edward_h Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 For those of you who are interested in this glass' flare characteristics: I was out night photographing tonight because I was bored and ended up unknowingly testing the 16-35 for flare. I do have a B+W uv-filter on it, but a separate test shows exactly no difference between a naked lens and uv-filtered lens so don't jump on my back unnecessarily; the uv-filter makes _no_ difference, I've checked. Now regarding the flare: I shot straight into several light sources. I expected some flare. I haven't yet used any glass that is completely flare free when shot into a light source. What surprized me was the sheer amount of flare. It's everywhere! As much as I like/love the 16-35, it's not going to be my night photography glass I don't think. Too susceptible to flare and I shoot cityscapes a lot. Inside, sure, there isn't any problem. During daytime there isn't any flare problem with it either, but it's during night photography that the 16-35 becames close to unusable. As a comparison, my 24-70 rarely, rarely flares.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott squire nonfiction Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Yup. In your earlier thread on the same lens, another poster wrote: <<This lens is big enough without a hood so I just use a descent filter to protect the front end. I've not managed to get this lens to flare in any practical picture taking situations yet so can't see any practical reason to use a hood.>> And I thought to myself... 'hmmm, I wonder if this fellow would trade with me.' Indeed my copy is a pretty flare prone lens. I try to make an asset of it whenever possible.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott squire nonfiction Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Of course, whether I'm succeeding in making an asset of the flare... that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukedavis Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Wow, Scott, that is a LOT of flare. Do the Canon wide angle primes flare (like the 14mm-L and the 20mm)? If they don't, perhaps toting them along is the only way to get those focal lengths when shooting into light sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I would expect any lens to flare in this situation (can you show us some comparisons Edward) - and as the light source(s) in each picture is within the frame how exactly will any lenshood help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_h Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 > I would expect any lens to flare in this situation (can you show us some comparisons Edward) Here one... not exactly the same shot but there are a lot of bright lights in the frame and flare is almost nonexistent. I say almost because there IS some flare, but it's so close to the light it gets caught up in the light's halo and can be ignored.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Thanks Edward but those light sources look much less intense than in your 16-35 shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now