@JGagnePhotos - welcome! :)

Love the color combo in your capture!

You're lucky to be living someplace where catching the Auroras is not a rarity, I bet you get lots of practice on the subject! :)

4 hours ago, NightSky said:

Get one with a built-in hook/ loop on it, like those magnets people use for magnet fishing. Then you can tie a cord between a tripod and the magnet.

Mine is a tabletop version with Bluetooth trigger remote ( dirt cheap but robust). So that won’t work. Permanent magnets the way to go, with the added bonus of drawing those ions away from @JessicaF and her truckloads of magnets in New York state she hides. 🤣🤣

1 hour ago, NightSky said:

@JGagnePhotos - welcome! :)

Love the color combo in your capture!

You're lucky to be living someplace where catching the Auroras is not a rarity, I bet you get lots of practice on the subject! :)

Thanks! I am lucky to be able to catching around 20 nights of aurora each year

1 hour ago, JFGagnePhotos said:

Thanks! I am lucky to be able to catching around 20 nights of aurora each year

Yeah, that would be a dream come true for me. In the last 13 months or so I've caught a little more than a handful, but I'm guessing just three were actually visible for naked eye.

6 hours ago, JFGagnePhotos said:

My first post here. I live in Quebec, Canada and for my photos, I almost never have a lower shutter speed than 10 seconds. Most of the time, I took my photos between 6 to 8 seconds. I go between 800 to 3200iso.

As for my gear I use a Canon R6 with three lenses: 12mm f/2.8 fisheye, 15-35mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/1.4

Here an example:

Beautiful! Oh, the power of latitude. The aurora must have been pretty bright because the lights around the houses in the foreground are not as overexposed as they would be at my place, LOL What WB setting do you use? I am guessing around 3800K?

1 hour ago, JessicaF said:

Beautiful! Oh, the power of latitude. The aurora must have been pretty bright because the lights around the houses in the foreground are not as overexposed as they would be at my place, LOL What WB setting do you use? I am guessing around 3800K?

Thanks! Since I shoot Raw, I ajust the WB in post processing. For this one, 4600k

1 hour ago, JFGagnePhotos said:

Thanks! Since I shoot Raw, I adjust the WB in post processing. For this one, 4600k

You have your camera set to "auto" WB? Does this create a problem when you do sequences / animations? The image looks way cooler than 4600K to me. Regardless, the colors and development are done very tastefully!

1 hour ago, JessicaF said:

You have your camera set to "auto" WB? Does this create a problem when you do sequences / animations? The image looks way cooler than 4600K to me. Regardless, the colors and development are done very tastefully!

By default, my camera is set on auto WB, but since I shoot in RAW format, it doesn't matter. Thanks for the colors! I am almost color-blind, sometimes it's hard for me ;)

Here another example: I always drag up a little bit the WB in post-processing, it helps a lot for the colors. I almost never play with the saturation/vibrance

1 hour ago, JFGagnePhotos said:

By default, my camera is set on auto WB, but since I shoot in RAW format, it doesn't matter. Thanks for the colors! I am almost color-blind, sometimes it's hard for me ;)

Here another example: I always drag up a little bit the WB in post-processing, it helps a lot for the colors. I almost never play with the saturation/vibrance

Gorgeous pano of the full oval! Is this a pano or taken with your fish eye? BTW, any idea why there is often deep red on the left, western end? During this last storm, I caught a weird discoloration in the west end (WNW from my location). I am guessing it is an overlap since I am looking at the oval tangentially (?)

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/SWL/m1.jpg

Ditto on not using vibrance/saturation sliders. There is enough color up there already.

2 hours ago, JessicaF said:

Gorgeous pano of the full oval! Is this a pano or taken with your fish eye? BTW, any idea why there is often deep red on the left, western end? During this last storm, I caught a weird discoloration in the west end (WNW from my location). I am guessing it is an overlap since I am looking at the oval tangentially (?)

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/SWL/m1.jpg

Ditto on not using vibrance/saturation sliders. There is enough color up there already.

It's probably a mix of colors too: red glow oxygen and green glow oxygen. The red one is behind, as it should be higher, and the green one is closer, as it is formed from below.

