Lens flare or something else?

[lanewilson]

I took the attached photo with a lens I just purchased--the Schneider 47mm

Super Angulon XL, multicoated--in excellent condition. What is the ring in the

middle of the image? Does anyone have this or a similar wide angle lens, and

seen this before?

 

This is a 10 minute exposure on FP4+, taken at about f/16. I wouldn't be

surprised to see some minor flare somewhere, but this is a near perfect ring?

I'm also used to seeng flare as a circle (filled in) if I'm photographing into

a strong single-point light source, but not a distinct ring like this?

 

Any input is appreciated. (No critique on the image or printing is necessary,

since this was just a test print to show the ring.)

 

Thanks,

Lane<div></div>

[leicaglow]

I've seen this with a very wide Nikkor I shoot with. I don't think it's flare, I think it's reflection off the inside of the lens.

[w.smith]

Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare I'd say that's a clear case.

[pico]

It is an internal reflection and not what we generally call flare.

[w.smith]

Sorry guys, flare IS internal reflection. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare.

[paul.droluk]

I get the same using the 58XL as well. Even the tiniest amount of light falling directly on the

front element causes it. I recently was shooting in Yellowstone with the 58XL on 6x12, and

my Nikon D2X with a 17-55. I spent the morning shooting a small lake at sunrise and

virtually all of the 58XL shots were ruined by the flare. The Nikon digital shots turned out

wonderful, but now I'm limited to smaller prints.

 

I now consider the 58XL a "light over your shoulder" lens... very disappointing. I don't seem

to have this problem with the SS80XL or SS110XL though.<div></div>

[leicaglow]

W Smith: So we should not call it "flare" when it's caused by a dirty front lens element, for example?

[pico]

Flare is due to lens elements when they create a pattern of their own, which is very rarely

as regular as the image posted. This one is clearly from a retainer, the rearmost flange or

some other supporting part. Get it? Supporting structure. So much for those who don't do

but only read Wikipedia. Get some experience and you will learn that this is from a

supporting element and it is NOT FLARE.

 

It is far, far too uniform to be lens flare.

 

OP - was the lens possibly shifted a bit?

[shawn_kielty1]

It would be interesting to me to see the same location with the source of light just outside of the image -- I suspect one might see a more classic ezamble of flare. In this particular case the source of light is inside the circle of the flare. I think I'll take my 55mm Rodenstock out and see if it will do this too.

[greg_jones1]

Is your lens clean inside and out? I have seen this where the internal surface of a lens element was greasy/dirty. Unscrew the front and rear groups and clean the glass surfaces completely.

[mark_sampson]

Whether or not it's technically flare;

1) keep light sources out of the shot wherever possible.

2) use a compendium or similar to keep light sources just out of the frame off the front element of the lens.

[allen_whittier]

I get exactly the same thing from my 65mm. I chased it for quite a while before I realised what it was; a reflection of the rear element illuminated by the light reflected off the shiny film surface. Once I realised what the problem was I could deliberately create it with a bright light. Put a piece of shiny mylar behind your ground glass to provide the reflective surface If you don't already have a shiny fresnel to simulate the film. The lack of a reflective surface while focusing will prevent you seeing it on the ground glass. The bright light in the center of the image reflects off the shiny surface of the film, hits the the lens and rim then reflects back to the film again. If you look at the image you posted you'll see a clear reflection of the rear element of the lens in it; the center illuminated a value brighter rimed by the reflection of the rim. The rim is the worst offender, so the situation could be improved with some non-reflective black paint on the rim if it's shiny, like mine.

[rj]

Lane,

<p>

the ring of flare need not be completely circular depending on the angle of light entry through the lens. The phenomenon you describe is very common with the superwide-angle lenses like the 47mm XL.

<p>

I find flare fascinating and often try to incorporate it within the pictorial aspects of an image. <a href="http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Plaubel/Catalonia/Ancienne%20abbaye.htm" > Here </a> is a similar crescentic flare from a much older lens (around 70 years older than your lens) which has been used for pictorial effect, (this is possible through the ground glass). The crescent arises from the angle of light from the right of the visual field striking the uncoated 4 element lens (Anticomar) obliquely to create the effect. Although it is clear that it is almost circular.

<p>

Had you used a filter in front of your 47mm XL, this will also have accentuated the effect of the concentric flare.

[brian_ellis16]

You should be using a compendium lens shade virtually all the time with a 58mm lens on a 4x5 camera. In a more normal situation a compendium shade will greatly reduce the effect of extraneous light bouncing around inside the lens and camera bellows (though it wouldn't have helped here since the reflection is created by the very bright light in the center of the image, which you obviously couldn't eliminate and still make the photograph).

[big toys are better]

I believe Mr. Whittier has the answer, and while it was not obvious to me until he said, it was immedately obvious to me and should be obvious to us all that the "flare" was in fact not within the lens since the location of it around the light source was not symmetrical with that source, BUT does seem to correspond to a reflection off the film and back onto the rear lens element.

[tom_johnston4]

I think Mr. Whittier has it right. His explanation makes good sense. On the other hand, Pigo's response was rude and totally uncalled for. I would suggest that Pigo simply not post here if he can't behave decently.

[pete_andrews10]

Flare is any non-image forming light hitting the film. It can be camera flare or lens flare, and the mechanism of its cause does not change what it is, which is flare, pure and simple. It can be caused by light bouncing around inside the camera, or by internal reflections in a spotlessly clean lens, or due to a big smudgy fingerprint on the lens, or it can be secondary images of the lens iris or of a bright light in the lens's field of view. It's still just flare.

[pontus_f]

So, the effect in this picture (where the clock-faces are apparent at eight a clock from their real positions) is a flare effect, and expected to be apparent, i.e. nothing wrong with my new and first (thus sorry if being silly) lens, a Nikkor 18-70?

 

Also sorry for posting in inappropriate forum, but it was the most appropriate thread I found. And if I fail to append the picture, it's available with higher resolution at http://www.photo.net/photo/5704350 (me trying to make that link clickable now wouldn't make anyone happy considering how tired I am :))

 

Thanks, Pontif<div></div>