honcho Posted November 2, 2016 Share #41  Posted November 2, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Filters are a major flare inducing factor.  One of my all time favourite lenses is the Nikon 85mm f1.4G.  I use it for indoor and outdoor environmental portraiture without a filter and for wedding, coastal and landscape photography with a filter and the proportional increase in flare is very marked with a uv filter (Heliopan) on the lens.  Do I want to risk another pageboy at a wedding blowing a stream of soapy bubbles straight at my unprotected lens or salt spray coating the front element without a filter, or risk the occasional flare with a filter to protect the lens?  Flare can happen at any time and can be as unpredictable as it is predictable.  I have a Formatt-Hitech 10-stop irnd filter that will readily flare in overcast conditions and a Firecrest 16-stop nd filter that I have never been able to persuade to flare in any conditions.  With my MP, I mainly use black and white negative film and Heliopan filters are a way of life.  The 35mm summicron-m is my most-used lens (against much opinion on here, it seems. I really like this lens!) and it does not seem to me to be any more flare-prone than my other Leica lenses.  The 'problem' with flare is that with a rangefinder camera, you can't see it until you review the image or process the film and using a free hand or something else to shade the lens is hit-and-miss.  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 Hi honcho, Take a look here Summicron 35/2 ASPH flare/ghosting issue. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
indergaard Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share #42 Â Posted November 2, 2016 Not really. It is evidently a reflection of the street light. Correct. I have three pictures of the same frame with slightly different framing. The ghosting is in slightly different places in each frame. If it was a spot on the sensor or on the lens it would be in the same spot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share #43  Posted November 2, 2016 I've never known a Leica lens that can't be made to flare, including the famed F1 Noctilux. In my experience, the worst culprits are the modern shorter focal length lenses with aspherical elements though some are better than others in this regard – e.g. the 28 Summicron is more resistant than the 24 Elmarit and the 35 Summarit considerably less flare prone than both the Summicron and Summilux.  Well, during my testing, the 21/3.4 SEM is one of the most flare resistant lenses I've ever owned! Also one of the absolutely jaw-dropping best lenses otherwise that I've had the pleasure of owning... If only I liked using the focal length and external viewfinders, I would have kept it. ​But otherwise you are right. I've looked at my past 35/1.4 Lux FLE shots now, and I can see some flare that I haven't really noticed before. But the flare is more "natural". The flare effect of this Summicron is very sharp and distinct, so it's a lot less natural, and a lot more noticeable. I guess it's just the characteristic of the lens. I've only provoked it wide open also. Stopping it down might help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2016 Share #44  Posted November 2, 2016 Matter of tastes but the worse flare among my pics above comes from the FLE... You know, all lenses do flare more or less. Among Leica ones, the 35/2 asph is not the worst by far. As for ghostings, i have only experienced them with filters so far so i tend to believe that your lens may need some CLA. FWIW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share #45 Â Posted November 2, 2016 Matter of tastes but the worse flare among my pics above comes from the FLE... You know, all lenses do flare more or less. Among Leica ones, the 35/2 asph is not the worst by far. As for ghostings, i have only experienced them with filters so far so i tend to believe that your lens may need some CLA. FWIW. I don't think it needs a CLA. It's manufactured in 2013. Everything is mint on it. It focuses properly at all distances, and it's smooth. It looks and feels barely used. The only thing I noticed is very very minor focus shift at f4-f5.6 at about 1 meter / 5 feet distance. Which from what I've read many places is normal on this lens. I can see similar glare characteristics in other photos made with the same type of lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2016 Share #46 Â Posted November 2, 2016 I did not refer to glare but to ghosting which is not normal to me but again, YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2016 Share #47  Posted November 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) As said, I think the ghosting is caused by the concave front lens element and can e significantly reduced by using a lens hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 3, 2016 Author Share #48  Posted November 3, 2016 As said, I think the ghosting is caused by the concave front lens element and can e significantly reduced by using a lens hood.  Well I did use the lens hood on the initial examples where I didn't perform "a test". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 4, 2016 Share #49  Posted November 4, 2016 As said, I think the ghosting is caused by the concave front lens element and can be significantly reduced by using a lens hood.  