6 hours ago, DavidS said:

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.

Thank you very much David! I am grateful for the perspective you provided.

When you shoot auroras, do you usually try to shoot wide open on the fast lenses? Or do you do something else (like stopping down the lens for some reason)?

Where I am (north east US) I'm thinking that I might be able to pickup more auroras if I can get the fastest lens I can. So I'm drawn to the f1.4 lenses.

17 hours ago, DavidS said:

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.

Have you ever used the Sony 12-24mm zoom?

I've looked at it, the lack of protection for the front element is a little scary (I always keep a high quality UV/scratch filter on my lenses at all times) but I could get over that.

What concerns me with any super wide angle lens is the distortion that comes with wide angle lenses. I've never used them, if I look at Sony's propaganda on it they try to say everything is sharp and not distorted but they use a super curved theater to do the zooms (which I'm sure is just a crop of the 12mm shot) so that the eye can't detect the fine detail of where the distortion occurs. Even with that when they use it for video the eye can tell there is distortion at times, but again since they expertly picked their shooting location it's very difficult to track and appropriately determine. They show a series of pictures (mostly outdoors) and never tell you what the focal length is (which could be 24mm).

Plus it's only an f2.8 (I know that it's ridiculous to think a zoom is going to get much better than an f2.0).

That's why I'm hesitant about that lens. I've looked at it for over a year.

It's also why I'm hesitant about the 16-35mm zoom (at least you can put a protector over the front element). I've never dropped a lens or camera before and knock on wood I hope I never do, but there's a reason why I keep all my phones in the most bullet proof case I can find....

Can you please expand a little more on what the "astro friendly conveniences" are that are lacking in the Sony 20/1.8 compared to the Sigma 20/1.4 dg dn.

Again thank you very much for all your help.

54 minutes ago, Cations said:

What concerns me with any super wide angle lens is the distortion that comes with wide angle lenses. I've never used them, if I look at Sony's propaganda on it they try to say everything is sharp and not distorted but they use a super curved theater to do the zooms (which I'm sure is just a crop of the 12mm shot) so that the eye can't detect the fine detail of where the distortion occurs. Even with that when they use it for video the eye can tell there is distortion at times, but again since they expertly picked their shooting location it's very difficult to track and appropriately determine. They show a series of pictures (mostly outdoors) and never tell you what the focal length is (which could be 24mm).

Plus it's only an f2.8 (I know that it's ridiculous to think a zoom is going to get much better than an f2.0).

That's why I'm hesitant about that lens. I've looked at it for over a year.

It's also why I'm hesitant about the 16-35mm zoom (at least you can put a protector over the front element). I've never dropped a lens or camera before and knock on wood I hope I never do, but there's a reason why I keep all my phones in the most bullet proof case I can find....

Can you please expand a little more on what the "astro friendly conveniences" are that are lacking in the Sony 20/1.8 compared to the Sigma 20/1.4 dg dn.

Again thank you very much for all your help.

There will always be distortion with super wide angles as you are projecting a 3D scene onto a plane. The question is more whether the lens is still rectilinear, i. e. mapping lines to lines. I am not familiar with SONY lenses, so I cannot give any advice. Ken Rockwell's reviews are among the best, if you want to look him up. Optical defects and distortion are now well corrected for with profiles in Lightroom, so I would not worry about it as much.

Astronomy has always had by far the more strict requirements for imaging quality. What @DavidS probably meant was that a good astro lens will also be great for aurora. Aurora will take imperfections very gracefully, btw, because of its nature. All lenses, especially wide angle lenses, will render less than perfectly towards the edges. And it is ok. The benefit you are getting is being able to scoop up more of the light show not to image star clusters or supernovae. The small imperfections will be visible only when you make very large prints, such as 40"x60". But even than, no one looks at them from 2" but from a distance.

I sell landscape images, some very large prints, and some have stars in them, so I know what I am talking about. There is no need to be so much concerned about distortion. What you want in your bag is lens diversity and avoid duplicates - just more weight to haul around. That 14mm f1.8 lens @DavidS mentions sounds like a great option to me. It is light, compact. Yes, you will need to be more careful about the front element but that's a small thing IMHO.

8 hours ago, JessicaF said:

There will always be distortion with super wide angles as you are projecting a 3D scene onto a plane. The question is more whether the lens is still rectilinear, i. e. mapping lines to lines. I am not familiar with SONY lenses, so I cannot give any advice. Ken Rockwell's reviews are among the best, if you want to look him up. Optical defects and distortion are now well corrected for with profiles in Lightroom, so I would not worry about it as much.

