Surprising lens flare / artefacts on 11-23 and CL

[Neill Watson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have owned my Leica CL for a few weeks, with obviously not much chance to test it.

However, wandering about at sunrise, I shot this as part of a test sequence and I am worried at the result. There is what seems to be significant lens flare when shooting into the early morning sun.

When I fist saw this in Lightroom I actually thought it looked like the autofocus points showing through to the image, it was that symmetrical.

This type of shot is something I've done many many times over the years and have never seen artefacts this bad. Any image I shot as part of this sequence into the light has the same symmetrical artefacts. Do I have a fault, is this normal or what?

To give perspective, it's the type of shot I've done many times over the tears. Previous cameras in my job have been Canon 1DS etc plus my latest is a Sony A6300 with the 10-18F4. It doesn't do that.

Any thoughts?

EXIF shows ISO400, f16, 1/125th at 11mm

Neill W

 

 

 

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!

[Boojay]

No, you don't have a fault - it happens.  You may want to read through this earlier thread.  I have had the same thing (with various lenses) in similar shooting conditions. Think its called sensor array (maybe).  Anyway lots of comments and information in this thread.

 

[Neill Watson]

Hmm. Good point.

Historically, I have never used filters on the front element. I know that it has protective characteristics, but I figure why soend thousands on the best glass then put another layer in front, even if it's a quality filter? Inly exception to that is Lee filters for creative and balancing exposure.

So, I bought that lens used (very very lightly used, no sign of it) and it came with a UV on it. I've been shooting with and without it to see if there's a differenrce, so now I'm not sure if the UV was on the lends in that shot....

So I guess that the only thing that has changed is the possibility that I may have had the UV on, which was a first for me.

More testing needed.

Thanks for your feedback. 

Neill W

[ruskkyle]

If you read a little further into the discussion, you could retry this shot at an open aperture and the effect should be minimised.

[raadoo]

I had the same mini panic attack a little while ago.

Apparently, opening up the aperture helps a lot.

 

 

 

[gteague]

my formula for creating flare deliberately is simply to stop down to at least f11 and point the lens so that the sun is in or just out of frame. works better with some lenses than others. if i get artefacts i figure sometimes they work for the shot and sometimes they don't.

/guy

Edited April 21, 2020 by gteague

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Filters have nothing to do with this. Happens with various lenses on the CL at f/16 and f/22 mainly when pointing at the sun. Only way to avoid this, open up the aperture at  f/11 or f/8. Here with a ZM 35/2.8 at f/16.

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!

[Leon Sung]

Add one more sample

CL + TL60 f8

 

 

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 22, 2020 by Leon Sung

[Neill Watson]

Thanks for the replies everyone. 

Of course because of the symmetry it triggers instant WTF?? 

In all my years of shooting, have never seen that. Of course, sometimes flare actually adds to the shot, I like it. The 'robotic' nature of that I found unpleasant. 

Have checked my note and no, there was no filter, as someone mentioned, it's not a filter thing.

Will have to bear it in mind going forwards. Another reason to always test a new camera on things that don't matter and not wait until the shot really counts!

Neill W

 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

This thread has got me taking a picture I normally wouldn't. Ok this greets me every sunny morning this time of year. Using a Tokina 11-16 on my CL. I did a series of pictures f5.6-11 varying exposure. This is a lens known for ugly flare but with the lens hood seems to have done quite well at f11. Since a long time ago when an uncle told me not to point a camera at the sun cause it would burn a hole in the shutter, I just don't do it. But I am happy with this one. Only question is should I take out the one flare which is kind of central. 11mm at f11 Tokina 11-16 on CL

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!

[Neill Watson]

25 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

Only question is should I take out the one flare which is kind of central. 11mm at f11 Tokina 11-16 on CL

I think that comes down to personal preference.

For me, I would leave it in, as I think it's the sort of thing that you'd see if you were driving into the sun etc. Others may wish a technically perfect image.

I actually like that type of flare. In fact, I like the whole Contre Jour style, as having the sun in an image for me lifts it as everyone loves the sight of the sunshine. 

Neill W

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have a couple taken 15 minutes before this with more of the green flare, but the delineation between the tree shadows was not as good, I like this image better.

[jankap]

Am 21.4.2020 um 12:58 schrieb Neill Watson:

Historically, I have never used filters on the front element. I know that it has protective characteristics, but I figure why soend thousands on the best glass then put another layer in front, even if it's a quality filter? Inly exception to that is Lee filters for creative and balancing exposure.

Neill W

My idea also. A lens cap is far more protective. One takes it off, when a picture is taken and at that moment one is attentive. The UV limiting property is something, one thinks to need a filter:

[jaapv]

There have been earlier threads on this. Other brands are affected as well.

[lct]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

There have been earlier threads on this. Other brands are affected as well.

+1

[jaapv]

On 4/21/2020 at 12:58 PM, Neill Watson said:

Hmm. Good point.

Historically, I have never used filters on the front element. I know that it has protective characteristics, but I figure why soend thousands on the best glass then put another layer in front, even if it's a quality filter? Inly exception to that is Lee filters for creative and balancing exposure.

So, I bought that lens used (very very lightly used, no sign of it) and it came with a UV on it. I've been shooting with and without it to see if there's a differenrce, so now I'm not sure if the UV was on the lends in that shot....

So I guess that the only thing that has changed is the possibility that I may have had the UV on, which was a first for me.

More testing needed.

Thanks for your feedback. 

Neill W

It has absolutely nothing to do with the filter - it is caused by the reflection characteristics of the sensor.

[Leon Sung]

This phenomenon happens on Nikon P950, too.

Please refer to the following image sample from dpreview web site.

   https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3706941848/nikon-p950-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv/5924762836