You're making me want to splurge on a good camera 😄

9 hours ago, JessicaF said:

Gorgeous pano of the full oval! Is this a pano or taken with your fish eye? BTW, any idea why there is often deep red on the left, western end? During this last storm, I caught a weird discoloration in the west end (WNW from my location). I am guessing it is an overlap since I am looking at the oval tangentially (?)

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/SWL/m1.jpg

Ditto on not using vibrance/saturation sliders. There is enough color up there already.

Nice shot! I've seen this before and I don't know how to explain it. But, sometimes, I saw the same thing happen on the East end. I'll post a photo later on.

As for the other photo, it was a vertical pano of about 6 to 8 shots if I remember correctly

7 hours ago, Samrau said:

This is how I take photos in the warmth, comfort and while sipping coffee. The camera is controlled with a smartphone, and I have a lens heater to prevent fogging. If I'm going to take a lot of photos, I use a PowerBank with a special adapter, which is installed in the camera instead of the battery. It is desirable to have a separate high-capacity PowerBank for the heater, as it consumes a lot. You should know that the car shakes in strong winds.

That security camera is your advanced detection, correct? That's smart.

18 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Mine is a tabletop version with Bluetooth trigger remote ( dirt cheap but robust). So that won’t work. Permanent magnets the way to go, with the added bonus of drawing those ions away from @JessicaF and her truckloads of magnets in New York state she hides. 🤣🤣

Don't get a magnet fishing magnet! It will damage your hood when you try to pull it off.

Get two or three (one for each leg) with about 15-20 pounds of force and that should be plenty. Put a piece of paper in-between the magnet and the hood so that you don't scratch it.

21 minutes ago, Cations said:

That security camera is your advanced detection, correct? That's smart.

Yes, I have two of these cameras Hikvision DS-2CD2087G2H-LIU. One I had on the roof of the house, the second I took with me and went 50 km away from the city to compare how the images turn out in the city light and in ideal field conditions, well almost - tractor driver plowing the field all the time blinded me).

In the field: https://rutube.ru/video/private/4a5b8e01390d97563549e85e2d11c280/

In the city: https://rutube.ru/video/576b76ce383d3666ee3ca24f2681f0ba/

The settings were identical. As you can see, the colors were more saturated and bright in the distance from the city light. https://community.spaceweatherlive.com/topic/3519-ip-cameras-for-sky-surveillance/

And this is a timelapse on a Canon 2000D with a Chinese diagonal fisheye. 3200/6s/F3.0/AWB. I think I should have set the shutter speed to 8-10 seconds and reduced the aperture: https://rutube.ru/video/b878d31448de5a802fcf348936b3a58b/

13 hours ago, JFGagnePhotos said:

By default, my camera is set on auto WB, but since I shoot in RAW format, it doesn't matter.

If you were shooting sequences to make a time lapse, it would matter because the camera could change the WB between shots depending what it was seeing.

But if you never shoot long sequences / time lapses, then you can manage it as is.

4 hours ago, NightSky said:

If you were shooting sequences to make a time lapse, it would matter because the camera could change the WB between shots depending what it was seeing.

I suffered from AWB changes: my aurora frames would change balance depending on their intensity, this caused color changes. When I created timelapse videos, I had to tweak the colors of individual frames. And other off-the-shelf white balance modes didn't work for me. After reading the posts above, I started looking for my manual mode to choose the optimal value. It turns out that the manual mode implies adjustment by the reference frame. I.e. choose the best photo of the northern lights and use its data for white balance.

I'm wondering what lens to get next. I currently have the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II and the 24-105 f4

I'm considering:

Sony 24mm f1.4 GM

Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM II

Sony 24-70mm f2.0 GM

Any suggestions?

The wider the better, the lower f the better 😇. So 16-35mm sounds nice but might see if there is something with lower f.

For example I’m using a Sigma 18-35 f1,8 (amazing lens 🥰)

4 hours ago, Cations said:

I'm wondering what lens to get next. I currently have the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II and the 24-105 f4

I'm considering:

Sony 24mm f1.4 GM

Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM II

Sony 24-70mm f2.0 GM

Any suggestions?

