f2.0. I've used my EOS 35mm/1.4 quite a bit for starscapes. At f1.4 the corners fall off and have a bit of coma and CA, at f2.0 it's pretty great but stars in the corners are definitely not points like they are in the center.

<p>

At 30sec/35mm, motion blur is visible at pixel-peep levels but prints well. As you go wider, you can get away with a longer exposure and slower aperture. I get more or less the same amount of perceptible star blur at 35mm/f2.0/30 sec as 15mm fisheye/f2.8/60 sec, and equivalent exposures.

<p>

If a fast, really wide angle view is what you need (I have no idea about the best focal lengths for aurora) seems like the EOS 24mm/1.4 is the only game in town.

<p>

I never tried getting stationary starscapes on film, but I can't believe you could do better than a 5D at 1600 with fast glass. I'm still learning how to handle these in post processing, but some examples if I may indulge myself:

<p>

<center><img src="http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2006%2007-04%20-%20Mt.%20Whitney%20and%20Eastern%20Sierra,%20CA/slides/IMG_9204%20denoised.jpg">

<p>

5d, 24-105 at 28mm/f4/30sec/1600

<p>

<img src="http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2006%2007-04%20-%20Mt.%20Whitney%20and%20Eastern%20Sierra,%20CA/slides/IMG_9219.jpg">

<p>

5d, 24-105 at 24/f5.6/30sec/400 (predawn light)

<p>

<img src="http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2006%2008-26%20-%20White%20Mountain%20Peak,%20CA/slides/IMG_0263.jpg">

<p>

5d, 35mm 1.4 at f1.4/24sec/1600 (light pollution from Bishop CA was totally invisible to the naked eye)

<p>

<img src="http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2006%2010-15%20-%20Fall%20colors%20in%20the%20Eastern%20Sierra/slides/IMG_2396.jpg">

<p>

5d, 15mm fish at 2.8/44sec/1600

<p>

<img src="http://andyradin.com/3%20-%20Photoblog/2007%2006-17%20-%20Cottonwood%20Lakes/slides/20070616-IMG_3187.jpg">

<p>

5d, 15mm fish @ f2.8/59sec/3200

Beautiful, Andy!

This is a model of what a thread ought to be. Bravo. I'm going to wait a bit and archive it for the swell advice. Andy's shots are stunning and I can't wait to get somewhere I can see the sky and apply his suggestions.

forgot to add - the first one (5d, 24-105 at 28mm/f4/30sec/1600) was way way too dark and really suffered in post processing. even at this size you can see some faint banding that came out with the exposure boost it needed. f4 and 30 seconds is not enough at 1600, but f4 and 60 seconds will be blurry.

 

I've found it pretty hard to get these kinds of photos to work with the 5D's 3200 setting, the black backgrounds turn to color splotches that are hard to get rid of without wrecking the lovely colors in the stars. Hopefully someday there's a 5D mkII that has a clean 3200 so I might just get away with my light f4 zooms, rather than have to haul my heavy fast prime lenses into the backcountry.

Thankyou all for responding to my situation at hand. Will someone please let Andy borrow a Canon 24 1.4 so we can see what that will do also? Thanks for the images Andy. Sorry it took me so long to respond, it seems I had a "semi-senior momement" and forgot I asked the question! LMAO!!! For the record I will be up in Alaska the 2nd week of September.

I'm late to the party, but thought I would add my two cents. I am aurora-obsessive, you might say, and it gives me an excuse to go outside during those frosty Interior Alaskan nights during winter.

 

Film versus digital? FILM. I prefer Fujichrome Provia 400, although Velvia 100 pushed two stops is pretty darned nice. Digital's downside is incorrect color saturation and noise, the latter being far more problematic than film grain.

 

Wide angle lens? I use 20 and 28mm Canon FD, both f/2.8, and they are just fine. Normal exposure (depending on brightness of display) is 15-20 seconds. Star field sharpness is not hyper-critical using 35mm and a super wide angle lens. With my 645, however, the results can be much more dramatic, and I tend to be more critical of tiny aberrations in sharpness.

 

If you drop me an email, I'll be glad to send you a write-up on photographing the aurora.

 

Have fun.

Canon 24mm 1.4 is next on my list :)

I use a 24mm F1.4. I agree that Digital does some weird stuff to the color saturation, but I shoot it digital anyway (5D). Film is nice because there can be no contesting to what was actually captured (on the slide) verse what was post processed into place.

 

F2.8 at 15-30 seconds may work, but I prefer faster. If I could afford an F1.2 lens I would. You get more defination with faster Iso (why I like digital, it is cleaned here) and shorter shutter speeds. I prefer under 10 seconds if I can. This one was 6 seconds I believe.