Summicron flare - advice?

Light source (sunlit window) just outside the left-hand frame.

Aperture f2, 50mm Summicron with hood, Delta 100 processsed in

Emofin. This was exactly the kind of shot (available light, flare-

producing conditions) for which I bought a Leica and Summicron, so

I'm a bit disappointed to encounter disabling flare. Any advice?<div></div>

Did you shoot with a UV filter attached to the lens. It will improve without the filter. However, all lens will flare if you shoot directly into the light source as your example.

Henry,

I'd better clarify that straight away: I did not use a UV filter (I don't own one!).

I thought a light source OUTSIDE the picture area would not produce flare in a good lens, given a good lens hood. Maybe I was expecting too much?

Maybe you think me strange for saying this but I like this shot and the 'flare' you complain about.

 

If I have my blinds slightly open and bright sunlight streams in, it actually looks the same as in your shot. The effect on the old womans face is good (to my eyes at least).

Patient: "Doctor! Doctor! It hurts when I do this!"

 

Doctor: "Don't do that."

 

PJW

Jonathan -- even though you had a lens hood on, remember, light will bend around corners. That is why when you see a feature film movie camera, it will have a huge lens hood blocking out any extraneous light reaching the outer lens surface.

Any lens will flare if direct sunlight falls directly on the front element, as is obviously the case here. The sun doesn't need to be in the frame for this to happen. Leica lenses are great, but in making them the wizards of Solms were not able to repeal the laws of optics.

 

And, as another poster wrote, the effect in this case is actually very nice. The sunlight is made visible. It looks great. If you want to avoid this effect, use the hood and be sure that you are pointed far enough away from the sun that the front element is in the shadow of the lens hood.

Jonathan

 

The Summicron 50 is an outstanding lens BUT it does suffer from flare. You will find that every now and then it will do this. I have never had it this bad, but there again you really need to compare with another lens to see if it is significantly worse in this instance. I find that there is a trace of localised veiling flare in images when (in my case) there is a bright area (sky, reflective wall) in the top third of the picture which degrades the contrast in the lower central portion of the image. The Summicron-R does not do this, neither I think does the Summilux-M. I find it does it in about 3-4 shots during a year of photography and it is annoying, but the lens is so good for the rest of time that I just take it as a trade off and I am quite prepared to live with it. I am talking about the latest formulation with the built in hood. I had a 1968 chrome Summicron and it did not flare - but it was not generally speaking as contrasty or as good wide open either.

Jonathan, that is one of the reasons why O. Barnack designed the LEICA around a filmcannister which could hold 40 (in the beginning) later 36 frames.

 

For such scenes I normally take 4 to 6 frames. For serious portraits many more and find sometimes, that it takes 10+ shots to end with one keeper-photograph. Between the single shots you normally move a few inches and the flare - as in your case here - will be gone. As someone mentioned above: the photograph has some mysthic charme with the flare, also IMO.

 

If you compare it with a technical more perfect subsequent shot - in case you took one - you might as well start to like this one ...

 

Best regards

Thanks, folks. The Summicron reputation wrt flare is one element that I needed to know, Robin, so that's very helpful. If this was going to happen with every contre-jour shot, I'd get seriously fed up. Needing a whacking great lenshood that's adjusted for every shot kinda spoils the spontaneity. Do I NEED to do contre-jour shots, Doctor? Well, yes, I reckon I do. The light is what I wanted to capture. I like the sunbeam effect like Trevor and Cameron, but unfortunately the flare robs texture from the adjacent shadows too. I have wondered whether that is exaggerated by the thin-emulsioned Delta 100 film - would it have been better with Tri-X?

Forgot to mention what I did with my 50 mm SUMMICRON with the built in hood:

 

I dislike the fact A LOT, that the hood pushes back whenever I touch anything with it, sometimes/ most of the time without noticing it ... They really should redesign the thing to have it properly locked!!.

 

So I just added the black ELMAR 2.8/50-hood >12550< to my lens. It has a slightly narrower angle, thus cutting out a few more of these annoying rays. Even at f2,0 and at 0.7m no vignetting at all. The shade provides sort of a buffer and the built in hood stays where it supposed to be.