Astronomy has always had by far the more strict requirements for imaging quality. What @DavidS probably meant was that a good astro lens will also be great for aurora. Aurora will take imperfections very gracefully, btw, because of its nature. All lenses, especially wide angle lenses, will render less than perfectly towards the edges. And it is ok. The benefit you are getting is being able to scoop up more of the light show not to image star clusters or supernovae. The small imperfections will be visible only when you make very large prints, such as 40"x60". But even than, no one looks at them from 2" but from a distance.

I sell landscape images, some very large prints, and some have stars in them, so I know what I am talking about. There is no need to be so much concerned about distortion. What you want in your bag is lens diversity and avoid duplicates - just more weight to haul around. That 14mm f1.8 lens @DavidS mentions sounds like a great option to me. It is light, compact. Yes, you will need to be more careful about the front element but that's a small thing IMHO.

@Cations Yes I'm usually wide open for aurora. As @JessicaF mentioned aurora is more tolerant of imperfections than most forms of astrophotography and I prefer to keep both shutter speed and ISO down if I can.

I have not used the Sony 12-24 myself, just the Sigma alternative.

When I said the Sigma 20mm has more convenient features for astro than the Sony 20mm I really just meant some simple things like a raised ring to prevent a lens warmer from slipping forward and a focus lock switch.

On 6/21/2025 at 12:07 PM, 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.

On 6/22/2025 at 11:14 AM, JessicaF said:

There will always be distortion with super wide angles as you are projecting a 3D scene onto a plane. The question is more whether the lens is still rectilinear, i. e. mapping lines to lines. I am not familiar with SONY lenses, so I cannot give any advice. Ken Rockwell's reviews are among the best, if you want to look him up. Optical defects and distortion are now well corrected for with profiles in Lightroom, so I would not worry about it as much.

Astronomy has always had by far the more strict requirements for imaging quality. What @DavidS probably meant was that a good astro lens will also be great for aurora. Aurora will take imperfections very gracefully, btw, because of its nature. All lenses, especially wide angle lenses, will render less than perfectly towards the edges. And it is ok. The benefit you are getting is being able to scoop up more of the light show not to image star clusters or supernovae. The small imperfections will be visible only when you make very large prints, such as 40"x60". But even than, no one looks at them from 2" but from a distance.

I sell landscape images, some very large prints, and some have stars in them, so I know what I am talking about. There is no need to be so much concerned about distortion. What you want in your bag is lens diversity and avoid duplicates - just more weight to haul around. That 14mm f1.8 lens @DavidS mentions sounds like a great option to me. It is light, compact. Yes, you will need to be more careful about the front element but that's a small thing IMHO.

On 6/22/2025 at 7:35 PM, DavidS said:

@Cations Yes I'm usually wide open for aurora. As @JessicaF mentioned aurora is more tolerant of imperfections than most forms of astrophotography and I prefer to keep both shutter speed and ISO down if I can.

I have not used the Sony 12-24 myself, just the Sigma alternative.

When I said the Sigma 20mm has more convenient features for astro than the Sony 20mm I really just meant some simple things like a raised ring to prevent a lens warmer from slipping forward and a focus lock switch.

Thank you both for your help and suggestions.

I'm looking at the Sony 14mm 1.8 and 16mm 1.8 now. I'll probably get one of those two, but I'm going to look into the the Sigma art lens since it's 1.4. I think both of the Sony lenses are rectilinear and the Sigma is fisheye.

I know there are lots of lightroom corrections, but I don't use anything Adobe and I won't. So I won't have access to those tools. My guess is that if I stick to Sony lenses their software which I use to assemble my timelapses will also process their lenses such that it corrects for the distortion. However that Sigma lens is not Sony so I might be stuck with whatever comes out of the camera...

Again thank you for all the help.

I just found that one of my timelapses from June caught a starlink train zooming straight through the aurora. I'll have to post that one.

2 minutes ago, Cations said:

I just found that one of my timelapses from June caught a starlink train zooming straight through the aurora. I'll have to post that one.

Sorry to hear that Elon photobombed your time lapse. The trails can be easily removed.

I know what you meant :) and I said the above intentionally as I get those pesky satellite clusters in my images all the time to the point, it elevates my blood pressure as I get angry at this sky pollution.

