tofsla Posted December 5, 2008 Share #1 Posted December 5, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can somone please help me. I am getting very strange white mist (as in left side of the image attached). Is it lens flare? or dirk on sensor? or what else? thank you in advance for your help 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/70449-help-m8-and-35-f14-summilux-flare/?do=findComment&comment=737220'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 5, 2008 Posted December 5, 2008 Hi tofsla, Take a look here Help. M8 and 35 f/1.4 Summilux flare?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wparsonsgisnet Posted December 5, 2008 Share #2 Posted December 5, 2008 I had this lens and replaced it with the asph version because of flare, but in my case the problem was with stage lighting. I wouldn't have expected to see flare be a problem in a picture like this. There's a lot of light coming from the front, but it's not direct light. Maybe the filter is dirty? Nice looking kid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 5, 2008 Share #3 Posted December 5, 2008 Definitely not dirt on the sensor. Did you use a lens hood? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted December 5, 2008 thanks for reply. Yeh, she is one good looking kid - thanks God doesn't look like daddy. Lens hood was used (as usual) and filter is clean (just checked few min ago). What it can be? May be UV/IR filter, giving strange flare even under straight light? thanks again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 5, 2008 Share #5 Posted December 5, 2008 Just oldfashioned veiling flare imo - some stray light must have hit the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 5, 2008 Share #6 Posted December 5, 2008 In a car there could easily be a bright reflection off metalwork which is directed straight onto the filter or lens without you being aware of it, and which then causes a contrast drop due to 'flare'. Do other images show similar problems or is this a one off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted December 5, 2008 Share #7 Posted December 5, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) This lens has a lot of strange attributes but some users like the look. Here's my experience with it. M8 on the bar. 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/70449-help-m8-and-35-f14-summilux-flare/?do=findComment&comment=737394'>More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted December 5, 2008 Share #8 Posted December 5, 2008 The reason I got rid of this lens is that it's the most flare-prone Leica glass I've ever used. Actually, the early 35, collapsing, Elmar was just flare-y to me. I tried and abandoned that lens, but the 35 'lux-non-a is a modern lens. After I swapped the lenses, my wife asked to see some older pix from a dance show that I photograph each year. She looked at the ones that came from the earlier 35 and immediately asked what was wrong with those photos. When there is flare, the images lose definition, color saturation, and seem uninteresting [sorry if that's a classic definition of flare.... ]. I also bot the asph version of the 50 'lux as soon as it was announced (well, I had to wait for what seemed like an eternity to get the *&^%$#@! lens!). I did this just because of the transformation in image quality from the 35 switch. I never had noticeable flare from the 50 'lux-non-a, but I made the change anyway. Also, I figured I was home free because I retained my 50 'cron DR. Little did I know that it wouldn't fit the M8. Damn. 'Course, my #1 son is very pleased with this outcome. He's caretaking my M6, the DR, and a 90 'cron (Canada) with great joy. He's also getting my darkroom equipment in a series of shipments. Do you know how cheap Leica glass is compared to shipping a bunch of heavy boxes to the Left Coast?!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share #9 Posted December 5, 2008 This lens has a lot of strange attributes but some users like the look. Here's my experience with it. M8 on the bar. thank you for the post. its looks great at the center, and then its becoming strangely misty in the corners. I guess this what they call "unique lens footprint"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share #10 Posted December 5, 2008 In a car there could easily be a bright reflection off metalwork which is directed straight onto the filter or lens without you being aware of it, and which then causes a contrast drop due to 'flare'. Do other images show similar problems or is this a one off? very possible. all images made in the car, shows the same contrast drop, but just regular overcast images look fine, so may be its due to car... thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share #11 Posted December 5, 2008 The reason I got rid of this lens is that it's the most flare-prone Leica glass I've ever used. Actually, the early 35, collapsing, Elmar was just flare-y to me. I tried and abandoned that lens, but the 35 'lux-non-a is a modern lens. After I swapped the lenses, my wife asked to see some older pix from a dance show that I photograph each year. She looked at the ones that came from the earlier 35 and immediately asked what was wrong with those photos. Oh thats not good news for my 35, non-a... may be time to ask Santa for lux ASPH?