We would all get ghosting in our night pics then. Bit of flare yes but never seen ghosting w/o filter so far. No hood here: https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-GgtmLm9/0/X3/DSC03523_c1si-X3.jpg I don't remove the hood in most cases though. Not a reason to dissuade the OP from having his lens checked anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 4, 2016 Author Share #50  Posted November 4, 2016 Well I don't think my lens is faulty at all. A quick look at the Summicron 35 ASPH group on Flickr showed an image with exactly the same shaped and positioned flare that I'm experiencing. I consider this to just be normal for this lens. It's probably my style of shooting that provokes it more than for most people.  Example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/86326510@N06/30396707910/in/pool-1316391@N21/   Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 4, 2016 Share #51  Posted November 4, 2016 Sorry but i don't see ghosting in those pics. Ghosting is when you can draw lines as i did above there post-385-0-01264100-1477907019.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 4, 2016 Share #52  Posted November 4, 2016 Sorry but i don't see ghosting in those pics. Ghosting is when you can draw lines as i did above there post-385-0-01264100-1477907019.jpg There's a very nice line between the brightest part of the clouds near the top left corner and both the oval and the rhombus near the bottom right corner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haljaberi Posted November 5, 2016 Share #53 Â Posted November 5, 2016 Just my humble opinion, I have the 28mm Summilux ASPH, and I have been shooting architecture with sun just behind or around, it is very hard to get flare with both hood and filter on, unless your intentionally wants to do that. Â Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ru2far2c Posted November 5, 2016 Share #54  Posted November 5, 2016 Correct. I have three pictures of the same frame with slightly different framing. The ghosting is in slightly different places in each frame. If it was a spot on the sensor or on the lens it would be in the same spot.  It could be a reflection from the sensor to one of the lens element and back again. The sensor is a reflective surface as is glass. I take it you were hand holding your camera and not on tripod. That may be one reason it moves from frame to frame.  Your first sample looks like normal lens flare to me. The kind you don't want even if you tried to make it happen and when you try to make it happen it wouldn't.  Your second sample looks like reflection like I mentioned above. I've seen this happen before even once in while.  Since the light source is in the frame a lens hood wouldn't make a difference I don't think. Other examples earlier in the thread sort of prove my point. You ruled out filter issues in your original post.  My 35mm cron lens hood falls off all the time. So now I just leave it off while shooting. I love the lens and hate the design of the lens hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 5, 2016 Author Share #55  Posted November 5, 2016 It could be a reflection from the sensor to one of the lens element and back again. The sensor is a reflective surface as is glass. I take it you were hand holding your camera and not on tripod. That may be one reason it moves from frame to frame.  Your first sample looks like normal lens flare to me. The kind you don't want even if you tried to make it happen and when you try to make it happen it wouldn't.  Your second sample looks like reflection like I mentioned above. I've seen this happen before even once in while.  Since the light source is in the frame a lens hood wouldn't make a difference I don't think. Other examples earlier in the thread sort of prove my point. You ruled out filter issues in your original post.  My 35mm cron lens hood falls off all the time. So now I just leave it off while shooting. I love the lens and hate the design of the lens hood.  Yes you're correct. A lens hood wouldn't do anything in any of my examples, as the source of the light is in the frame. It might be some sort of internal reflection caused by the sensor for all I know. I've developed a few rolls of film, also shot with the same lens, and I can't see any similar reflection there. And I would assume that film is a lot less reflective than a digital sensor with it's shiny cover glass.  I don't think my MM's sensor is shinier than most people's sensor... So... Until I get sensor corrosion, and get a free sensor replacement, I'll just have to live with it. I've looked at the sensor and looks shiny and fine... The rest of the internals of the camera are all matte black except the rangefinder alignment wheel.  After inspecting images that I've made with the M240 and a 35/1.4 Lux FLE I can see flare in the same situations. The flare is very different though, it's simply less pronounced. The flare/ghosting on the Summicron is very sharp, or it's a almost like a round "blob". The Summilux's flare is thinner, longer, and looks more like traditional flare/ghosting/reflections, so I don't notice it as much in the images.  