Ugly lens flare!

[Jdphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sometimes I like to shoot into the sun for dramatic effect with sunstars or to add deliberate flare. However, this time using the 23mm F/2 TL, the flare was downright ugly. Perhaps this is actually the sensor reflecting the sun, but there's no pattern or array. Hmm...

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!

[tsleica]

^{Yep..thats pretty bad..}

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

Were you using a filter?

[Jdphoto]

Yes, I was using a UV and thought that maybe refraction could be the issue. The traditional coma-type flare is evident at approximately the 4 o'clock position. I'll try it again without a filter, but I'm leaning towards the UV filter as the cause of the ugly flare.

[jmahto]

It looks like due to internal reflection between flat surfaces. Either from with filter or sensor array. Normally sensor array's reflection is closely spaced therefore I will say it is most probably due to internal reflection in the filter.

 

Part of the reason I hate using filters in normal usage (hostile weather is different issue). Better to protect the lens using lens hood.

[mhoutman]

Yes, I was using a UV and thought that maybe refraction could be the issue. The traditional coma-type flare is evident at approximately the 4 o'clock position. I'll try it again without a filter, but I'm leaning towards the UV filter as the cause of the ugly flare.

Whch UV filter brand do you use? Heliopan, B+W, Hoya ?

Edited March 21, 2018 by mhoutman

[Jdphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I use a B&W UV. I tend to agree about the reflection of the two surfaces. 

[jaapv]

Typical reflective filter flare. A multi-nanocoated protective filter might have done better, but the best solution is to remove it in this type of light.

[david strachan]

Yes, it's a trap for M8 owners, leaving the UV-IR cut filter on at night.  Specular highlights would ghost and cause nasty refections.  The filter was unecessary anyway at night time.  Very difficult to remove in post processing.

 

Something else to watch out for...

 

...

Edited March 22, 2018 by david strachan

[wlaidlaw]

I remember getting horrible pink circles in the sky with my M8 and the UV/IR filters, particularly with the 35 ASPH Summilux.

 

I got some flare and ghost images with a Hoya Polariser on the CL+ 18-56. The Hoya was supposedly nano coated and MC. It was also quite dark and did not seem to make much difference on rotation. I have lost it when I took it off to return my CL and the stuck on 18-56 to Wetzlar for replacement. When the replacement CL zoom kit arrived, I bought a B+W Käsemann polariser for the 18-56. This is over 1EV lighter than the Hoya and seems to polarise more effectively (turning it makes a noticeable difference). I tried a couple of days ago to get it to flare and failed. It is not the nano coated version as the dealer did not have that in stock in 52mm. My feeling therefore in a very uncontrolled comparison, is that nano coating seems to do little if anything to reduce flare. It may just be the the normal coatings on the B+W are better quality than the Hoya. I thought nano coating was designed to repel water anyway not for flare reduction. 

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

It makes it easier to keep the filters clean, thus reducing flare. The main flare advantage of the Nano-coated protective filters by B+W and Heliopan is their thinness.

[Marac]

I understand the desire to protect your front element, but this is the reason I do not use filters, period.

[lct]

+1 unless i shoot at sea on in sandy environments let alone with IR prone cameras. We did not use filters that often in the past. Filters had the purpose of filtering more so than protecting against things a hood is made for. Whatever coatings they may have filters can only add air-glass surfaces by construction. 

[Jdphoto]

Tried another photo with no filter on the 23mm f/2, but still the ugliest lens flare of any lens. Otherwise, it's a great.

[lct]

Tried another photo with no filter on the 23mm f/2, but still the ugliest lens flare of any lens. [...]

 

Any pic?

[Jdphoto]

 

Ugly lens flare with no filter. It's the weird symmetrical pattern around the flare that really is ugly.

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!

Edited April 2, 2018 by Jdphoto

[jaapv]

You did use a lens hood I suppose?

[lct]

Neve seen such ghost images w/o filter so far. I would not accept such a lens personally.  

[helged]

Not seen this myself, either - but let's try to provoke it - to check whether it is a character of the lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jdphoto]

 

Yes, lens hood was on, but i've seen this anomaly in the "image thread, #1097" that another photographer had posted using the 11- 23mm. I'd be curious if the 35mm t 1.4 did the same thing. This is by far the ugliest lens flare of any lens i've used. Perhaps the German lenses are better? Great lens, just don't point it at the sun unless you like this ugly effect. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Jdphoto