Glare on my filter

I was taking some shots of my wife while she was doing karaoke and this place has LOADS of lights. Checking out my shots, I find that I am getting A LOT of reflection and glare on my filter/lens. Things like the TVs that display the words and most of the colored lights.

I was using a nifty fity on my rebel XT, all in raw format.
The nifty-fity has a Opteka HD II UV filter. Most of the shots are done at 1.8 becuase even though there were a lot of lights, it was still pretty dark.

Is there a filter that will stop this glare or am I stuck with this and just use a ttl flash?

Thanks for any help

Welcome to the forum.

Bar and nightclub shoots can produce flare. Look in the performing arts forum at photos, it is quite common.

Loose the opteka filter. This can make the flare more pronounced.

Lose the filter. This should seem pretty self evident.

You can get a top of the line multicoated UV filter that costs almost as much as the nifty fifty and minimize flare from having a filter or go without filter if you really want to minimize flares from strong lights.

GyverX wrote in post #5622305
I was taking some shots of my wife while she was doing karaoke and this place has LOADS of lights. Checking out my shots, I find that I am getting A LOT of reflection and glare on my filter/lens. Things like the TVs that display the words and most of the colored lights.

I was using a nifty fity on my rebel XT, all in raw format.
The nifty-fity has a Opteka HD II UV filter. Most of the shots are done at 1.8 becuase even though there were a lot of lights, it was still pretty dark.

Is there a filter that will stop this glare or am I stuck with this and just use a ttl flash?

Thanks for any help

Lots of lights? Are you using a lenshood? All the time? If not, do it, and then please let us know the results.

Good question.
Another option is to learn to use the flare to add interest to the images. See the last one here:
The Johnny Headband Band

This topic begs the question (not meaning to hijack this thread). I bought a UV filter as a "protector" for my expensive lenes. Do you people attach & remove your "filter" for specific shots? (e.g., landscape, indoor bright ligts, etc.) It's sounding like you do (ala the OP's issue). I've always just left mine on and wondering if "tack sharpness" of certain shots could be improved.

Cody21 wrote in post #5625027
This topic begs the question (not meaning to hijack this thread). I bought a UV filter as a "protector" for my expensive lenes. Do you people attach & remove your "filter" for specific shots? (e.g., landscape, indoor bright ligts, etc.) It's sounding like you do (ala the OP's issue). I've always just left mine on and wondering if "tack sharpness" of certain shots could be improved.

As you likely know, this question/debate recurs at semi-regular intervals; there are those that always use them, those that never use them, and of course some that fall in between, taking them off in "dangerous" situations.

It is likely that if one uses an absolute top quality UV filter, that few problems will be encountered; there are situations where problems of flare will arise.

I seldom shoot directly into the sun, and if I do (sunset at early stages), then there will likely be lens flare in any event, and the filter may not contribute significantly to the effect.

I've always used a hood, and been aware that if light (particularly sunlight) falls directly on the front of the lens, then trouble will appear. If the hood isn't long enough, I frequently use my hand or a cap to shield the lens - this not always being possible (very shallow angles between sun and axis of sight).

Any dust on a lens or filter will magnify the problems if light falls on these elements - keep them spotless.

There are those that believe that any additional glass in front of the lens degrades the image quality - technically I would agree - but from a practical point, I'm not worried about it.

The Canon 24/105 zoom lens has 13 glass elements (the 17/55 has 19) - adding one more high quality piece of coated optical glass doesn't seem to me to be terribly significant - to some people it does - everyone does what one believes in.

As for "tack sharpness" issue, I suspect that if one did strictly controlled tests (and light on the front of the lens was eliminated), one couldn't tell the difference. It's far more likely that variables such as lens quality, the type of PP done, shutter speeds, f/stop, ISO, etc. would have more effect than a high quality filter.

Cody21 wrote in post #5625027
This topic begs the question

Oh no, it doesn't...
Not again

Cody21 wrote in post #5625027
This topic begs the question (not meaning to hijack this thread). I bought a UV filter as a "protector" for my expensive lenes. Do you people attach & remove your "filter" for specific shots? (e.g., landscape, indoor bright ligts, etc.) It's sounding like you do (ala the OP's issue). I've always just left mine on and wondering if "tack sharpness" of certain shots could be improved.

Nope.. I leave mine on..

Cody21 wrote in post #5625027
This topic begs the question (not meaning to hijack this thread). I bought a UV filter as a "protector" for my expensive lenes. Do you people attach & remove your "filter" for specific shots? (e.g., landscape, indoor bright ligts, etc.) It's sounding like you do (ala the OP's issue). I've always just left mine on and wondering if "tack sharpness" of certain shots could be improved.

I don't even own a filter for "protection" and have never in more than four decades found a real need for one. However, I usually don't take my camera out into blowing sand or rain or similar hazardous (for the camera) conditions.