Anyone sold his (uwa) bulbous lens cause of flare ?

I bought a 14mm 2.8 and tested it for the first time @ f8 outside during a reasonable sunny day.
As expected due to the bulbous form of the lens I had flare in a range of pics, so I took new ones from other angles.
Did anyone sell his lens allready for this reason only or did you manage after a while and did you check for other angles?

I still have the Tokina 17 3.5 which has no flare (no bulbous form) but 3mm wider is a lot is a lot on the wide side.

The answer is no, but I dumped the EF 50/1.8 v2 because of flare.

Flare does not depend on how bulbous the lens is, but on how good the design and materials (glass types, coatings, ...) are. As usual, you get what you pay for.

UWA are usually more sensible to flare just because it is more likely to have the sun in the frame. Also, UWA for reflex cameras are retrofocus designs and require a complex optical scheme with many elements, which does not help.

Also, flare comes in many forms. I agree that flare can be bad, but I don't assume that all flare is bad.

In the 1970's seeing flare was more common even in (outdoor) portraiture. Is was "romantic". In this picture, there is some flare that is a mild loss of contrast and very slight discoloration near the sun. And it happens to be what I wanted.

For me, it's a combination of equipment and intent.

Photo from dasmith232's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (833554)

I had the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. I sold it because it wasn't wide enough, not because of flare. I just went through my library and have NO photos from this lens with the 'colored sun-spot' type of flare, and only a handful that may be exhibiting 'loss of contrast' flare. IMHO, this lens performs very well wrt flare.

BTW, I replaced the Rok 14 with a Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 FE. I like it. Also own a Sigma 15mm FE, which I really don't use after getting the Rok 12. Just too lazy to sell it.

Nice shot, though I would call it sunstar (diffraction) rather than flare (unwanted reflections).

I kinda agree with the fact that the shape of the lens element isn't the deciding factor, the only reason it makes more of a difference is because it is more likely to be hit by the sun. In certain conditions, no amount of coating is going to stop flare.

I just use my hand to shield the front element of my tokina 16-28 when outside in full sun. Never had a problem with that lens otherwise.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18253624
Nice shot, though I would call it sunstar (diffraction) rather than flare (unwanted reflections).

Thanks. Yeah, mostly star and the flaring is very mild just below the star. I do have other examples of worse flares with that lens (a little bit) and others (more).

typically when people complain of flare i assume they are talking about flare away from the source of the strong light.

Ghosting flare as seen here: https://photographylif​e.com/what-is-ghosting-and-flare

example here: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=16184739

dasmith232 wrote in post #18253151
Also, flare comes in many forms. I agree that flare can be bad, but I don't assume that all flare is bad.
For me, it's a combination of equipment and intent.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by dasmith232 originally in forum: General Photography Talk

Very nice shot Dave.
My personal favorite 'bulbous' lens is the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX. It is a fantastic lens. Maybe better than either the Canon or Nikon offerings in this focal length. Plus it kicks ass on price!

ebiggs wrote in post #18254136
Very nice shot Dave.
My personal favorite 'bulbous' lens is the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX. It is a fantastic lens. Maybe better than either the Canon or Nikon offerings in this focal length. Plus it kicks ass on price!

A friend of mine has that lens. Cheap and sharp. Not a common combination. If I think about it too much then I'll start falling into GAS yet again. I don't need more of that.

So how can I deal with your comment? Hmm, shiny object! Huh? What were we talking about...?