About flare

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From Zeiss and in relation to cine lenses, but interesting, especially for anyone using older lenses which suffer from differing types of flare: https://lenspire.zeiss.com/cine/en/article/taking-care-of-the-unwanted-light

[darylgo]

An uncoated lens will turn gray?  Anyone have experience with this?  

[pgk]

2 hours ago, darylgo said:

An uncoated lens will turn gray?  Anyone have experience with this?  

Depends on the glass. The article references Zeiss cine lenses.

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

But flare in old lenses in not unwanted, in fact I bought many uncoated ones JUST BECAUSE of flare.

So now you know what to look for to increase flare😊.

[darylgo]

22 minutes ago, pgk said:

Depends on the glass. The article references Zeiss cine lenses.

That would indicate that glass is not stable of that it needs to be fixed as a silver print does after development.  What glass could they be using?  

[pgk]

25 minutes ago, darylgo said:

That would indicate that glass is not stable of that it needs to be fixed as a silver print does after development.  What glass could they be using?  

Well, to a degree. I shoot underwater and the glass ports I use are 'mineral' glass (obviously pressure resistant. After use they must be dried and if the neoprene covers are put on then they too need to be thoroughly dry. If either are damp mistiness can form over time which I am told is oxidaion due to the presence of water for a long time. I suspect that some optical glass is not as inert as we expect it to be from our experience with window glass and the glass used for cooking with and drinking from, which is remarkably stable.

I think that the fluorite glass used in early super-telephoto lenses had age related problems if I remember correctly. Radiation yellows other lens' glasses too. 

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, pgk said:

Well, to a degree. I shoot underwater and the glass ports I use are 'mineral' glass (obviously pressure resistant. After use they must be dried and if the neoprene covers are put on then they too need to be thoroughly dry. If either are damp mistiness can form over time which I am told is oxidaion due to the presence of water for a long time. I suspect that some optical glass is not as inert as we expect it to be from our experience with window glass and the glass used for cooking with and drinking from, which is remarkably stable.

I think that the fluorite glass used in early super-telephoto lenses had age related problems if I remember correctly. Radiation yellows other lens' glasses too. 

Thank you for the post, it continues to mystify me that a graying will occur.  If the gray coloration occurs it would indicate a reaction initiated by the light with an element in the glass.  Elimination of this part of the glass would solve the graying, if it's not the glass itself or a key element which I would suspect.   Furthermore, what properties do the coatings have that they would stop this graying process?  Perhaps as you suggest it is a sealing from the atmosphere, humidity and oxidation.   

[Huss]

Flare?  Yes please.

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!

[Pyrogallol]

What lens is that?

[pippy]

4 hours ago, Al Brown said:

You have not seen flare until you have worked with this lens. It was proclaimed the worst zoom lens ever made back then. Probably radioactive and highly unusual range. It has virtually every flare shape possible, all in one compact package. Love it...

I'm truly delighted to read that it gets some love from yourself, Al, but I can't say it's something which I would be able to tolerate whatsoever. Great, I suppose, if the hope is for numerous and enormous orange blobs to obliterate any underlying image in one's frame but otherwise? What is the attraction?

You are a smart guy whose views I very much respect - and so seriously; this is all in fun - so what is it that I'm missing here? Those photographs are an absolute catastrophe!

Going way out on a limb here, I know, but is the lens in question the 43mm-86mm Nikkor?...because that was the worst POS I've ever used in my life...........

Philip.

Edited November 24, 2022 by pippy

[pgk]

9 hours ago, pippy said:

Going way out on a limb here, I know, but is the lens in question the 43mm-86mm Nikkor?...because that was the worst POS I've ever used in my life...........

Philip.

The 43-86 showed barrel distortion at one end and pincushion at the other - in an enprint (4" x 6" to the uninitiated)! But it sold in enormous quantities despite its drawbacks because it was the first Nikkor Zoom at a reasonable price. A 'classic' lens nevertheless.🙂

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

@pippy it is for video only, for telling stories. Flares add so much emotion when used in moving pictures...Clients mostly love it and ask for it. You can even BUY them for your video edits...

Yes; I do get why flare can be attractive when used tastefully and in moderation. 'Buying flare' initially seems a rather amusing - and bemusing - concept but, then again, why not?

41 minutes ago, pgk said:

The 43-86 showed barrel distortion at one end and pincushion at the other......A 'classic' lens nevertheless.🙂

Perhaps my comment came across as being slightly too harsh on the poor thing!............

Oddly enough - and despite my succinct summation of the lens - I've been considering picking one up on behalf of my daughter who has developed (Ho!Ho!) an interest in photography. So far she has only been using short and standard primes but I suspect she would take to the 43-86 specifically because of its quirky nature. She's just started Art College so it goes without saying that any inherent flaws in her snapping will be embraced to the utmost!

Philip.

[sdk]

My first 28mm/2 Summicron ASPH and 35mm/1.4 Summilux ASPH (pre FLE) both would get pretty annoying very large flare patches, if the sun struck the front element from just outside the image area. On film I would find out this ruined photos randomly, sometimes a rectangular light patch would be taking up most of the center of the frame, leaving the edges around it normally exposed. Eventually I sold both lenses. I really like the least flare possible in images. My current Leica lenses mostly are low flare (21mm/3.4 ASPH, 24mm/3.8 ASPH, 28mm/2.8 ASPH (current model), with the 75mm/2 Apo Summicron ASPH sometimes getting som large patch flare, but much less frequently than the two wideangles I complain about above.

Zeiss ZM lenses are all pretty flare resistant. I did have one night street photo image image  shot with a 35mm/1.14 Distagon ZM that had a little tiny flare patch, but it was a very contrasty scene with lots of artificial light sources shot in a Boston alleyway at night on a tripod. I was able to retouch that digitally (shot with Leica M-P typ 240) as the flare patch was so small. Voigtlander Apo Skopar 90mm/2.8 and Apo Lanthar 35mm/2 seem to be as flare proof as the Zeiss ZM lenses.

Edited November 29, 2022 by sdk

[lct]

As far as i recall (Contarex vs Leicaflex in the sixties), Zeiss has always been "better" than Leica re resistance to flare and it is still true nowadays. Makes part of the Zeiss look giving images a somewhat supernatural clarity. The Leica approach was and is still probably more natural in that it accepts flare as making part of photography. Nice to use a Planar, a Sonnar or a Biogon though and great to use them on a Leica body, the old enemy brothers being thus reconciled .

[pgk]

27 minutes ago, lct said:

As far as i recall (Contarex vs Leicaflex in the sixties), Zeiss has always been "better" than Leica re resistance to flare and it is still true nowadays.

I had a Contax N zoom which was flare resistant, but when it did flare the result was small, hard, round, white patches which were really unpleasant. Otherwise a great lens though.