Batis 25 for northern lights?

[sjredo]

Greetings from Argentina everyone

I'm planning on going to Norway/Iceland this year or maybe the next one, to behold the breathtaking northern lights.

I currently have 55 1.8 and 24-70 F4, and I'm planning on selling the latter in order to get the Batis 25 to use in that trip.

Is A7II + 25mm (I read the Batis is even wider ~ 23mm) and F2 enough for capturing that? I don't think I'll ever get another chance to do such a trip, so I want to make sure I won't be limited by gear. (Sigma 20 1.4 is out of the question).

I haven't been able to find any samples with this combo so maybe someone here might give me a lead on this

Thanks!

 

[Miguel Teotonio]

Hi!

I have the 55 and the 35 but wouldn't sell the 24-70 if I had it.

Sure the batis 25 is great but you will loose a lot of money selling the zoom.

 

[sjredo]

Hi!

I have the 55 and the 35 but wouldn't sell the 24-70 if I had it.

Sure the batis 25 is great but you will loose a lot of money selling the zoom.

--
Miguel Teotónio
http://www.miguelteotonio.com

Due to Argentina's custom regulations and how hard it is to find certain items, I won't lose money in this trade.

Unfortunately, I've found the 24-70 subpar when compared to the 55, and since I'll be doing landscapes quite a lot and @24mm corners aren't sharp, that's why I'm considering the Batis.

 

[Snikt228]

Greetings from Argentina everyone

I'm planning on going to Norway/Iceland this year or maybe the next one, to behold the breathtaking northern lights.

I currently have 55 1.8 and 24-70 F4, and I'm planning on selling the latter in order to get the Batis 25 to use in that trip.

Is A7II + 25mm (I read the Batis is even wider ~ 23mm) and F2 enough for capturing that? I don't think I'll ever get another chance to do such a trip, so I want to make sure I won't be limited by gear. (Sigma 20 1.4 is out of the question).

I haven't been able to find any samples with this combo so maybe someone here might give me a lead on this

Thanks!

I'm heading to Iceland in a few months and from the research I've done you don't really need a super fast lens like you do for milky way photography as an example.

Many people seem to use the 16-35 at F4 and get good results. I'm going to use Rokinon 14mm f2.8, probably stopped down to f3.5-f4.

I've seen lots of shots online with the Nikon 14-24, so I'd think the Batis 25 will be fine.

 

[Miguel Teotonio]

I understand that but you cannot compare the 24-70 to one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

If you stop dow the 24-70 to F5,6-F8 range, results will be acceptable. If you want to excel, go for the batis. Neverthless you will loose flexibility ...

 

[Miguel Teotonio]

I understand that but you cannot compare the 24-70 to one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

If you stop dow the 24-70 to F5,6-F8 range, results will be acceptable. If you want to excel, go for the batis. Neverthless you will loose flexibility ...

 

[Snikt228]

Hi!

I have the 55 and the 35 but wouldn't sell the 24-70 if I had it.

Sure the batis 25 is great but you will loose a lot of money selling the zoom.

 

[sjredo]

Hi!

I have the 55 and the 35 but wouldn't sell the 24-70 if I had it.

Sure the batis 25 is great but you will loose a lot of money selling the zoom.

--
Miguel Teotónio
http://www.miguelteotonio.com

Due to Argentina's custom regulations and how hard it is to find certain items, I won't lose money in this trade.

Unfortunately, I've found the 24-70 subpar when compared to the 55, and since I'll be doing landscapes quite a lot and @24mm corners aren't sharp, that's why I'm considering the Batis.

Have you thought about the 16-35? It's a great lens, for landscapes you don't really need the F2 capability of the Batis 25

I've looked into it, but it seems quite large, and even larger than 2470Z, which I already find kinda big.

 

[sjredo]

I understand that but you cannot compare the 24-70 to one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

If you stop dow the 24-70 to F5,6-F8 range, results will be acceptable. If you want to excel, go for the batis. Neverthless you will loose flexibility ...

--
Miguel Teotónio
http://www.miguelteotonio.com

I get it, but I won't hold on to a $1200 lens that has to be stopped down to get "acceptable" performance.

 

[Miguel Teotonio]

I understand that but you cannot compare the 24-70 to one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

If you stop dow the 24-70 to F5,6-F8 range, results will be acceptable. If you want to excel, go for the batis. Neverthless you will loose flexibility ...

--
Miguel Teotónio
http://www.miguelteotonio.com

I get it, but I won't hold on to a $1200 lens that has to be stopped down to get "acceptable" performance.

I also get it but all the zooms have only "acceptable" perfomance. That's how things go. If you compare brands and prices (nikon, canon, etc.) it's all the same. Quality I mean. Look at the DXO ratings. They're all in the same league.

I think you should buy what you feel it's right but answering your initial question, I think you'll end up with an even more expensive lens that you will only use a few times after your travel ends. And you will not be limited in anyway in your final images (with the 24-70). Don't get me wrong, the batis it's an extraordinairy and better lens!

I used the 24-70 twice for a not short period and kinda liked it. It's way better than the 28-70 (whoever says it's not, it's lying), has a nice IS for videos and it's very flexible. The optical quality, not being a prime, it's very, very good.

--
Miguel Teotónio
http://www.miguelteotonio.com

 

[rogerjosem]

Hi!

I have the 55 and the 35 but wouldn't sell the 24-70 if I had it.

Sure the batis 25 is great but you will loose a lot of money selling the zoom.

--
Miguel Teotónio
http://www.miguelteotonio.com

Due to Argentina's custom regulations and how hard it is to find certain items, I won't lose money in this trade.