2 hours ago, JessicaF said:

Sorry to hear that Elon photobombed your time lapse. The trails can be easily removed.

I know what you meant :) and I said the above intentionally as I get those pesky satellite clusters in my images all the time to the point, it elevates my blood pressure as I get angry at this sky pollution.

Yeah, I would prefer it didn't appear at all. But usually it's planes driving through.

Though some of mine have what must be satellites whipping through at seemingly blazing speeds. They go through so fast they are in only one picture in the timelapse followed by another whatever they are and then more that look like they cross paths so fast it's hard to believe it. They don't show up at any other place in the sky either.

I am really going to have to start posting some of these.

Tonight it's supposed to be clear so I'm going to try to drop my ISO to where most everything is dark and then bring it back up in post processing so I can try to get ready for doing it during auroras. I know you have encouraged me to try it. I do have a series of about a thousand shots I did this but I couldn't fix it in post. I might try again with them. But I want to try and get a fixed ISO to stop the flickering issue I have.

I remembered what you said about it and then started looking for details and was just reading about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sonya7iv/comments/1d3q77q/comment/mvhpu72/

I hope the small CME does something July 1st even though we're supposed to be cloud covered and thunderstorms when it's supposed to manifest.

I hope we also get a few more big events this year and we all have crystal clear skies.

20 minutes ago, Cations said:

Yeah, I would prefer it didn't appear at all. But usually it's planes driving through.

Though some of mine have what must be satellites whipping through at seemingly blazing speeds. They go through so fast they are in only one picture in the timelapse followed by another whatever they are and then more that look like they cross paths so fast it's hard to believe it. They don't show up at any other place in the sky either.

I am really going to have to start posting some of these.

Tonight it's supposed to be clear so I'm going to try to drop my ISO to where most everything is dark and then bring it back up in post processing so I can try to get ready for doing it during auroras. I know you have encouraged me to try it. I do have a series of about a thousand shots I did this but I couldn't fix it in post. I might try again with them. But I want to try and get a fixed ISO to stop the flickering issue I have.

I remembered what you said about it and then started looking for details and was just reading about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sonya7iv/comments/1d3q77q/comment/mvhpu72/

I hope the small CME does something July 1st even though we're supposed to be cloud covered and thunderstorms when it's supposed to manifest.

I hope we also get a few more big events this year and we all have crystal clear skies.

Oh, you shoot time lapses with auto ISO? That will cause flickering, indeed. For time lapses you want everything fixed, ISO and white balance, exposure, aperture. Variations in any of these can cause flickering.

Low orbit satellites can go quite fast. On a different note, there are geostationary satellites in the sky, and they appear as stars in single shots. However, if you shoot the sky, for example the Milky Way, people usually stack images to cancel out photonic noise (ISO noise). If you do this, then the geostationary satellites appear as mysterious short dashed-line segments in the stacked image because they hang in the sky in the same spot while the stars "move" due to Earth rotation. There is a cluster of them in Perseus, I recall (this would be the place where satellite antennas point). When saw them the first time, I was puzzled as to what those funny short dashed lines were :)

It does not look like the C4 CME will be anything but one never knows. The halo was supposedly very irregular, so being ready is probably a good idea. Good luck!

Edited June 29Jun 29 by JessicaF

On 6/29/2025 at 12:46 PM, Cations said:

I just found that one of my timelapses from June caught a starlink train zooming straight through the aurora. I'll have to post that one.

I also caught a couple trains, but the first ones passed over before the Auroras showed up and the 2nd set that passed over later went east of the Aurora --

On 6/29/2025 at 3:51 PM, JessicaF said:

Oh, you shoot time lapses with auto ISO? That will cause flickering, indeed. For time lapses you want everything fixed, ISO and white balance, exposure, aperture. Variations in any of these can cause flickering.

Yes, absolutely!

@Cations - do you have exposure smoothing available on your camera if yes, it will further help with getting a great time lapse.

Also -- (and yes I know I bring this up all the time) - if you can use DaVinci Resolve for editing, it has de-flickering for time lapses that works great. I do NOT remember, however, if it's available on the free version.

I use the de-flickering when I've only caught a time lapse with my GoPros - the quality on GoPro night time lapses is not great and with the de-flickering I can smooth it out a lot.

(If I shot a time lapse with my mirrorless camera it already had exposure smoothing on for the time lapse, so it's fine on that part).