I would go with the wide angle. The other are essentially copies of what you already have. You can compensate for a smaller aperture by increasing ISO or exposure but you cannot do anything if you need to be wider.

4 hours ago, JessicaF said:

I would go with the wide angle. The other are essentially copies of what you already have. You can compensate for a smaller aperture by increasing ISO or exposure but you cannot do anything if you need to be wider.

Thank you!

8 hours ago, Cations said:

Thank you!

I am looking forward to seeing your sequences and aurora images you got earlier this month! Off to a conference now.

On 6/16/2025 at 8:41 PM, JessicaF said:

I would go with the wide angle. The other are essentially copies of what you already have. You can compensate for a smaller aperture by increasing ISO or exposure but you cannot do anything if you need to be wider.

So what would I get/be able to do going from 24mm 2.8 to 24mm 1.4?

Could I get more detailed auroras? Could I decrease the exposure time (currently I have been going with 4 seconds) and that gets more detailed auroras?

It is my understanding that the larger aperture will allow me to capture more satellites that are too faint to see otherwise.

Not really going for bokeh with pictures of auroras and stars.

I saw the review that the astrophotographer (who's dead now) did on the lens and it looked good but expensive (Sony 24mm 1.4 GM)

The Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II has been good for me, so I think the 16-35mm 2.8 GM II should be good too. But it is only 2.8.

I'm not real keen on the third party lenses, people post good results and they are certainly cheaper, but the counter I've read is they don't always focus well.

Maybe I should rent the lenses to see what results I get.

It's an expensive purchase so I want to make sure I get it right.

52 minutes ago, Cations said:

So what would I get/be able to do going from 24mm 2.8 to 24mm 1.4?

Could I get more detailed auroras? Could I decrease the exposure time (currently I have been going with 4 seconds) and that gets more detailed auroras?

It is my understanding that the larger aperture will allow me to capture more satellites that are too faint to see otherwise.

Not really going for bokeh with pictures of auroras and stars.

I saw the review that the astrophotographer (who's dead now) did on the lens and it looked good but expensive (Sony 24mm 1.4 GM)

The Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II has been good for me, so I think the 16-35mm 2.8 GM II should be good too. But it is only 2.8.

I'm not real keen on the third party lenses, people post good results and they are certainly cheaper, but the counter I've read is they don't always focus well.

Maybe I should rent the lenses to see what results I get.

It's an expensive purchase so I want to make sure I get it right.

As with all complex things, the answer is "it depends". There is more to a lens than focal length and aperture, such as optical defects, from which astigmatism is the most concern for us (stars sharpness towards edges). Weight and size also matter as we travel and hike with lenses. Do you plan on using it for other purposes or just the aurora? Generally, great astrophotography lenses make great aurora lenses as both are used for low light imaging.

Another important factor is how big the aurora is. Is it a May 10 / Oct 10 level or a horizon show? Are you in CT or in northern Maine or even more north? If the aurora is big, you will be wishing for as wide a wide angle as possible to scoop it up and you will not frown at f4.

Third, what is the end use of your images? Do you print large prints or do you just share resized JPEGs with your friends? If you go with large prints (and printing is another layer of difficulty), the requirements on the lens and the development magnify by a huge factor.

You can compensate for a lens that is not too wide by doing a pano and stitching. However, if the aurora morphs fast, that pano may not come out that great, and you might even have issues with stitching (and you must level your tripod with a leveling head). Thus, since you already have a solid 24mm lens, I would invest in a wide angle for bigger shows or when / if you decide to spend some time more north.

f 2.8 is not bad at all IMHO. 1.4 would be better in that you can, as you said, decrease the exposure or ISO and enjoy sharper aurora (avoid "motion blurr") or less noisy images. I would look at how sharp the lenses are at the edges.

Hope it helps.

1 hour ago, JessicaF said:

As with all complex things, the answer is "it depends". There is more to a lens than focal length and aperture, such as optical defects, from which astigmatism is the most concern for us (stars sharpness towards edges). Weight and size also matter as we travel and hike with lenses. Do you plan on using it for other purposes or just the aurora? Generally, great astrophotography lenses make great aurora lenses as both are used for low light imaging.

