EF 24-205mm F4 L IS flare problem

[tonybrown]

<p>Recently shooting the beautiful fall colours I ran into severe flare problems with this lens. About 50% of 100 photographs showed severe flare. To be fair, I was taking advantge of the sun position to backlight the leaves and bring out their colour, however I had not expected this amount of flare. It occurred to me that the HOYA Digital PRO1 Protector filter might be a problem so I did a shoot without the filter. I got brilliant photographs about 95% of the time - any flare was my fault in framing the picture. Has anyone else experiences this? Can anyone recommend a filter for use with this lens? (UV or protector) Thanks.</p><div></div>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>When did you buy this lens? I seem to remember all the early 2005 models of this lens were recalled.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Moral of the story: <em>Don't use a filter.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

One problem with filters, as you've discovered, is that they cause flare under certain lighting conditions. Another is that they degrade image quality.</p>

<p>The only filters I typicallly use are polarizers, which are the only filters whose effects cannot be replicated in post-production. But it is a good idea to put on a filter when shooting in adverse conditions, such a seaspray, heavy rain, and blowing sand or dust. Otherwise, using a hood provides sufficient protection of the front element.</p>

[tonybrown]

<p>Hi Wayne,<br>

I bought the lens almost a year ago and it was not included in the batch that were recalled. I have no problem with the lens without the filter</p><div></div>

[tonybrown]

<p>Thanks Mark for the wise advice, Tony</p>

[fmueller]

<p>The problem with the filter is that a flat glass surface at the front of the lens is more prone to flare than a curved one. You can't improve this situation by buying a better filter, since any filter will be flat by necessity. The whole thing has nothing to do with the coatings for example. Just don't use a filter, or take it off in situations where flare can be a problem.</p>

<p>I had the same enlightening experience a few years ago after a trip through Australia, for which I had put protective filters on all of my lenses. My beloved 28/2.8 suddenly turned out to be super prone to flare! After taking the filter off, the problem was instantly solved, but I had lost quite a few good shots.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>This same problem plagued me (w/ cheap <em>and</em> expensive filters) until I abandoned them entirely several years ago (the 24-105 was pretty bad in this respect if I recall correctly), CPLs are the only ones I use with any regularity anymore. <br>

I find <em>very</em> rarely a satisfactory reason to limit my system's capability, especially as being able to play with sun/backlighting is something I enjoy - dust, and sand, and rain are not adequate (to me) - sea spray IS (cause I hate getting the residue off the element - I can remove the filter and wash/dry it), also, in weather in which sea spray is a problem, only rarely is the sun a problem ;-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Any lens will flare, with or without filters, when you point it at the sun. This is always a potential problem with "contre-jour" shooting, especially with the lens set to a wide angle.</p>

<p>Filters do increase the risk by adding more surfaces to reflect from. The proper lens hood is also important.</p>

<p>I've never had any flare with the 24-105 lens that I could not attribute to my own technique. You should normally be able to see this in the viewfinder as you compose the picture.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>You could do what I do: Keep a good filter (e.g. your Pro-1) on the lens by default, but remove it in those challenging situations likely to result in flare and ghosting. JDM is right, BTW. Flare and ghosting will occur without filters too. Lots of photography from the 1970's (the birth era of supermulticoatings) had ghosted sun blobs "artfully" flayed across the frame.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Every air/glass transition creates the opportunity for flaring due to internal reflections. Contrary to some advice above, curved lenses tend to produce more flaring and multicoated filters will reduce (but not eliminate) the problem. That being said, having a filter always makes you worse off in regards to flare, so either remove the filter when shooting with the sun in or near the frame or simply leave the "protective" filter at home. </p>

[tonybrown]

<p>OK a sincere thanks to everyone who contributed. I think I'll end up following Sarah's advice as I'm still concerned to have some protective glass in front of the lens. I may experiment with different filters. The overwhelming concensus seems to be that filters impair the image quality (my experience also) and they also can dramatically increase flare (my experience). Thanks, Tony</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Regardless of the "overwhelming concensus", it is <em>always</em> worth checking things out for yourself: filters will flare, and taking it off in this situation is the best tact. But aside from the flare issue: I think you'll be very hard pressed to see any difference, filter vs non-filter, regarding image quality. See for yourself: try a few test shots and pixel peep.</p>

<p>BTW, I've found the 24-105 quite flare resistant, at least for the diffuse contrast reducing glow that can happen wth just out-of-frame light sources. Again, per other responders, there were early copies with serious flare problems, check your serial number and research it.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Have you cleaned your filter lately? any fingerprint or surface film can make flair much worse. I typically clean my filters with soap and water in the sink. I then dry them with a clean dry cloth and the use a brush to remove any dust left by the cloth. <br>

I have filters on all my lenses although I use mainly top of the line B+W multicoated filters which are very flair resistant. These filters also have very flat glass free of stress or other optical defects that could distort the image. However the flair in your sample picture probably would have happened even if the filter was removed.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Filter or not, it helps to use a lens shade so less sunlight falls on the front element. For just out of frame sun or lights, I often use my hand or hat to block it.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The original flare problem with this lens, subsequently fixed in a Canon recall, produced a different sort of flare from what you have here.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Flare isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can actually be used creatively to <a href="00UrJL">add impact to your images</a></p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Tony, in all seriousness, when you take the cost of a filter * what it does to your images versus the cost of replacing the front element (cheaper than you'd think) * the probability of damaging the front element (lower than you'd think) you'll probably be better off going sans filter in most situations. That way you don't need to worry about problematic flare. </p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I have decent uv filters on all my lenses (B+W, Rodenstok, Heliopan). I take them off under certain conditions and leave them on in others. I have never noticed any degradation in prints up to 14X11. I'd check it out for yourself as this is a subject where you will get polarised opinions.<br>

The down side to me on wider lenses that the thinner filters negate the use of Canon lens caps and you have to use the pop-on caps which always pop-off. Not real biggy though.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I love filters. After a shoot I rinse in tap water and dry with micro fiber and I'm good to go again. During the 90s, I ruined two front elements trying to remove salt spray and learned my lesson. The replacement cost was more than the cost of the lens (consumer zooms). Daily front element cleaning is really hard on optics. </p>

[markku__kerfelt]

<p>My experiense: Hoya pro1 digital protector filter messed up my d7000/d90 AF focus.<br>

I don't use anymore any filters. Only CPL filter is one I use sometimes.</p>