# Lens/Focal Length for skyline night shoot



## SquarePeg (Sep 16, 2016)

Going to be shooting the Boston skyline at sunset into night.  The city will be across the water roughly the equivalent of shooting Manhattan from NJ.  What is the best lens/focal length to use for this?  I don't like to use my UWA if there is no foreground interest as everything appears too far away and in this case we'll be shooting from a patio with just a railing and the water.   I really don't want to bring everything...  I was thinking bring my 35 f/1.8 and my 17-70 f/2.8.  Maybe try a vertical panorama if I can manage it.  Thoughts?


----------



## jeffW (Sep 17, 2016)

The zoom range sounds fine and probably preferred over the fixed lens as it will give you creative choices.  When shooting the pan, if it's a long one allow excess area on both the top and bottom of your composition as stitching software might require you to do a crop


----------



## AKUK (Sep 17, 2016)

If you can remove the parallax with a panoramic head, I'd go for the vertical and stitch in Photoshop. This will give you far better resolution and if you use a longer focal length, the skyline will be bigger in the frame too.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 17, 2016)

Try shooting the whole range of the zoom (17, 20, 24 . . . ).  Panos are fun - looking forward to the results.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Sep 17, 2016)

Shooting wide and stitching panos, usually lends to some interesting distortion that can produce unique landscape pictures. However, I'm not sure this is what you are after in a cityscape. I would suggest going no wider than your 35mm.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 17, 2016)

Agree with the above:  Shoot vertical and shoot at several focal lengths.  I generally prefer to shoot panos with primes simply  to avoid the risk of changing the FL of the zoom, but either will work.  Take the extra time to make sure that the camera is level/plumb and plan your segments.  Also pay attention to the exposure (you must shoot in manual) and average it out before hand.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 17, 2016)

Never shot a pano before.  Do I move everything tripod and all horizontally left to right or rotate the body on the tripod?


----------



## snowbear (Sep 17, 2016)

Tripod stays stationary, only rotate the head.  My method:
1. scan scene to get exposure setting - all shots will be with the same setting I go for the middle if reading differ.
2. set to left-most position.  Put left hand in front of camera, point to the right and shoot (it's a place-holder) - if you can remember which shot is the first, skip the hand.
3. lower hand
4. take first real frame.  Note landmark near right side of viewfinder.
5. rotate camera to the right.  Line above noted landmark to near the left side of viewfinder (you want a little overlap).
-- repeat #4 and #5 through the scene.
Finish with a shot of right hand pointing left, unless you can tell by looking at the shots.

Try to get the tripod level and allow space around the subject/scene to compensate for an unlevel tripod.

I'll look for the individual frames I made for one and post on Flickr as a series.


----------



## AKUK (Sep 17, 2016)

There are some excellent video tutorials on Youtube for shooting panoramas. The best results come from using a panoramic head that allows you to find the nodal point of the lens. This removes the parallax effect and makes stitching images together much better in post production. You can get some excellent panoramic heads on eBay for not a lot of money too, which allow you to configure how many degrees you want to rotate per shot. I use mine in conjunction with my 405 geared head. Essentially you need to balance your tripod/head, then add your panoramic one. It's a little bit involved but, the results are worth it if you invest the time and a little bit of money into the equipment. If it's something you plan on doing regularly, then a panoramic head is a worthwhile purchase.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 17, 2016)

Thanks everyone for the advice and tips. Just found out there are 80 people rsvp'd for this photo meetup tonight. Not a typo. 80. That's about 60 too many for me so trying to talk myself into it. I've never gone on a photo meet up with this group before so was hoping for a smaller crowd.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 17, 2016)

Tested the vertical pano and it doesn't look like my tripod head is capable of rotating when vertical


----------



## AKUK (Sep 17, 2016)

The set up I have is pretty inexpensive, but effective. 

DH-55D indexed rotator. This allows you to precisely rotate the camera to specific angles, depending upon the focal length of the lens, for easy and accurate stitching. Cost $57 with shipping.

On top of the DH-55D a 360 degree rotator adapter clamp is fitted. $35

A 200mm nodal slide rail is then fitted into the adapter. This allows you to slide the camera backwards or forwards, until you reach the no-parallax point of the lens.  $20

Finally an L-bracket is fitted to the camera so that it mounts to the rear of the nodal slide rail vertically. $10. 

Total of $122 dollars for a good panoramic head assembly, that will allow you to quickly and effectively remove parallax and accurately stitch image together for the best results.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 18, 2016)

Thanks @AKUK for the detailed recommendations. 

For anyone who's interested, here is the thread with the photos from the nightime skyline shoot:  C&C: Way out of my comfort zone on these nighttime skyline shots (pic heavy)


----------



## tirediron (Sep 19, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> Tested the vertical pano and it doesn't look like my tripod head is capable of rotating when vertical


That would be odd, but even so, now you have an excuse to upgrade your tripod head!


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 19, 2016)

tirediron said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > Tested the vertical pano and it doesn't look like my tripod head is capable of rotating when vertical
> ...



Maybe it does rotate but with the camera mounted sideways like that it would really change the perspective of the scene as it would have to rotate around the head not "on" the head.  Unless, and this is highly possible, I'm doing it completely wrong.


----------