Also I guess it's easier to notice these types of flare and ghosting with the MM: All you see is black and white, and during night time, all of the nuances of light will easily be seen. The M240 is color, and has lot's of color distractions working in it's favor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted November 5, 2016 Share #56 Â Posted November 5, 2016 I am afraid this is the character of that lens. Made a test with the monochrom and the lens hood on and can exactly reproduce the effect you showed here. It is pretty clear to watch in the LiveView. It is much weaker in the final picture. Looks like the LiveView pronounced this even stronger. The flare here is not as sharp as the one in your examples (f2.0 full open), but otherwise the same. On the other side it is the lens I use the most and I rather seldom have a problem with this "feature" in daily praxis.I hoped for years Leica will come out with a new version of that lens. Mostly because of distortion and focus shift, but also because it's tends to flare. But now, after this cosmetic new version appears, I'm afraid I will have to wait many more years to see a progress there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share #57  Posted November 6, 2016 I am afraid this is the character of that lens. Made a test with the monochrom and the lens hood on and can exactly reproduce the effect you showed here. It is pretty clear to watch in the LiveView. It is much weaker in the final picture. Looks like the LiveView pronounced this even stronger. The flare here is not as sharp as the one in your examples (f2.0 full open), but otherwise the same. On the other side it is the lens I use the most and I rather seldom have a problem with this "feature" in daily praxis. I hoped for years Leica will come out with a new version of that lens. Mostly because of distortion and focus shift, but also because it's tends to flare. But now, after this cosmetic new version appears, I'm afraid I will have to wait many more years to see a progress there.  Thanks! Well that's both good and bad to hear From my research on the new Summicron releases this year, it seems like they perform significantly better in the corners (corner sharpness) both on the M and SL and other mirrorless cameras. The coating is also more flare resistant, and the lenses have a higher level of contrast, and slightly smoother bokeh. That's about it for all the three re-releases from what I've read.  Which is sad indeed. I would have liked to see the focus shift eliminated. It's not a big problem on the 35 ASPH though, honestly. But buying a mint used 35 ASPH makes a lot more sense than buying tha latest version for it's minor improvements, unless you need corner to corner sharpness at the widest apertures.  Nobody was really complaining about the performance of the 28's and 35 ASPH's. The non-ASPH 50 Summicron, which actually needs some improvement, didn't receive any. The focus shift is very noticeable on this lens with digital cameras. And the APO-Summicron 50mm f/2 is too expensive and too exotic for most people's need, which leaves the Zeiss 50mm Planar ZM in a unique position, as it doesn't suffer from focus shift, and it's performance otherwise is on par or better than the Summicron 50mm non-ASPH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted November 6, 2016 Share #58 Â Posted November 6, 2016 Interesting that there might be a better sharpness in the cornes with the new 35CronASPH. All I read about it until now claimed that there wouldn't be much difference. In this even the former one wasn't bad at all. But for me the new one has a great drawback: the new hood has to be screwed off and on each time you want to use a filter. Since I use filters quite often, I will stay with the old version. Didn't get why the not even made a bajonett coupling or something more userfriendly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 7, 2016 Share #59 Â Posted November 7, 2016 Interesting that there might be a better sharpness in the cornes with the new 35CronASPH. All I read about it until now claimed that there wouldn't be much difference. In this even the former one wasn't bad at all. Â Â Â Correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted November 7, 2016 Author Share #60 Â Posted November 7, 2016 Interesting that there might be a better sharpness in the cornes with the new 35CronASPH. All I read about it until now claimed that there wouldn't be much difference. In this even the former one wasn't bad at all. But for me the new one has a great drawback: the new hood has to be screwed off and on each time you want to use a filter. Since I use filters quite often, I will stay with the old version. Didn't get why the not even made a bajonett coupling or something more userfriendly. Â The old version isn't bad either, which is why I decided to purchase the pre-2016 version myself. But the Elmarit 28mm, Summicron 28mm was improved a lot (Sean Reid has reviews covering both) and apparently the same minor optical improvements are apparent in the Summicron 35 also. Â I really don't like the hood on the new 35/2 though. It makes it as big as the Summilux 35 FLE length-wise, which is just a big no-no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.