indergaard Posted October 30, 2016 Share #1 Posted October 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello I am seeing some issues with the 35/2 ASPH in regards to flare/internal reflections.I've owned and used the 35/1.4 FLE for 3 years, but it's simply too big and heavy for my preference. So I want to replace it with the 35/2 ASPH. I've made thousands of pictures with the 35/1.4 FLE, even without the hood most of the time, and with a filter (B+W XS-Pro Nano-MRC Clear 007) and never seen flare in situations where I'm currently experiencing flare with the 35/2 (with the hood, without the filter). Example 2 especially puzzles me. This isn't really a challenging situation at all... Kinda disappointed. And let me repeat - the hood was on and there was no filter on the lens. And the lens was just cleaned with optic cleaning formula and lens tissues (that I've successfully used on all my lenses for years). Both where shot with the MM1. I don't mind nice flare, but this is definitely not the nice kind. Is this normal for this lens? Mine is a late copy with factory 6-bit coding that was, according to the serial number wiki, manufactured in 2012-2013. Example 1 (shot at F/8 or F/11): Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Examples 2 (shot at f/2): Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Examples 2 (shot at f/2): ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266005-summicron-352-asph-flareghosting-issue/?do=findComment&comment=3138496'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Hi indergaard, Take a look here Summicron 35/2 ASPH flare/ghosting issue. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
otto.f Posted October 30, 2016 Share #2 Posted October 30, 2016 Unless you've been shooting UFO's, this should not be happening. Did you inspect the inside; whether there's something that catches and reflects light? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 30, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted October 30, 2016 Unless you've been shooting UFO's, this should not be happening. Did you inspect the inside; whether there's something that catches and reflects light? I've looked inside the lens, both front and rear, stopped down and wide open, with two led flashlights... And there's nothing. Not even a tiny grain of dust any where. And the lens looks and feels mint. I can't see any shiny surface area on any of the metal parts either. It looks completely clean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 30, 2016 Share #4 Posted October 30, 2016 Example 1 is a difficult situation where you shot directly at the sun but example 2 can only be normal if you were using a filter. I would not keep that copy if your filter was off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 30, 2016 Share #5 Posted October 30, 2016 I've looked inside the lens, both front and rear, stopped down and wide open, with two led flashlights... And there's nothing. Not even a tiny grain of dust any where. And the lens looks and feels mint. I can't see any shiny surface area on any of the metal parts either. It looks completely clean. Bad news indeed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 31, 2016 Share #6 Posted October 31, 2016 Example #2 has a filter. The reflection from the filter is symmetrical around the central axis, i.e. it is a filter reflection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share #7 Posted October 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Example #2 has a filter. The reflection from the filter is symmetrical around the central axis, i.e. it is a filter reflection. Why do I need to repeat myself? There was NO filter on the lens - as I clearly stated two times in my initial post. I don't even own a E39 sized filter, only E43 and E46 sized filters! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2016 Share #8 Posted October 31, 2016 Errare humanum est. What example 2 shows above is a ghost image typically caused by a filter. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266005-summicron-352-asph-flareghosting-issue/?do=findComment&comment=3138794'>More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted October 31, 2016 Errare humanum est. What example 2 shows above is a ghost image typically caused by a filter. ghost.jpg Typically yes, but not in this case. I was out walking in the nearby trails and made this picture about 3 hours before I posted it yesterday, so I kinda know that there was no filter on it... Especially considering I dont even own E39 filters. Also, both the back and the front of the lens was cleaned properly with Zeiss lens wipes a couple of days before, and they are as clean as they can be. After some research online I see that the 35/2 ASPH is known for bad flare, and that it flares much easier than say the FLE and the Zeiss 35/2 ZM for example. So it makes sense to me. My wife has a ZM 35/2 and I've never seen it flare, and neither the FLE. Based on all the info I've gone through - flare - the ugly kind - is more normal for this lens than other 35's, so I'm gonna let it go and rather get a ZM 35/2 - as it is one of my favorite lenses ever. I should have bought one for myself instead of this Cron, as I've used my wife's ZM 35/2 a few times and have always loved the way it renders images - more so than the FLE I had, actually, at least with film and on the MMv1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2016 Share #10 Posted October 31, 2016 No experience with the ZM 35/2 but my ZM 35/2.8 flares less than any of my Leica 35 including the FLE. Now i would not overestimate the flare sensitivity of the 35/2 asph. My following 35s are more flare prone by a significant margin: CV 35/1.4 SC, M 35/1.4 pre-asph, M 35/2 v4, R 35/2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 31, 2016 Share #11 Posted October 31, 2016 Not my experience at all. Note that these images were taken with a 486 filter (notoriously flaring) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266005-summicron-352-asph-flareghosting-issue/?do=findComment&comment=3138802'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 31, 2016 Share #12 Posted October 31, 2016 . Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266005-summicron-352-asph-flareghosting-issue/?do=findComment&comment=3138803'>More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2016 Share #13 Posted October 31, 2016 Just put the sun outside of the frame if you want to produce flare with this lens and most others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share #14 Posted October 31, 2016 No experience with the ZM 35/2 but my ZM 35/2.8 flares less than any of my Leica 35 including the FLE. Now i would not overestimate the flare sensitivity of the 35/2 asph. My following 35s are more flare prone by a significant margin: CV 35/1.4 SC, M 35/1.4 pre-asph, M 35/2 v4, R 35/2. Yes that's what I've seen and heard as well. Zeiss glass deals with flare really well. Actually, my CV 35/1.4 MC doesn't flare bad at all - considering. It does flare - but it doesn't show ghosts like this based on one light source. And the flare is more "classic" looking, i.e. more attractive. The effect I'm seeing from the 35/2 asph copy I have appears more like ghosting or some sort of internal reflections. I just can't see any source of it, at all, anywhere. And if the 35/2 is that sensitive to flare, and needs to be used with the hood mostly at all times - it's really not that compact. It's physically bigger and heavier than the ZM 35/2 without the hood then... And the 35/2 ZM can easily be used without the hood without worrying about flare. That was the nice thing about the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE, I never ever used it with the hood... There was absolutely no need to, and I never had to worry about flare. So in that sense the lens appeared more compact due to the lack of a bulky hood. I'm not a big fan of using hoods. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2016 Share #15 Posted October 31, 2016 Never seen a lens causing ghost images like that. I you're 100% sure that the filter was off you've got a faulty copy sorry. Edit: Never seen a hood changing anything to ghost images and generally flare caused by light sources inside of the frame either. Light sources outside of the frame are another story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2016 Share #16 Posted October 31, 2016 Warning: Boring test pics. 35/1.4 FLE vs 35/2 asph v1 vs ZM 35/2.8. F/5.6, no hood. Which is which? https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-PtNKgcx/0/X3/DSC03511_poor-X3.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-Rh7R2sQ/0/X3/DSC03512_average-X3.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-C6nXMhN/0/X3/DSC03513_better-X3.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 31, 2016 Share #17 Posted October 31, 2016 Example 1 is normal in my experience with all Leica ASPH lenses – just goes with the territory and especially this lens. Example 2 seems a little odd but I wonder whether it is the sensor of the Monochrom reflecting here rather than a lens problem per se? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 31, 2016 Share #18 Posted October 31, 2016 That was the nice thing about the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE, I never ever used it with the hood... There was absolutely no need to, and I never had to worry about flare. So in that sense the lens appeared more compact due to the lack of a bulky hood. I'm not a big fan of using hoods. I too have used my 35 Summilux FLE many times without the hood but I've never considered it especially flare free – especially if there is something like diffused light coming in from a window just out of frame. Like you – and for the same reason – I've dropped my Summilux (in my case about 18 months ago) and now use a 35 Summicron ASPH instead for virtually everything now. Unscientifically, I think the Summicron is more flare prone but, in my experience, things have improved (or at least the incidences of annoying flare have decreased to nothing much) since I started using the proper hood without a filter. Almost all my problematic flare has occurred when using a filter (either B+W or Leica brand) either hoodless or with the annoyingly useless fancy round vented hood that came with the lens (black chrome edition). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share #19 Posted October 31, 2016 Example 1 is normal in my experience with all Leica ASPH lenses – just goes with the territory and especially this lens. Example 2 seems a little odd but I wonder whether it is the sensor of the Monochrom reflecting here rather than a lens problem per se? Example 1 is acceptable. I just wish the flare was nicer. But example 1 is super easy to provoke with any direct light-source. See more quick examples that I made last night. All without a filter, and at f/2, further down. I guess my question is if this is the way the flare looks on the Summicron 35 ASPH if you have a strong source of light at around the rule of thirds area in the scene. I haven't seen images from other 35/2's that have shown such a prominent and ugly flare before when it has a strong light source at this angle. Is this what to expect of the 35/2? Or should I call the person I bought it from and tell him that the lens needs servicing, or needs to be returned for a refund. I'm not trying to prove that the 35/2 ASPH is a bad lens here... So I don't really need to see many examples of this lens not flaring, when mine is flaring, and not in a nice way, and it's super easy to provoke. Example 2 however isn't really flare... It's more like ghosting. Something that I typically would expect or accept if I used a filter while shooting when it's dark, and in high-contrast scenes with street lights and such. I learned that a long time ago. And this scene is, in my opinion at least, super simple. But the ghosting looks similar to the flare I'm also seeing around the corners when I have a strong light source at around the rule of thirds areas of a scene. And the position of that street lamp is in about the rule of thirds area of the frame. My Monochrom is version 1, but it was bought new less than a year ago, and has only had about 500 actuations. No sensor corrosion and such yet which I guess could cause some issues if it was present, but then again, if there was something wrong with the sensor I would've probably seen it when I shoot a blue sky at f/16 and inspect the raw files at 100%. I've also checked the inside of the camera - the area between the sensor and the lens, and I can't find any shiny surface there either. I've also shot a couple of rolls of film with the 35/2 on my MP. But these aren't developed and scanned yet. So I guess I'll repeat the examples below on my film camera tonight and see if there's a difference. I've got Delta 3200 loaded at the moment, so it's possible to repeat the same low-light tests with it. The position of the light is in the same place (upper right area) in these shots. But it happens no matter if the light source is in the upper left, right, or if I shoot vertically, as long as the light source is within the same area of the frame. If I position the source of light in the upper left area, I get exactly the same type of flare down in the lower right area of the image. Focused on the background: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Focused on the light source (led lamp pointing straight towards the camera): Focused on the street lamp through a window: Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Focused on the light source (led lamp pointing straight towards the camera): Focused on the street lamp through a window: ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266005-summicron-352-asph-flareghosting-issue/?do=findComment&comment=3138945'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 31, 2016 Share #20 Posted October 31, 2016 Errare humanum est. What example 2 shows above is a ghost image typically caused by a filter. ghost.jpg Yes. But in this case we have a lens with a slightly concave front element, which can produce "filter-like" reflections, explaining the effect Indergaard illustrates as well. The (el-cheapo-looking) plastic lens hood that comes with the standard lens is quite effective at reducing these reflections and not too bulky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.