Best lens for long exposure night-time shot

sheepman

Hi there. I'm looking at areas around Dublin city to practise my long exposure night-time shots. Is there a specific lens recommended for these types of shots? I'm planning on using a 35mm f1.4 by Nikon. Any advice will be appreciated.

Also, I'm thinking of purchasing this tripod, it's a pretty good price for something non-professional: http://www.amazon.co.uk/AmazonBasics-60-Inch-Lightweight-Tripod-Bag/dp/B005KP473Q/

killym

It would be great, fast shutter speed is highly desirable, the rest You can post-process...Dublin isn't the best place, check light-pollution map and choose place more carefully.

mc_grens

Depends on what you want it for.

You say long exposure in the city? in that case I'm thinking car trails, city lights etc? If so the max aperture wont really matter as you'll be at somewhere from f8- f16 depending on a few variables.

Also it depends on what camera you're using- a 35mm on an APS-C Nikon mightn't be wide enough to capture that sort of thing, at least not the way you envisage it in your head.

Killy I think has taken it that you want to shoot stars, and while f1.4 max aperture makes your lens fast, its prob not wide enough (again particularly on an APS-C camera of that what you have) to capture much of the night sky at once, and theres little to no point trying it in Dublin City.

To get a better answer maybe link to an example of what you want to achieve.

CabanSail

The lens should be fine. Maybe a bit wider would be good too.

As for the tripod it is hard to know what it will be like from the listing.

The three things most want from a tripod are;

• Stable
• Light
• Inexpensive

Bargains aside, you will only get two of the three.

sheepman

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm looking to snap some light trails and also longer exposures of city streets where I can blur out pedestrians. It's really just for fun. I won't be taking any photos of night-time sky.

Yep, I'm using a APS-C. I realise that gives me somewhere in the 50mm range but I don't think I'm going to purchase a wider lens any time soon.

@killym, what do you mean by "fast shutter speed is highly desirable" re: long exposure shots?

Thanks all for the replies!

CabanSail

With a fast lens you can get faster shutter speeds in low light. As you are looking to get light trails then you will want longer shutter speeds anyway and the fast lens is not as significant.


If you are going to use a cheap tripod (we have all done it) then make sure you take some extra precautions. Lock up your mirror after you have composed your shot. Use a remote release or the timer on the camera. These will help reduce vibrations. be careful where you position the tripod as wind, passing traffic etc. will give vibrations. You will also get better results by shooting fully manual.

Silva360

The tripod is probably the most important aspect of long exposure photography. If you just want to experiment a few times, then that linked tripod might do it for you. If you want to do long exposures over the longer term, then save and buy the best tripod you can afford. It will out last your camera and lens and is a really good investment.

killym

sheepman wrote: »

@killym, what do you mean by "fast shutter speed is highly desirable" re: long exposure shots?

My bad i thought You are asking for astophotography. I must be drunk yesterday:)

sheepman

Thanks everyone, this is helpful. I would have never considered vibrations from traffic :rolleyes:

twowheelsonly

That tripod is seriously poor quality and is the same one that pops up in Aldi/Lidl every now and again. The legs are fine, if a bit light, but all the 'moving parts' are very poor plastic. The centre column can be raised but is too shaky if you do so. I certainly wouldn't be putting any heavy or expensive gear on it. I've used it as a light-stand from time to time but that's about it.

Any sort of decent lens, including what you're planning on using, will do fine. It's a matter of experimentation and messing around to see what you like but a wider zoom lens (17-55, 24-70) will give you more scope for composing.

killym

twowheelsonly wrote: »

That tripod is seriously poor quality and is the same one that pops up in Aldi/Lidl every now and again. The legs are fine, if a bit light, but all the 'moving parts' are very poor plastic.

That tripod cant handle my camera with sigma 18-35 on it, it's going down itself. If You consider putting Your camera with sigma art lens on it, think again

sheepman

twowheelsonly wrote: »

That tripod is seriously poor quality and is the same one that pops up in Aldi/Lidl every now and again. The legs are fine, if a bit light, but all the 'moving parts' are very poor plastic. The centre column can be raised but is too shaky if you do so. I certainly wouldn't be putting any heavy or expensive gear on it. I've used it as a light-stand from time to time but that's about it.

