EF 17-40L flare: Bad luck, bad technique or bad copy?

[jas_pope]

<p>This shot was taken into a low sun at 17mm f8 1/160 ISO 400. I have read a lot of good reports on this forum of the 17-40L handling flare very well, but this seems to have beaten it.<br /> Could this be a bad copy of the lens, is it more likely that I just caught the light at a really unfair angle or could it be an exposure issue? If it's either of the last two, I'd really appreciate any advice on how to avoid this when shooting into the sun or other strong lights.<br /> Thanks, James</p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>James,</p>

<p>Were you using a filter? Even the best filters can have problems under these conditions.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>My experience with the 17-40 over nearly four years is that it does a very creditable job of flare suppression. No lens can be totally immune to flare, particularly with the sun (or other extremely bright light source) within its field of view, but the 17-40 is about as resistant to flare as you can expect from a zoom lens (given that they usually have more elements than primes do). Heck, I found it more flare-resistant than my 50/1.4 despite having nearly twice as many elements (though, to be fair, the 17-40 was designed with flat, highly reflective digital sensors in mind, while the 50/1.4 predates DSLRs by several years). I don't believe I ever saw as much flare with the sun in the frame as your image shows.</p>

 

<p>I have to echo Mr. Bergman's question. Yes, the area around the front element of the 17-40 is not sealed, and the manual advises that in order to maintain the dust and water resistance of the lens, you need to put a filter on the front. But if you're shooting in a flare-prone situation, you may have to choose between flare and sealing.</p>

[jas_pope]

<p>Hi Marc, thanks for the quick response, I wasn't using a filter on this occasion</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Given the extreme condition in this image I actually don't think there's a whole lot of flare. It's there, obviously, but it could be <em>much</em> worse.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Sheesh, even my eyes flare in situations like that! When it's that extreme, I use my hand or my hat to shade the front element. Low tech sometimes works really well.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

You got flare because this shot is almost the worst possible situation for generating flare! :-)

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes. Any lens this wide, and many longer, will flare when you do this. This is why chimping is not always bad.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>I agree with the others: you were pushing the envelope there. Under the curcumstances the flare is still still moderate.<br>

That said, I find this to be a very nice atmospheric shot with plenty of detail despite the flare.</p>

[sam_stovall1]

<p>Flare is usually used to describe light rays coming in from the side of a lens, using a lenshood typically will help, but a sun directly in the frame is impossible to control. Flare will typically cause circles or angles coresponding to the number of sides in your iris, and if observed and planned has been intentiionally included in a lot more photos recently for "artsy" effect. </p>

[davyjo]

<p>I'd say the image is pretty well exposed and the flare conveys a sense of being there, looking into the sun. My eyes surely couldn't produce that image.<br>

I like it.</p>

[ed_v.]

I actually like the effect. It suits the composition especially with the subject on the left turning away. Nice.

[jas_pope]

<p>Thanks for all the responses and positive feedback, seems flare is not always undesirable and I have another creative element to play with. <br>

Cheers, James</p>

[steve_crist]

<p>That shot was taken under extreme conditions. I agree with Puppy Face, when I'm facing difficult conditions like that I try to turn the camera at a slightly different angle to minimize flare and use my hat or my hand as a secondary lens hood (I always shoot with a lens hood - for flare reduction and protection).</p>

[mbwakali]

<p>I think the shot looks great with the flare! Its much more dramatic. On that note, not sure how you would have avoided it given what the conditions appear to be like. I have a 17-40 and hardly deal with flare, unless there is direct light. This shot looks like it could have been much worse.</p>