On 6/30/2025 at 5:20 PM, NightSky said:

I also caught a couple trains, but the first ones passed over before the Auroras showed up and the 2nd set that passed over later went east of the Aurora --

Yes, absolutely!

@Cations - do you have exposure smoothing available on your camera if yes, it will further help with getting a great time lapse.

Also -- (and yes I know I bring this up all the time) - if you can use DaVinci Resolve for editing, it has de-flickering for time lapses that works great. I do NOT remember, however, if it's available on the free version.

I use the de-flickering when I've only caught a time lapse with my GoPros - the quality on GoPro night time lapses is not great and with the de-flickering I can smooth it out a lot.

(If I shot a time lapse with my mirrorless camera it already had exposure smoothing on for the time lapse, so it's fine on that part).

I don't know, I'll check on exposure smoothing.

On 6/29/2025 at 4:51 PM, JessicaF said:

Oh, you shoot time lapses with auto ISO? That will cause flickering, indeed. For time lapses you want everything fixed, ISO and white balance, exposure, aperture. Variations in any of these can cause flickering.

Low orbit satellites can go quite fast. On a different note, there are geostationary satellites in the sky, and they appear as stars in single shots. However, if you shoot the sky, for example the Milky Way, people usually stack images to cancel out photonic noise (ISO noise). If you do this, then the geostationary satellites appear as mysterious short dashed-line segments in the stacked image because they hang in the sky in the same spot while the stars "move" due to Earth rotation. There is a cluster of them in Perseus, I recall (this would be the place where satellite antennas point). When saw them the first time, I was puzzled as to what those funny short dashed lines were :)

It does not look like the C4 CME will be anything but one never knows. The halo was supposedly very irregular, so being ready is probably a good idea. Good luck!

I should have bought the lens last week, Sony just jacked the prices a few hundred dollars on all their lenses and cameras.

On 6/29/2025 at 4:51 PM, JessicaF said:

Oh, you shoot time lapses with auto ISO? That will cause flickering, indeed. For time lapses you want everything fixed, ISO and white balance, exposure, aperture. Variations in any of these can cause flickering.

Low orbit satellites can go quite fast. On a different note, there are geostationary satellites in the sky, and they appear as stars in single shots. However, if you shoot the sky, for example the Milky Way, people usually stack images to cancel out photonic noise (ISO noise). If you do this, then the geostationary satellites appear as mysterious short dashed-line segments in the stacked image because they hang in the sky in the same spot while the stars "move" due to Earth rotation. There is a cluster of them in Perseus, I recall (this would be the place where satellite antennas point). When saw them the first time, I was puzzled as to what those funny short dashed lines were :)

It does not look like the C4 CME will be anything but one never knows. The halo was supposedly very irregular, so being ready is probably a good idea. Good luck!

Actually BandH just dropped the price on the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM II lens, do you think 2.8 is low enough?

I'm dying to get an f1.4 (even an f1.8 would be great because it is a full stop lower than anything I have).

I am also starting to look at some Sigma lenses which have low f stop ratings, like zooms in the 16mm range with 1.4 or 1.8 f stop ratings, they are cheaper and are tempting me. I just don't know if I trust them. The main drawback is that people say they are heavy (I don't really care) and have no ability to use the in camera IBIS (but I'm shooting auroras on a tripod, so that should not matter much).

1 hour ago, Cations said:

I'm dying to get an f1.4 (even an f1.8 would be great because it is a full stop lower than anything I have).

Do not try to overthink it too much. If I hear a savvy photographer saying that this one lens is the most frequently used lens for auroras as well as landscapes, this is strong enough of a recommendation for me to give it a shot. I mean the 14/1.8 GM recommended by @DavidS. Ken Rockwell says that it "handles great, optically near perfect". https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/14mm.htm

BTW, by far the bigger impact on the images you take will be your willingness to drive away from light pollution than the difference between f1.4 or 1.8.

1 hour ago, Cations said:

I don't know, I'll check on exposure smoothing.

I should have bought the lens last week, Sony just jacked the prices a few hundred dollars on all their lenses and cameras.

Actually BandH just dropped the price on the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM II lens, do you think 2.8 is low enough?

I'm dying to get an f1.4 (even an f1.8 would be great because it is a full stop lower than anything I have).

