eh, my 17-55/2.8 is getting on my nerves
March 14th, 2010 by , under nnmj.com.
I realize that I'm asking a lot from this lens, and possibly should have researched its flare characteristics a little better. but, shelling out 1200 bones gave me the idea that I'd get a little better performance out of it.
whisper direct light source, and this thing has a hissy fit. I've been using it since early this year, and most of the time I'm able to control the scene enough to avoid any flare.. or at least keep it at a minimum. but there's no fun in controlled environments, anyway :mrgreen:. the best way, I've found, to avoid flare is not to shoot directly at a light source. or to drastically alter the WB and colour channels. but.. what if you need to shoot directly into a light source and prefer not to alter the colour so much? with or without a filter, with or without the hood, it flares and ghosts like it's going out of style.
when I can afford to replace it, I will. but for the time being, it's pretty much a mainstay lens for me. don't get me wrong, I love it when I can avoid a direct light source, but like I said, I can't always do that.
you guys have any suggestions (other than not shooting into a light source) to reduce the flare on this thing? or even make it less distracting/ugly. maybe I'm being prissy, I dunno.
examples. top is with a b+w UVO, no processing. bottom is processed in LR2, no filter. hood was used in both shots, and the angle of light hitting the front element was between 20 and 30 degrees. F11, and F10 respectively.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/2946549941_3cb70e063a.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2946557247_4769eedb4d.jpg
thanks in advance.
Maybe what I should do is buy an ultra wide prime.. like the zeiss 18/3.5 which doesn't seem to flare at all: http://www.jorgetorralba.com/img/v1/p176717912-5.jpg
sell crack to school kids or something..
word to the street, yo. I didn't even notice the bottom there.
Just to make sure we've eliminated the usual culprits: I assume these were shot without filters, right? Because those flare a lot!
That and a seemingly big increase in CA. I usually leave filters at home unless I anticipate close contact. The top was shot with a b+w UV, though, as an example.
i faced it, and the way to do it for me is to change my position somehow whenever possible, i tried using multiple filters, polarizers, and still NO WAY you can avoid that =) :mrgreen:
but you don't have any lenses with nano coated elements designed to stop/reduce internal light redirection...
i've tried to flare the lens shooting sunlight direct a couple of times without any flare on the 24-70.... the only reason i'm not speaking with greater authority is due to the fact that I have only owned this lens for a month.... not enough time for thorough testing.... but basically so far I haven't been able to flare the lens....
i faced it, and the way to do it for me is to change my position somehow whenever possible, i tried using multiple filters, polarizers, and still NO WAY you can avoid that =) :mrgreen:
i faced it, and the way to do it for me is to change my position somehow whenever possible, i tried using multiple filters, polarizers, and still NO WAY you can avoid that =) :mrgreen:
the more elements you add in an optical formula, the better the chance at increasing flare/ghosting. same thing for adding elements such as filters in front of the lens. more glass to pass through, more bouncing around of light, increased flaws - in this situation.
Maybe what I should do is buy an ultra wide prime.. like the zeiss 18/3.5 which doesn't seem to flare at all: http://www.jorgetorralba.com/img/v1/p176717912-5.jpg
Is the link to a picture taken with the Zeiss 18/3.5? If so, it does flare too and quite a lot. Look at the leaf at the bottom of the frame! I think it is almost impossible to avoid flare if you point the lens directly to a bright light source.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