Unfortunately, I've found the 24-70 subpar when compared to the 55, and since I'll be doing landscapes quite a lot and @24mm corners aren't sharp, that's why I'm considering the Batis.

Have you thought about the 16-35? It's a great lens, for landscapes you don't really need the F2 capability of the Batis 25

I've looked into it, but it seems quite large, and even larger than 2470Z, which I already find kinda big.

You won´t go wrong with the FE 16-35 (which is just about 0,5cm larger than the FE 24-70). This lens is a strong performer in the 16-24mm range, which happens to be the most used FL for auroras. There are several beautiful northern lights pictures taken with that lens on the web, proving its capabilities for that use.

For about the same dimensions, the Samyang 14 is a proven instrument for the task as well (and I would manually focus anyways). It is a very popular lens for astro, and is very inexpensive.

Being a "unique opportunity for such a trip" I would actually bring these two lenses, so I would not be limited on "framing" possibilities".

Or wait for the Loxia 21

--
Warm Regards,
Roger
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96461835@N07/albums/72157657689345971
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96461835@N07/albums/72157657281391678

 

[Hessu]

Batis 25 is a fine lens, but I need more wide angle. This is taken with FE 16-35 F4 @16 mm F4 iso 1600 A7R2

 

[rogerjosem]

Batis 25 is a fine lens, but I need more wide angle. This is taken with FE 16-35 F4 @16 mm F4 iso 1600 A7R2

Nice shot. I oddly missed the opportunity to shoot some around my house last week...

Loading…

www.vg.no

Loading…

www.dagbladet.no

--
Warm Regards,
Roger

Places

Explore this photo album by Roger Mariña on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Portraits

Explore this photo album by Roger Mariña on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Swordfish]

The Batis would be great for Milky Way shots and starry nights, when there's no moon and other artificial light sources. The 16-35 and other slow lenses would be OK for Auroras and other instances when there's enough light in the sky.

I'm planning to visit Canada next June and hopefully will get the opportunity to shoot the Northern Lights. I will probably use the 16-35 most of the time. But I'm getting the Batis 25 to shoot the dark night sky here, where the small maximum aperture of the 16-35 is simply not enough.

--
OM-1n | OM-2n | 24mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4 | 50mm3.5 macro w/ EOS adapter
*Flickr*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/landscapist/sets

 

[artwalaszek]

I haven't used my Batis 25 yet for Northern lights photography, so I can't answer your specific question. However, I have photographed Northern lights in Iceland and Wisconsin using other glass, and have the following thoughts:

1. Fast lenses are in fact helpful because you need as much light gathering capacity as possible. Every photon counts. I shot both the Zeiss 21mm and the Nikkor 14-24mm wide open at f/2.8. I bet the f/2 of the Batis would be very useful in this regard.

2. I think a focal length of 25 is reasonable, but wider might be better. As someone else suggested, perhaps waiting for the Loxia 21mm could be something to consider.

3. Focusing in the dark can be tricky. I set focus to infinity, which was easy with the manual focus Zeiss 21. I have not yet tried infinity focus in the field with the Batis 25, but I bet the OLED display will be helpful.

4. A very sturdy tripod is critical, especially in windy Iceland. I used my lighter tripod when I photographed the Northern lights in Iceland, and the quality was marred, I think, by vibration due to the wind, a problem amplified by the long exposures. When I later shot in Wisconsin, I did not make the same mistake - I used my heaviest, sturdiest tripod.

5. You may already be familiar with the Icelandic aurora forecast webpage, which combines prediction of aurora intensity with cloud cover - an invaluable tool: http://en.vedur.is/weather/forecasts/aurora/

Enjoy your trip!

 

[matthiaswalter177]

i made a comparison between canon ts/e ii and batis 25... the batis is wider.

see here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskr7DoYj

 

[No account anymore]

Have you thought about the 16-35? It's a great lens, for landscapes you don't really need the F2 capability of the Batis 25

I am one of those who use the FE 16-35 mm lens for polar light with pretty good results. A great lens for sure, but brighter aperture is simply better for such kind of work. The shorter exposure, the more you can freeze the movements of the polar light.

You for sure have to look at the amount of vignetting for the lens wide open. I have looked at the Samyang 14 mm f:2.8, but vignetting wide open is awful, so I do better with my FE 16-35 mm zoom at 16 mm f:4, even if this lens is two stops slower than the Samyang - at the center!

For this reason I have ordered a Loxia 21 mm f:2.8, which seems to have well-controlled vignettng and abberations. Earlier I had the A-Mount Zeiss 24 mm f:2 lens, which was great for polar light photography. But after leaving the A-mout system I sold this lens. So I am pretty sure the 25 mm Batis will serve you well, even if a wider lens would be better when including a foreground to the polar light show!


Zeiss FE 16-35 mm f:4 at 16 mm with A7.


Zeiss FE 16-35 mm f:4 at 16 mm with A7.


Zeiss FE 16-35 mm f:4 at 16 mm with A7, straight up.

 

[lim yau tong]

It is the cheapest f0.95 lens in the market and optically it is very good. I use my A7R + Mitakon 50mm for performing arts session which demand absolete low light performance. You can consider Samyang 14mm f2.8 if you need wider angle.

 

[No account anymore]

You can consider Samyang 14mm f2.8 if you need wider angle.

Vigntting wide open is awful with the Samyang, more than 3 stops wide open, according to tests. This makes the lens very limited for polar light photography. I would stay away!

 

[lim yau tong]

reduction in the high (about 6 shots) and low (3 shots) setting. In astro photography people normally stack their shots outside the camera.