I am also starting to look at some Sigma lenses which have low f stop ratings, like zooms in the 16mm range with 1.4 or 1.8 f stop ratings, they are cheaper and are tempting me. I just don't know if I trust them. The main drawback is that people say they are heavy (I don't really care) and have no ability to use the in camera IBIS (but I'm shooting auroras on a tripod, so that should not matter much).

@Cations I quickly grabbed some examples with the lenses you were considering that I've personally either owned or rented for aurora (Sigma 14/1.4, Sigma 15/1.4 Fisheye, Sigma 20/1.4, Sony 14/1.8 GM and Sony 24/1.4 GM). If I only had one available it would still be the 14/1.8 GM for mix of IQ and size.

Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCk8Wn

8 minutes ago, DavidS said:

@Cations I quickly grabbed some examples with the lenses you were considering that I've personally either owned or rented for aurora (Sigma 14/1.4, Sigma 15/1.4 Fisheye, Sigma 20/1.4, Sony 14/1.8 GM and Sony 24/1.4 GM). If I only had one available it would still be the 14/1.8 GM for mix of IQ and size.

Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCk8Wn

I checked your images on Flickr and faved some. Are the recent aurora shots from the G4 storm on June 1? I recognize the same color mixture. When I was shooting it from Lake Erie in NY state and saw that intense substorm that spilled so much south over midwest that I was shooting west from my location, I was wondering what it must have looked from a different vantage point. It happened at ~ 3:30 am EDST, so this would be 1:30 am Utah time. I see that you were probably too west and thus were probably shooting ENE?

Edited July 2Jul 2 by JessicaF

9 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

I checked your images on Flickr and faved some. Are the recent aurora shots from the G4 storm on June 1? I recognize the same color mixture. When I was shooting it from Lake Erie in NY state and saw that intense substorm that spilled so much south over midwest that I was shooting west from my location, I was wondering what it must have looked from a different vantage point. It happened at ~ 3:30 am EDST, so this would be 1:30 am Utah time. I see that you were probably too west and thus were probably shooting ENE?

Yes the recent images were either that night or a couple nights later (much fainter, and more light pollution for that second night) It would have been right around that time - the clock on that camera was slightly wrong so it reports late on the 31st instead. Was pointing just slightly east of due north I believe. The colors were certainly interesting, other images from my location in the past year have trended more red and without as much variety.

10 hours ago, DavidS said:

Yes the recent images were either that night or a couple nights later (much fainter, and more light pollution for that second night) It would have been right around that time - the clock on that camera was slightly wrong so it reports late on the 31st instead. Was pointing just slightly east of due north I believe. The colors were certainly interesting, other images from my location in the past year have trended more red and without as much variety.

I agree that the June 1 display, the G4 part of it, was very colorful for some reason. I do not think that our auroras had any "intersection" you being so much further west. By intersection, I mean both of us shooting the same part of it from different vantage points. Were your images from N UT? I will be in UT soon. Do you routinely catch G1s from N UT or do you need more?

On 7/2/2025 at 6:57 AM, JessicaF said:

I agree that the June 1 display, the G4 part of it, was very colorful for some reason. I do not think that our auroras had any "intersection" you being so much further west. By intersection, I mean both of us shooting the same part of it from different vantage points. Were your images from N UT? I will be in UT soon. Do you routinely catch G1s from N UT or do you need more?

Usually need a little more than G1 but sometimes things line up to catch a good substorm in the camera at least. G3 or more to really be confident in getting something, especially outside of the camera. I usually aim to get up higher in the mountains if I can though, so that helps boost the odds for the latitude. The most recent ones were northern Utah, north of Salt Lake. Overhead green aurora though were of course not here but on trips to Alaska or Churchill.

In the summer if you have enough warning a drive up into the Uintas makes for an easy car-accessible high elevation and dark area. I don't know what part of Utah you'll be in but guessing southern based on your (excellent) portfolio in Flickr

Edited July 3Jul 3 by DavidS

1 hour ago, DavidS said:

Usually need a little more than G1 but sometimes things line up to catch a good substorm in the camera at least. G3 or more to really be confident in getting something, especially outside of the camera. I usually aim to get up higher in the mountains if I can though, so that helps boost the odds for the latitude. The most recent ones were northern Utah, north of Salt Lake. Overhead green aurora though were of course not here but on trips to Alaska or Churchill.

