KenProspero

Looking for input.

I recently scheduled an Aurora Trip, which got me thinking of gear.

Currently, I shoot with a Nikon Z-5.

For night photography, I have a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (Pentax Mount with a converter) and a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 (FTZ converter).

For shooting landscapes -- I much prefer the Nikon. However, astro is somewhat different. Wondering whether anyone has thoughts on the trade off of the 3mm (which is significant at that range) vs quality.

Another minor consideration -- If I'm on vacation, I'll almost certainly have the 17-35 with me for daytime use, so taking the Samyang means schlepping another lens.

(PS -- at this stage, I don't anticipate buying a new lens).

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If you shoot with an interchangeable lens camera and consider carrying a second lens awkward, maybe you should consider a nice bridge camera.
In my opinion the choice between an extra 3 mm and better image quality is quite simple. Better image quality will win almost every time. You can stitch images together a lot easier than improving poorer image quality.

KenProspero

thanks, I think -- it's not carrying around a second lens -- I already plan on carrying a 17-35, a 24-200 and a 100-400.

So, it's a question of whether it's worth carrying around a 4th lens, or whether the 17-35 Nikon is just a better choice in the first place (which ends the problem).

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I obviously misunderstood you. I was being snarky and sincere at the same time as I didn't grasp the concept of you already carrying three lenses. I've done that and it can get awkward.
I have both Canon and Nikon. I don't have a Nikon 17-35 but I do have a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L, and it is probably my favorite fairly wide zoom lens. I use it often for panoramic and night sky photos.
I don't have a 24-200. I have an 18-200 Canon EF. My favorite utility lens is my 28-300 and I have that in both Nikkor and Canon L. The Canon lens is much larger than the Nikkor lens. I have a Canon 100-400L II.
I don't remember if you said you were shooting with a crop or full frame. If full frame, is the 17-35 really necessary? Personally I'd probably go with the 24-200 and 100-400. I'd probably also go with two bodies, a full frame for the wide and a crop for the tele.

KenProspero

Thanks for the thoughts. Z-5 is a full frame. Much of the time, I just go with the 24-200 and make do, but if I'm going to do a night shoot i.e., in this case Northern Lights, I'd like something wider and faster, so either the Nikon 17-35 and/or the Samyang 14mm. Also, I'm concerned with condensation, so (I assume that) changing lenses outside isn't a good idea.

Second body -- not needed for a night shoot. Maybe when I get more $ in my photo budget. Someday!!!

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I use a Samyang 14mm about 90% of the time for Aurora photography. The other 10%, for those really full sky Auroras, are with an Opteka 6.5mm. I've also used a Tamron 10-24mm but find I keep falling back to the 14mm.

A few examples attached. All images shot with a full frame camera.

bwa

14mm

(Download)

14mm

(Download)

6.5mm

(Download)

6.5mm (Cropped)

(Download)

KenProspero

Beautiful shots -- where did you take them?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Central Alberta, Canada. No real need to head for the far north. Let the Auroras come to you...

bwa