Another important factor is how big the aurora is. Is it a May 10 / Oct 10 level or a horizon show? Are you in CT or in northern Maine or even more north? If the aurora is big, you will be wishing for as wide a wide angle as possible to scoop it up and you will not frown at f4.

Third, what is the end use of your images? Do you print large prints or do you just share resized JPEGs with your friends? If you go with large prints (and printing is another layer of difficulty), the requirements on the lens and the development magnify by a huge factor.

You can compensate for a lens that is not too wide by doing a pano and stitching. However, if the aurora morphs fast, that pano may not come out that great, and you might even have issues with stitching (and you must level your tripod with a leveling head). Thus, since you already have a solid 24mm lens, I would invest in a wide angle for bigger shows or when / if you decide to spend some time more north.

f 2.8 is not bad at all IMHO. 1.4 would be better in that you can, as you said, decrease the exposure or ISO and enjoy sharper aurora (avoid "motion blurr") or less noisy images. I would look at how sharp the lenses are at the edges.

Hope it helps.

Thank you!

I really want both of course. I want an f1.4 for a low light as I can get. I want a wide angle for when the next May 10, August 8, October 10 pops up. Or if I travel to a dark sky site.

I really want the f1.4 for as good as I can get low light, mostly I'm shooting from my porch with terrible light pollution (I'm offering my neighbor $200 to contribute to get his dawn to dusk lights on motion sensors). Will shooting wide open at 1.4 here get more light in so I can pickup the faint auroras better? I guess that's the main thing I want to know. Will it reduce the noise in the images I can capture at f2.8?

https://www.alphashooters.com/cameras/sony-a7iv/best-lenses/

Says

"The image quality of this lens is truly remarkable, maintaining exceptional sharpness throughout the frame even when used at its widest aperture of f/1.4. It boasts excellent control over distortion and coma, making it a superb choice for astrophotography."

The review on YouTube by Alyn Wallace (he's dead now) says it's great, a little vignetting at the edges but still great. Everything is sharp. Mostly I'll use it for astrophotography and auroras (are they really separate?).

The wide angle I'll use for all the same purposes. Since I haven't used wide angle before I don't know if I will be happy with the distortion it will introduce or if I'll be happy with it.

Maybe I should bite the bullet and just get both. Seriously expensive for me (some it might not be a big deal).

Thank you again for your suggestions. I really appreciate it. I'll figure it out soon enough.

Hopefully before the next storm, which will hopefully be soon...

You can always check lens reviews of pro sites like dpreview. They get into detail of how well the lens performs when aperture is open wide. Some lenses even though they have a low aperture value underperform (especially in the corners). Each lens has its sweet spot where it all is perfect, if that sweet spot is at low aperture value it will sure perform great.

With some of the sigma lenses you can even calibrate them to get the best out of your lens.

I also shoot with Sony and will say that my most-used lens for aurora the past couple years, including trips to Alaska and Churchill as well as at home in northern Utah, is the 14/1.8 GM. If you are going to be far north, especially under the aurora oval, or shooting during a very intense storm I would go as wide as possible. For that I either use the already mentioned 14 GM, or the optically even-better Sigma 15/1.4 Art Fisheye (superb astro and aurora lens, trickier to compose, too large to travel with most of the time).

When shooting from lower latitudes (I'm in northern Utah) and not quite as strong of a storm I'll go a bit longer. I've found 20mm to be my preference for this lately (I'm using the Sigma 20/1.4 dg dn, but the Sony 20/1.8 is probably the better lens overall if you don't mind the slightly slower speed and lack of some astro-friendly conveniences). I also have the 24/1.4 GM, and it is one of my favorite lenses for general non-aurora use. I especially like the rendering for environmental portraits. It does well for aurora, but I do find myself wanting wider most of the time.

The new Sony 16/1.8 G also looks interesting, but I don't have experience to share with that one.

If you prefer trading speed for zoom versatility the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN ART (or the very expensive Sony 12-24 GM) is worth considering over the 16-35 GM II for astro in my opinion unless you need filter threads.