In the summer if you have enough warning a drive up into the Uintas makes for an easy car-accessible high elevation and dark area. I don't know what part of Utah you'll be in but guessing southern based on your (excellent) portfolio in Flickr

I am just fine with catching small borderline horizon events or when the aurora is photographic only. In fact, I prefer to watch all storms through my camera. There is so much more to see. I am thinking that G1+ might be doable from N UT with a good N horizon. But then I have no experience catching them from this part of the country. The specific geomagnetic latitude will play a role. Do you have a specific spot in Uintas that you could recommend? I have only visited Fantasy Canyon in that area a few years back. While this canyon may give super interesting foreground, the N horizon will be polluted by Vernal. It would be super cool to catch a bigger storm from there while light painting the formations.

I will be stationed in southwest UT for landscape photography. Getting to the NE corner takes one tank of gas in a Wrangler :) It would be closer for me if I went to the NW corner instead. How about some place at the big salt plains? Would there be water there this time of year? Have you shot aurora from there?

This setup has been great for aurora's. I use a SONY A7Riii with a SONY G-OSS F4 28-105mm zoom. I use the zoom to pull in pillars or aurora close to the horizon...otherwise 28mm works just fine. At 40N latitude, just haven't had a need for a super-wide angle lens and inherent light loss. Another thing is I run the camera using Sony's Imaging Edge app (loaded on a laptop) and run the camera via USB. The app can be used to adjust all the primary camera settings on the fly as well as act as an intervalometer. Usually, I set up the camera on a tripod with the laptop on a tray and do 30sec. exposures every 2 minutes and run it all night. The settings vary depending on ambient light pollution, but generally I shoot at ISO 800, F4 with exposure times 15-30sec depending. The RAW images are then post-processed (I use Photoshop) as needed. For novices, even the Windows Photo app works reasonably well now that Sony's RAW codec has been included. This pic from 6-01-2025 shows a nice display despite not being naked eye visible.

On 7/1/2025 at 9:21 PM, DavidS said:

@Cations I quickly grabbed some examples with the lenses you were considering that I've personally either owned or rented for aurora (Sigma 14/1.4, Sigma 15/1.4 Fisheye, Sigma 20/1.4, Sony 14/1.8 GM and Sony 24/1.4 GM). If I only had one available it would still be the 14/1.8 GM for mix of IQ and size.

Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCk8Wn

If price wasn't an issue would you get the 12-24mm 2.8 or the 14mm 1.8?

On 7/3/2025 at 10:35 PM, CHeden 40N, -122W said:

This setup has been great for aurora's. I use a SONY A7Riii with a SONY G-OSS F4 28-105mm zoom. I use the zoom to pull in pillars or aurora close to the horizon...otherwise 28mm works just fine. At 40N latitude, just haven't had a need for a super-wide angle lens and inherent light loss. Another thing is I run the camera using Sony's Imaging Edge app (loaded on a laptop) and run the camera via USB. The app can be used to adjust all the primary camera settings on the fly as well as act as an intervalometer. Usually, I set up the camera on a tripod with the laptop on a tray and do 30sec. exposures every 2 minutes and run it all night. The settings vary depending on ambient light pollution, but generally I shoot at ISO 800, F4 with exposure times 15-30sec depending. The RAW images are then post-processed (I use Photoshop) as needed. For novices, even the Windows Photo app works reasonably well now that Sony's RAW codec has been included. This pic from 6-01-2025 shows a nice display despite not being naked eye visible.

Thank you for posting and the information, I've got a few questions (I'm about 42N)

1. Isn't that lens 24-105? I've got that lens, it's great! I hope Sony does a f2.8 GM update for it. But it's my regular workhorse lens. I shot the May 2024 auroras on it.

2. What do you put your laptop tray on? Another tripod?

I've never used the laptop to control the camera before, I'm going to try this. Thank you again for your help. Sorry for asking such simplistic questions.

On 7/3/2025 at 10:35 PM, CHeden 40N, -122W said:

This setup has been great for aurora's. I use a SONY A7Riii with a SONY G-OSS F4 28-105mm zoom. I use the zoom to pull in pillars or aurora close to the horizon...otherwise 28mm works just fine. At 40N latitude, just haven't had a need for a super-wide angle lens and inherent light loss. Another thing is I run the camera using Sony's Imaging Edge app (loaded on a laptop) and run the camera via USB. The app can be used to adjust all the primary camera settings on the fly as well as act as an intervalometer. Usually, I set up the camera on a tripod with the laptop on a tray and do 30sec. exposures every 2 minutes and run it all night. The settings vary depending on ambient light pollution, but generally I shoot at ISO 800, F4 with exposure times 15-30sec depending. The RAW images are then post-processed (I use Photoshop) as needed. For novices, even the Windows Photo app works reasonably well now that Sony's RAW codec has been included. This pic from 6-01-2025 shows a nice display despite not being naked eye visible.