Any sort of decent lens, including what you're planning on using, will do fine. It's a matter of experimentation and messing around to see what you like but a wider zoom lens (17-55, 24-70) will give you more scope for composing.

I'm actually having second thoughts. I might visit a few camera stores around the city and look out for some bargains.

mc_grens

It all depends what you can afford, but in this case it might be better to buy one decent tripod that'll see you through a few years than 2 or 3 over the same span that don't last.

CabanSail

If the budget is tight I would look for an older heavy but stable tripod. It will do the job but not be as easy to carry. Sometimes they will be quite cheap in pawn brokers or at auctions.

OldGoat

I use a cheap (€50/60ish) Hahnel lightweight tripod and it does the job 90% of the time. I've used it in surf, fast flowing river, on windy heights and around the cities. In some conditions the compromise you might have to make is keeping lower to the ground than it's higher priced and steadier counterparts.

I should point out that I'm using a crop sensor and short lenses so camera+lens weight is not an issue with the lightweight tripod.

zero19

I went through two ****e tripods similar to the one you linked to before I spent a bit extra on a Manfrotto, wish I had just done that from the start.

CelticRambler

Regarding tripods and movement/camera shake, apart from wind and traffic, I had the (unwelcome) experience of adding another factor to the list: movement of the ground your standing on! In my case a bridge. Probably not anything to worry about for those over the Liffey, but remember that longer bridges bounce - especially if they swing/lift. My long exposure shots taken from a bridge in Geneva last week were all useless for this reason.

fixXxer

I'd also suggest trying Dublin on a Tuesday or Wednesday night. Much less drunks about so people leave your camera and tripod alone! I didn't see it suggested but a remote of some kind is also handy. I got my self a wired remote and have been trying some 2+ minute exposures. Much longer than what you'll need but still fun to try

sheepman

fixxxer wrote: »

I'd also suggest trying Dublin on a Tuesday or Wednesday night. Much less drunks about so people leave your camera and tripod alone! I didn't see it suggested but a remote of some kind is also handy. I got my self a wired remote and have been trying some 2+ minute exposures. Much longer than what you'll need but still fun to try

Thanks for the tip!

fret_wimp2

As mentioned already, the lens you have already is fine for long exposure city shots and light trails. The key here is a stable platform that wont move while youre taking the shot.

You've found that good tripods are expensive, but rememver, you don't always need a tripod, just a stable platform. that can be a concrete pillar, a dustbin, a wall, a ledge or anything else that doesn't move.

in the past i have used a pillar, with a notebook under the lens to angle it how i wanted. more solid than any tripod and free. a ledge/surface at the right height wont always be available, but its worth keeping an eye out.

fret_wimp2

As mentioned already, the lens you have already is fine for long exposure city shots and light trails. The key here is a stable platform that wont move while youre taking the shot.

You've found that good tripods are expensive, but rememver, you don't always need a tripod, just a stable platform. that can be a concrete pillar, a dustbin, a wall, a ledge or anything else that doesn't move.

in the past i have used a pillar, with a notebook under the lens to angle it how i wanted. more solid than any tripod and free. a ledge/surface at the right height wont always be available, but its worth keeping an eye out.

Dr_Bill

I like to do alot of night photography and a good stable platform or a decent tripod cannot be stressed enough. Buying a cheap tripod in my view is a mistake, it will disappoint and you probably end up replacing the thing anyway (from experience!).

If your DSLR has a mirror up function this can help alot in minimising vibration too.

I use a Manfrotto befree when travelling its small enough to fit as cabin luggage or in a backback or a Manfrotto MT190XPRO3 when it can be chucked in the car.

A decent tripod is a solid investment and worth every cent. No need to go the price of a carbon fibre which can cost double only to save 200grams over an aluminium variant. If price is a concern a Joby Gorillapod might offer a solution as you can lock it onto a tree or road sign for example so could be worthy of consideration.