Aircraft night engine run lens help, please

[slantzero]

I need some advice. Later this year I will be attempting to take night photos of different aircraft running their engines (WW II era aircraft, parked) and I was curious as to any suggestions for a lens. I have been looking at a Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5/4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Lens F/DSLR for use on my D7200. I have no idea how far the aircraft will be and which aircraft will be used. So I’m thinking that a zoom such as this would be the best idea. I’m concerned that if I go less than 10 MM the distortion at the edges of the picture would be unacceptable.

I have not done any night photography so I really have no clue on what to do. But I have until August to figure things out. One last thing anyone have any ideas as to practice.

 

[ac12]

I do not think you want to be as close as that lens will take you.
A spinning prop is DANGEROUS (as in FATAL), and the prop wash can be dangerous.

Get out there during the day, then first find out from the people how far from the planes you will be located, then see what your current lens will do at that distance.

 

[tirediron]

Are you going to be on the flight line, or in a spectator area?

 

[Seamus85]

With props turning I'd be amazed if you'd be allowed close enough to need 10mm...

I've got a few of nightshoots under my belt now, and while there weren't any engine runs, I imgaine the setup will be similar. I use my 24-70mm exclusively and have no issues whatsoever, although a 24-105 allows a little extra flexibility should you want a closer crop. As an example, I shot this Merlin last month with said 24-70, no issues getting the aircraft nicely framed and it's a fairly large helicopter.

AgustaWestland Merlin HC3i ZJ130/O Royal Navy RNAS Yeovilton 15/03/18 by Shaun Schofield, on Flickr

In terms of practice, the best way as is so often the case is just to get out there and give it a go. My first nightshoot was only last October, but I found that I soon got the hang of things. You generally have plenty of time to adjust your settings should you find you haven't quite got the shot you want. I tend to put set the camera at F8 in AV mode to get the entire airframe in focus and let the camera set the shutter speed- once its completly dark, it's almost certainly going to be a 30s exposure.

Hope that helps.

 

[slantzero]

I believe that I wrote a very confusing request. First of all this night photography will be done during the Thunder Over Michigan airshow. I have been attending several years now and safety is top notch. So, that is very low on my list of concerns I expect that there will be some type of barrier and there will be no chance of wandering into a spinning prop. Thank you all for your concern.

My real question remains the lens selection. I do have the kit lens, 18 – 135 mm, so I can use that but I was wondering about a higher quality lens. I’m not sure how far from the aircraft we will be but I would guess no closer than 50 feet but probably more. I’m not sure of which aircraft they will show, I do know that they have a B-17. The B-17 has a 104 foot wingspan and I would like to try and get it in the whole frame. What is the field of view at 50 feet, 104 feet? I don’t know and that is the biggest question. Hence the question about the 10mm focal length. Wouldn’t having the ability to zoom out to frame the whole aircraft help with edge distortion?

Another use of the lens will be walking around and taking photos of the aircraft during the show, the closer that I can get the fewer people that will be a problem. I also am paying extra to be let in to the static display two hours earlier than general admission, really keeps down on people in the frame.

I hope that this rather rambling response helps explain my original request. Thank you all for the responses so far.

 

[slantzero]

I guess that I mean barrel distortion. I really don't like the fisheye effect at the edges of the picture. I've read Shaun's reply a couple of times seems to be a lot of information that I have to process. Any thoughts on the picture quality of the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5/4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Lens v the kit lens that came with the D7200.

 

[espresso2x]

I'd guess the 10mm distortion would be relatively minor, certainly not fish-eye. Whether you shoot raw or jpg, this can be corrected. I haven't used the 10-24 or 18-135. Hopefully someone can offer a user opinion.

Certainly carry the 18-135 if you can for the longer end. Lots of wide-angle shots without variation can get tedious pretty fast.

 

[mrca]

Moose Peterson had a gallery showing at Kelby here in FL last week with aviation photography from his new book, Takeoff. Wonderful images. As is usual with these Kelby gallery showings, the photographer is interviewed. I expect it will be on line shortly. You might want to take a look at his book.

 

[Nwcid]

I have a D7100 and I used my Tonika 11-16mm a lot on a trip we took where there was a lot of buildings and craft.

One of the stops did include several aircraft, including a B-17. Here is the shot at 11mm and I am probably at least 50', but probably closer to 75' away.

 

[mrca]

Here's a circular fisheye

shot I took last fall of the cockpit of a B-17.

 

[mrca]

Another fish looking back at the ball turret and waist gunners. 32 lbs heavier than today, had trouble squeezing past many places as this is really tight. Can't imagine trying to move around with flack jacket and parachute, much less get out if it was spinning.

 

[Nwcid]

MRCA, interesting perspective.

While a different cockpit, similar perspective. Why is yours actually round where mine is just rounded? This was taken with a 10.5mm Fisheye on a DX camera.

 

[mrca]

My fisheye lens is a 180 degree circular fisheye. It produces a round image on a FF camera. One of the reasons, a minor one, that I went from the d500 to d850 after shooting FF for 7 years is that on a crop camera it doesn't produce a completely round image and crops off some of the distortion that I like to use on some shots. It is my most difficult lens not only because it includes so many elements in a shot but also since it sees perpendicular to the front of the lens, I have to be careful not to include my feet in the shot.

 

[slantzero]

Sorry that I haven't responded, work got crazy for a couple of days , but if not for that I couldn't afford a new lens. Thank you for all of the suggestions, I realize that I have more research to do.