I forgot.

When you shoot at 15-30 seconds, don't you start to get star trails? Do you you remove them in post processing?

10 hours ago, Cations said:

When you shoot at 15-30 seconds, don't you start to get star trails? Do you you remove them in post processing?

15 secs is too long for such a dynamic phenomenon as aurora. If you feel like you need longer exposures for the stars or the MW, it is better to do say 10 exposures at high iso say 3200 and then stack the images to cancel the photonic noise. Also, star trails are shorter towards the poles. They would show only if you make large prints. I do not know of an easy way to remove them without affecting nebulous objects, such as galaxies nebulas or the MW. Just my 2 cents.

Of course you can also use a tracker if you are concerned about the star trails. I make pretty large prints and I can tell you that the trails are less of an issue to customers than you might think. Stacking typically works quite well in my case, which are night time landscapes.

One more comment. Astrophotography from Connecticut is almost impossible due to excessive light pollution. David shoots from UT. If you have not been under truly dark sky, the kind of dark that is only illuminated by stars, you will not know how huuuuuuuge of a difference quality sky makes on pictures. It will blow your mind when you realize that one can shoot landscapes with the only illumination given by the stars. Yes, there is enough light ;)

For auroras, the stars from your location will be a little side dish but never the main course.

On 7/13/2025 at 7:28 PM, JessicaF said:

15 secs is too long for such a dynamic phenomenon as aurora. If you feel like you need longer exposures for the stars or the MW, it is better to do say 10 exposures at high iso say 3200 and then stack the images to cancel the photonic noise. Also, star trails are shorter towards the poles. They would show only if you make large prints. I do not know of an easy way to remove them without affecting nebulous objects, such as galaxies nebulas or the MW. Just my 2 cents.

Of course you can also use a tracker if you are concerned about the star trails. I make pretty large prints and I can tell you that the trails are less of an issue to customers than you might think. Stacking typically works quite well in my case, which are night time landscapes.

One more comment. Astrophotography from Connecticut is almost impossible due to excessive light pollution. David shoots from UT. If you have not been under truly dark sky, the kind of dark that is only illuminated by stars, you will not know how huuuuuuuge of a difference quality sky makes on pictures. It will blow your mind when you realize that one can shoot landscapes with the only illumination given by the stars. Yes, there is enough light ;)

For auroras, the stars from your location will be a little side dish but never the main course.

There is a great quote from a Sled Driver (SR71 Blackbird) in the book Sled Driver. Out of print, but a pdf can be found online if you search just a little. Not hard to find it.

They flew at 70,000+ feet. Crazy high. The pilots flew on moonless nights to stay disguised, and the pilot said that he turned off all the lights in the plane, just to see what would happen and he said that he could easily read a book and all his instruments by starlight alone it was so incredibly bright. He said it was the best thing he as seen and felt ever. They made him turn on the lights again, but he got away with it for a minute of pure glorious starlight. Remember there was no moon. He flew this mission during a new moon, no moonlight. Supposedly he said it was brighter than the brightest full moon on Earth.

On 7/13/2025 at 7:28 PM, JessicaF said:

15 secs is too long for such a dynamic phenomenon as aurora. If you feel like you need longer exposures for the stars or the MW, it is better to do say 10 exposures at high iso say 3200 and then stack the images to cancel the photonic noise. Also, star trails are shorter towards the poles. They would show only if you make large prints. I do not know of an easy way to remove them without affecting nebulous objects, such as galaxies nebulas or the MW. Just my 2 cents.

Of course you can also use a tracker if you are concerned about the star trails. I make pretty large prints and I can tell you that the trails are less of an issue to customers than you might think. Stacking typically works quite well in my case, which are night time landscapes.

One more comment. Astrophotography from Connecticut is almost impossible due to excessive light pollution. David shoots from UT. If you have not been under truly dark sky, the kind of dark that is only illuminated by stars, you will not know how huuuuuuuge of a difference quality sky makes on pictures. It will blow your mind when you realize that one can shoot landscapes with the only illumination given by the stars. Yes, there is enough light ;)

For auroras, the stars from your location will be a little side dish but never the main course.

