Veiling Flare with 50mm Lens?

[tsuacctnt]

<p>I seem to be having a lot of problems with veiling flare and my 50mm lenses. I'm not sure if it's the lens, or the UV filter or just the conditions. Is there a cheap hood avaialbe for these lenses?</p><div></div>

[tsuacctnt]

<p>Canon AE-1 Program with 50mm f1.8 new FD. Some kind of E-6 film.</p>

[gordon_yee]

<p>The Canon BS-52 lens hood is designed to attach to the bayonet mount at the front of your lens. This hood is easy to find and inexpensive.</p>

[frederick_muller]

The hood is the ticket. I used to get a lot of that veiling flare on harsh sunny days with my old breech-lock 50mm f1.4. The front element isn't recessed very much so it's quite vulnerable. I don't much like the FD hoods, so I would go without them whenever I could. But I learned you needed them for some lenses under those conditions.

 

If you don't need speed, the 50mm f3.5 macro is a wonderful, wonderful lens. And you won't get that problem because the front element is so deeply recessed.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Pull the lens off the camera and inspect it against a strong light source. If your lens is hazy/dirty internally it will be far more likely to flare out on you. If you have an inexpensive UV filter, that could be the culprit too. Since a good quality UV filter costs about as much as a clean nFD 50mm f/1.8 lens, I'd say toss the UV filter all together. If you don't want to spend the $10-20 for the Canon hood, any cheap ebay 52mm rubber hood will fill the bill. Always shoot with a hood.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I frankly use a lens shade at all times with the many cameras and systems that I own. I find the rubber hood cuts flare and acts like a shock absorber in the event of a minor bump. On the Canon SLR FD earlier models some take 55mm others later take 52mm rubber lens hoods. The original metal ones are nice but don't fold for storing in the camera bag.</p>

[andrew robertson]

I would pull the damn UV filter off and forget they even exist. Adding two air to glass interfaces will only degrade a lens, especially

when it comes to flare.

[User_502260]

<p>I had to shoot against the sun this afternoon while I was using my chrrme front 24/2.8 FD SSC. I held the camera with my right hand and used my left hand to shield the lens. This isn't a perfect system but it works in a pinch. </p>

[User_4136860]

<p>If you're shooting straight into the sun with the 50mm f1.8 lens (which are all only single coated, the 1.4 and larger are multi-coated) I wear a cap, and use it to shade the lens as well as using a hood.</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>I'm not entirely sure that the posted image is affected by flare.</p>

<p>The sun, judging from the highlights on the tree trunks, is perpendicular (or nearly so) to the lens. The subject appears to be in the shade because there are no highlights in the hair that are similar to the ones on the tree trunks).</p>

<p>I don't think I would get flare in those conditions - even without a hood.</p>

<p>Is the camera also in the shade? I'm guessing it may be, because of its closeness to the subject (head & shoulder portrait with a 50 - unless that image was cropped). Although, when shooting in bright sun under tree-cover, the subject could be shaded while the camera is not - you could watch-out for that and move into the shade as required.</p>

<p>I agree with the others who recommend that you not use a "protective" filtre. Get a metal lens hood and use it at all times.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>You can improvise a lens hood using black construction paper and tape. Shorten it to the point that there is no vignetting (dimming) in the corners of the viewfinder.</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Corroborating Jay's observations, the suspect flare doesn't seem to me to correspond with the sunlight source or color temperature. To me it looks like it washes down from the top and is tinged skylight-blue. That would seem to confirm that the lens was in the shade and that skylight was the only possible culprit, which then I wouldn't think should be so pronounced. Perhaps the effect was intensified by the filter or by internal haze. I rarely shoot with a filter, so I'm not the expert.</p>

<p>I'm going to go out on a different limb, too. Perhaps it's just a diffuse bluish highlight? Its proximity to the blue sky in the background could make it seem more widespread than it is. The shaded sides of the tree trunks are decidedly blue on my monitor, too, so there seems to be strong skylight. The strangest thing happens. As I "zoom" my eyes close to the computer monitor, the seeming flare disappears from the subject, but not the background. Have to get really close, but the subject's forehead warms up considerably.</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Took the liberty of applying an 81A filter, just to see what happens. By the time the image gets to photo.net, it looks more blue than it did in the software. I think even the white page complicates the issue.</p><div></div>

[tsuacctnt]

<p>Thanks for all the great responses. I'll check the lens with a flashlight for internal fogging and try shooting without the UV filter and pick up one of the hoods mentioned. This picture was snapped early in the morning. I suppose it could be something as simple as condensation between the filter and the lens but I seem to have this problem off and on in a variety of conditions. </p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>I'm going to go out on a limb and say that perhaps the image is under-exposed. The AE1 is center-weighted but when you turn it on its side, it gets more sky factored in. Or the scan/print could also have gotten confused by the sky, as it appears properly exposed but probably should be blown to get the main subject in proper exposure.<br>

Either of the previous two exposure problems, combined with the cool light of the shade, can create flare-like low-contrast.</p>