Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Apr 2012 (Thursday) 17:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Flare and full frame lenses

 
colintf
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 05, 2012 17:15 |  #1

Hi,
on a 5d and using a UV filter, is one of the following better at resisting flare than the others? I was at about 18 mm

16-35Lf2.8 mk2
17-40L
24-105L

I was trying the 16-35 and was suprised to see the flaring. Maybe I am better off with one of the others? The lens hood was being used at the time

Many thanks in advance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Saint728
Goldmember
Avatar
2,892 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
     
Apr 05, 2012 17:46 |  #2

Get rid of the UV filter and you will see less flair. I use the 17-40mm and 16-35mm and they both have very little flair shooting directly into the sun.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick


Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III | 17-40mm f/4.0L | 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | 300mm f/4.0L IS
Click Here To See My Gear
Click here to see my Flickr (external link)
http://www.runryder.co​m/helicopter/gallery/9​019/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 05, 2012 17:51 as a reply to  @ Saint728's post |  #3

many thanks Patrick.

I prefer the safety of the filter to protect the lens. In a safer environment I will give it a go without the filter on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Carlwashere
Senior Member
Avatar
330 posts
Joined May 2011
     
Apr 05, 2012 18:05 |  #4

What brand of filter? Effects will be much less apparent with higher quality filters than cheaper ones.


-Canon T2i- -Tammy 17-50 non-VC- -50 f1.4- -100 f2.8 macro- -85 f1.8-
-Pentax SP1000- -SMC Takumar 55 f2- -Takumar 28 f3.5- -Vivitar 135 f2.8-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,639 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 500
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Apr 06, 2012 09:53 as a reply to  @ Carlwashere's post |  #5

They are all pretty good with the 24-105 being perhaps slightly worse.

Personally I also keep the UV on (B+W MRC), but when shooting into/near the sun and/or seeing flare on my shots I do remove it. Sometimes it helps, sometimes not.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 06, 2012 13:13 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #6

thanks for the advice.

Hoya Pro UV filter (quite thin)

:cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,321 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 231
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Apr 06, 2012 13:24 |  #7

UV filter is totally useless, it cost more but still modifies light.
Use digital protective filters.
I have 17-40 on 5d with protect filter and hood. No flare.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 07, 2012 13:15 |  #8

kf095 wrote in post #14220974 (external link)
UV filter is totally useless, it cost more but still modifies light.
Use digital protective filters.
I have 17-40 on 5d with protect filter and hood. No flare.

many thanks for the tip :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,876 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 329
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Apr 07, 2012 13:53 |  #9

colintf wrote in post #14216389 (external link)
Hi,
on a 5d and using a UV filter, is one of the following better at resisting flare than the others? I was at about 18 mm

16-35Lf2.8 mk2
17-40L
24-105L

I was trying the 16-35 and was suprised to see the flaring. Maybe I am better off with one of the others? The lens hood was being used at the time

Many thanks in advance.

All those lenses are very flare resistant. Don't put any stock into the filter argument. There are times when anyone except maybe an idiot will or won't use a filter.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 07, 2012 15:39 |  #10

ed rader wrote in post #14226084 (external link)
All those lenses are very flare resistant. Don't put any stock into the filter argument. There are times when anyone except maybe an idiot will or won't use a filter.

so do you think changing from a UV filter to a plain Protector filter will help me? thanks :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ C
Member
98 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Apr 07, 2012 15:52 |  #11

Examine how your lens hood is positioned when using. If not using a hood, try one, or else shade the lens with your hand from sun that could be reflecting off the front of the lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,709 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2172
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Apr 07, 2012 16:21 |  #12

colintf wrote in post #14226464 (external link)
so do you think changing from a UV filter to a plain Protector filter will help me? thanks :cool:

It will not make any difference in the world whether you use a UV filter or use a 'clear, protective' filter.

If both are good filters (passing 99.5%+ of the light), under most circumstances you will not be able to see their presence. Under very demanding circumstances, filters will always reveal their presence, as even 0.5% is light which bounces around as visible flare (reflections) that can be seen against dark backgrounds.

So a wise person uses good quality filters for situations where salt spray and blowing sand or goopey toodler fingers need to be kept off the front element (less cleaning, less wear on coatings = more pristine lens at resale time), and they take off good quality filters when demanding situations arise.

A pendulum swings thru many intermediate positions in between the two extremes of position. Same for position regarding use of filters.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 07, 2012 16:25 |  #13

Wilt wrote in post #14226590 (external link)
It will not make any difference in the world whether you use a UV filter or use a clear 'protective' filter.

If both are good filters (passing 99.5%+ of the light), under most circumstances you will not be able to see their presence. Under very demanding circumstances, filters will always reveal their presence, as even 0.5% is light which bounces around as visible flare (reflections) that can be seen against dark backgrounds.

So a wise person uses good quality filters for situations where salt spray and blowing sand or goopey toodler fingers need to be kept off the front element (less cleaning, less wear on coatings = more pristine lens at resale time), and they take off good quality filters when demanding situations arise.

A pendulum swings thru many intermediate positions in between the two extremes of position. Same for position regarding use of filters.

thankyou for the explanation. I am on a very steep learner curve with the 5d. I rarely got flare issues using the 7d. I need to be brave and take the filters off at times by the sounds of it. :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
294 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 07, 2012 16:26 |  #14

David C wrote in post #14226499 (external link)
Examine how your lens hood is positioned when using. If not using a hood, try one, or else shade the lens with your hand from sun that could be reflecting off the front of the lens.

Lens hood being used. I'll try the extra shading with hand and see how that goes. thanks for the tip :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,709 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2172
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Apr 07, 2012 16:30 |  #15

colintf wrote in post #14226610 (external link)
Lens hood being used. I'll try the extra shading with hand and see how that goes. thanks for the tip :cool:

Unless you are getting by economically by using one of the generic one-size-fits-all-FL lens hoods, it is unlikely that your hand will reduce any further the problems induced by a bright source of light falling upon the lens, as the manufacturer designed the hood for max protection.

Admittedly, APS-C cameras see 60% less area than FF, so there is that 40% margin of improvement, since a hood designed for 100mm lens on FF really ought to be a hood designed for 160mm (FOV on FF), when the same lens is mounted on APS-C body since the framed area is smaller.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,608 views & 0 likes for this thread
Flare and full frame lenses
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is joshua.nh
749 guests, 437 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.