Yeah, I only take 4 second exposures at f2.8 and I still think I might be going a little bit long.

I'm starting to see what the real differences in focal length and f stop are now after watching about 40 youtube videos now.

What I don't know is what I will get from auroras if I shoot f1.4 vs f1.8 vs 2.8. I've never shot more or less than 4 seconds. I've never shot video.

I'm considering the 16-35mm f2.8 GM since I think 14mm for me (since I don't travel much right now). If I can't get that by the fall, I'm going to get the G lens (I think 16mm f1.8) I know that would be in the range of the 16-35 but it is cheaper for the f1.8. If I think I might travel, I would get the 14mm f1.8. I'm still thinking now. Maybe I'll go to the store and try them out in the store....

Again, thank you everyone for all your help and suggestions and everything. I'm grateful. I know I must be asking a lot of the same question again and again but phrased differently. I know they must seem very simplistic. I range from asking A+ thought provoking questions, to asking questions that make you scratch your head and say "is that guy OK? did he graduate 6th grade?" I'm sorry, just par for the course with me. I'm grateful for all the help.

If you have any chemistry questions though, I'm your huckleberry...

3 hours ago, Cations said:

They flew at 70,000+ feet. Crazy high. The pilots flew on moonless nights to stay disguised, and the pilot said that he turned off all the lights in the plane, just to see what would happen and he said that he could easily read a book and all his instruments by starlight alone it was so incredibly bright. He said it was the best thing he as seen and felt ever. They made him turn on the lights again, but he got away with it for a minute of pure glorious starlight. Remember there was no moon. He flew this mission during a new moon, no moonlight. Supposedly he said it was brighter than the brightest full moon on Earth.

Yeah, I only take 4 second exposures at f2.8 and I still think I might be going a little bit long.

I'm starting to see what the real differences in focal length and f stop are now after watching about 40 youtube videos now.

What I don't know is what I will get from auroras if I shoot f1.4 vs f1.8 vs 2.8. I've never shot more or less than 4 seconds. I've never shot video.

I'm considering the 16-35mm f2.8 GM since I think 14mm for me (since I don't travel much right now). If I can't get that by the fall, I'm going to get the G lens (I think 16mm f1.8) I know that would be in the range of the 16-35 but it is cheaper for the f1.8. If I think I might travel, I would get the 14mm f1.8. I'm still thinking now. Maybe I'll go to the store and try them out in the store....

Again, thank you everyone for all your help and suggestions and everything. I'm grateful. I know I must be asking a lot of the same question again and again but phrased differently. I know they must seem very simplistic. I range from asking A+ thought provoking questions, to asking questions that make you scratch your head and say "is that guy OK? did he graduate 6th grade?" I'm sorry, just par for the course with me. I'm grateful for all the help.

If you have any chemistry questions though, I'm your huckleberry...

Do you like my images, @Cations ? They are shot mostly with 14-30 mm f4 lens, 24-70 mm f4 (now smashed). and recently with 24-70 mm f2.8. I do not mean to trivialize the importance of a good lens here. But with a better lens, you will collect more aurora light as well as the light pollution. What makes a far bigger difference is to go to a better sky and minimize the light pollution. I know it is easier said than done, and I have an advantage living more out in the sticks. And I will add that it is better to shoot under bad sky than not go out at all.

I have a chem question but it is about anions, so I assume you probably would not know the answer ... LOL just joking here. Chemistry is important. No relationship can exist without it.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by JessicaF

1 hour ago, JessicaF said:

Do you like my images,

I had never looked at your flickr until now Jessica, most impressive photography. You have a good eye for composition. Clearly good at panos. I must ask, do you use PTGui or another tool?

Could someone tell me how to take a selfie with an aurora?
The settings would be:
ISO 1200-6400
F 1.8-2.0
Distance from the person to be in focus: 1/2 hyperfocal distance.
The problem is with the exposure time: if it's 4-5 seconds, the person may not be sharp. The correct exposure would be 1/250 or 1/500. But then, the lens might not have enough time to capture enough light for the person to be visible.
I would then have to set a higher ISO, burning out parts of the aurora if it's strong.
I've read that people use flash or lights like flashlights to illuminate the person.
What do you think? Could you help me?
Thanks!!

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Eder Galway