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted December 5, 2008 Share #12 Posted December 5, 2008 Bill, you can send your DR to DAG, and he can cut off the close-focus part of the RF cam. The DR will then fit on the M8. I have done this. At first, I felt a bit guilty at altering such a magnificent mechanical creation. But I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've used the close focus feature with film, and a 90mm lens at closest focus has about the same field of view as the DR at 18". The ability to use my favorite 50 on the M8 has outweighed any lingering guilt feelings. The DR draws beautifully on the M8, and mine has no significant focus shift. --Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted December 5, 2008 Share #13 Posted December 5, 2008 Tofsla: Remember that with the M8, you are not using the outermost part of the lens' field of view. But that part of the image is still bouncing around in the lens and the camera body. With light coming in from the car window on the side, and a darker car interior, flare can show up. Take some tests shots of a more uniformly lighted scene, and check for flare on the side. If you don't see the "misty" flare, then your lens is not defective. You'll just have to remember to avoid bright light just outside the M8's field of view. This is no different from what people in earlier times had to do with their uncoated or less contrasty lenses. If it's a real issue for you, then you can sell the non-asph and put the money towards a Summilux Asph. Plenty of people venerate the non-asph 'Lux for its "look," so you should be able to get a decent price for it. Also remember that a CLA sometimes gets rid of barely-visible internal haze that causes flare. It the lens hasn't been cleaned for years, a CLA could give it a new lease on life. --Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted December 5, 2008 Share #14 Posted December 5, 2008 Yes occasional flare is an attribute of the 35 lux pre-asph..... nevertheless my favourite Leica lens of all times ... would never trade mine for the ASPH version ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted December 5, 2008 Share #15 Posted December 5, 2008 Bill, you can send your DR to DAG, and he can cut off the close-focus part of the RF cam... Peter, I didn't want to assault my own lens, so I've had my eyes out for another used one on eBay. They're too expensive at the moment, but I plan to do as you suggest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 5, 2008 Share #16 Posted December 5, 2008 Original 35/1.4 was indeed as others have described above. It was pretty much okay stopped down, but had a lot of spherical aberration and coma wide open. (That's why the center is sharp and there's a circle where the image goes to pot.) IMHO the only good thing about the lens is that it's compact. And at the time it was just about the only 35/1.4 on the market. That meant that although it wasn't very good, it was 'among the best' of that specification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted December 5, 2008 Share #17 Posted December 5, 2008 Don't blaspheme the "Leica glow" now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted December 5, 2008 Share #18 Posted December 5, 2008 thank you for the post. its looks great at the center, and then its becoming strangely misty in the corners. I guess this what they call "unique lens footprint"... It is indeed unique and on some images, particularly B&W I like the look. I never use the lens wide open for scenics and landscapes it is best stopped down to F5.6. It also has a "unique footprint" when used with an IR filter on the M8 and closely resembles Kodak HIE. I've debated many times about selling it but every time I get my mind set I take it out and look at that big sparkling front element sigh and put it back in my bag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwF Posted December 5, 2008 Share #19 Posted December 5, 2008 This lens has a lot of strange attributes but some users like the look. Here's my experience with it. M8 on the bar. I have "achieved" similar results as the glasses on the bar with my 40 1.4 Nonetheless I like that lens, and wide-open I find it more usable than my old pre-asph 'lux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 6, 2008 Share #20 Posted December 6, 2008 Bill, I had the same experience with the old Summilux. Sometimes I was hard put to find anything sharp at all in the pictures (that was with my old M4-P). So I dumped it and got myself a Summilux ASPH, and I am happily using that lens now with my M8, in spite of the past flap about focus shift. The 'lux ASPH too has some sensitivity to flare, but much much less than its predecessor, and also much less than the current 50mm Summicron which I will not touch with a nine foot pole because of its flareyness. The least flare-prone M lenses I have ever worked with are various modern 28mm lenses, including the Summicron, and also the 75mm Summarit. At least you can be certain that the fault is with that accursed lens, not with the M8. The old man from the Age B.C. (Before Coating) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.