 

Best regards

Just a thought, but possibly the fan the little girl is holding may have caused the flare. It look almost like a light tunnel throught it.

Happy Snap,Sal

This may be slightly off topic, anyhow I have a DR summicron and have on occasion experienced flare . On a whimm(actually rally good price at my local camera store) picked up a voigtlander nokton 50mm lens. I have been pleasently surprised by the quality of this lens and use it for most of my low light work now. The main reson is as hard as I have tried I have not yet been able to get it to flare ,at least not to any or noticably objection. This is true even when shot into the sun,I took some really good pictures at lake arrow head of the sun reflecting off the lake at sunset. I got turned onto this lens after some very positive reveiws here on photo net,especially regarding flare,you may want to check the archives.Also Erwin Putts has a review on his website. Cheers George

I have almost the exact same problem with my fourth version summicron, but I believe that my lens is faulty. My 50 summilux and 35 summicron handle flare much better. My 50 summicron is the worst possible lens for handling flare I have ever had, given the fact that most people speak highly of the 50 crons flare handling, I'm assuming there must be something wrong with mine. Following are some examples of my problem. Funny thing is that with the sun in the frame the flare is better controlled then when its right outside of it.

other example<div></div>

last one<div></div>

Bas

 

Nope - mine is the same, but I find it is difficult to predict when it will happen. The result is exactly the same as yours pictured above. I think it is only the latest Summicron that does this.

"Funny thing is that with the sun in the frame the flare is better controlled then when its right outside of it."

 

I had the exact same experience, Bas. No sunlight on the lens, yet it flared horribly under certain, unpredictable conditions. I sold my Summicron because of that. Your example pic looks exactly like any number of mine that ended up in the waste basket.

 

I believe it was Johann Fuller (?) who devised a light baffle for the Summicron that cured the problem for him. Too much stray light bouncing around the lens, I think he said. It was several months ago, so you might want to check the archives.

 

 

BTW, Jonathan, I like this shot, too. The picture wouldn't work half as well without the flare.

I have had similar results with my Summicron. I really recommend you try the

Noctilux, it is the most flare resistant lens I have ever used. I have never had mine

flare on me and I do use a hood. It is rather large though.

The flare thing is one reason why I use a 50mm Summilux-M instead. Handles the

sun v.well. A bit cheaper, lighter and somewhat less conspicuous than a Noctilux too.

:?)

I find that if I get "victimized" by flare with my rigid summicron that it always appears as a line down the left-hand side of the frame affected. Why would that be? (PS - its been CLA'd by Sherry in the last year).

OK, now that sounds more like a shutter light-leak than lens flare.

 

As to the Summicron, I've got the 11817 I've used since 1970 and a current version I've used since 1997 and I have never seen veiling flare with either lens. And I have always kept a UV filter on them, and only in the last couple years has it been a B+W MRC. Though I do tend to keep the sun behind me if I can, there have been thousands of times that was either impossible or not how I wanted the shot. My collapsible 50/2, now that's a different story. Flare city.

I also encounter the exact problems on my 50 summicron-M with biuld-in lens hood. Prior to Leica, I used Nikon for almost 10 yrs, this problems never occured. I used 50 cron-M about two yrs, these problems appeared more than three times. Disappointed!

FWIW, my 50/2 Konica Hexanon-M never seems to flare like the examples of the 50 Summicron shown here and neither does my 50/1.4 Summilux-M.

Recently, I got a last version Summicron 50 (Built-in hood, no tab). When I received it I see thant the lens was a little bit dirty. I cleaned then lens with a cotton-tab with cleaning fluid. I surprised because the fluid get into the lens condensating unde the first optic element. I waited and finall the fluid seemed to be evaporated and the glass looked clean. I took a roll and I saw the same flare images seen in the previous examples. I examined the lens carefully and I saw than the fluid had condensated creating an almost unvisible fog behind the first element. I have taken the lens for a CLA and I hope that the problem will disappeare.

Have you examined carefully the glasses of your lens?

The fog seen on my lens was visible ONLY in some light conditions.

Rafael