Lenses with most "artistic" lens flare characteristics?

[dcstep]

<p>The Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye at f/16 has really nice flare shooting at a point source. The shot below is on a Canon, but you can get the same lens for Nikon:</p>

<p><a title="Starburst by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5501/9379716012_633aed6dbe_c.jpg" alt="Starburst" width="800" height="534" /></a><br>

The image was de-fished.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Take something with a big front element and point it at the sun. Done and done.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6120/6314021494_c10618f5c4_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="512" /><br>

85/1.4D @ ƒ/3.5</p>

<p>Or take something with straight aperture blades and stop it down:<br>

<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/43991846/c70937d7b628001291bae0697e51d1dbbefe1ac6/4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

20/4 AI @ ƒ/11</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I feel mildly obliged to mention the 6mm fish-eye lenses. They're not very well coated (from the images I've seen taken with them), and not getting the sun (or your shadow) in the shot is challenging when the lens covers 220 degrees...</p>

[studio460]

<p>Hey! Thanks for all the replies! Love the images, too! Lots of great information here--really appreciate it! I'm going to research/try out everyone's suggestions. Thanks again, all!</p>

<p>Quick question: What happens if you mount an un-modified, pre-AI lens (pre-1977) on a modern DSLR (e.g., Nikon D3s). If I don't care about metering, do I still need to have non-AI lenses modified? Is there mechanical damage that will occur if mounted?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For which non-AI lenses can be mounted safely on what post-AI Nikon bodies, see the Nikonians site at http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility -- it's reasonably up-to-date. <strong>Beware</strong> - there are combinations that can really mess up the camera.</p>

<p><br /> (I posted on a related question at http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aPpw )</p>

<p>Always proceed cautiously and never force anything...</p>

[studio460]

<p>Woohoo! I just bought "the worst lens Nikon ever made!" I found a pre-AI Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 manual focus zoom for $40 on Ebay (there were several). Very excited to try this out. If you're looking to buy one of these, there were two versions--it's the <em>first</em> version you want for lens flare. It's distinguished by having the lens markings <em>inside</em> the filter threads (the second, "improved" version has them outside the filter threads). There's a cool sample image on KR's "10 Worst Lens" page" (photo.net won't allow links to his site).</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>JDM said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Beware</strong> - there are combinations that can really mess up the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, apparently you can damage most bodies by attempting to mount a pre-AI lens on them. Thanks for the head's up. According to Nikonians' table, an F6 will work, but a D3s will not.</p>

<p>I also found John White's site (linked below) in your previous thread, which indicates for D3-series bodies, I would need his type 'A' conversion (which he does for only $25). There are a few inconsistencies between the two compatibility lists. Also, John White's list makes no mention of an F6 body at all, so I would look for further confirmation of Nikonians' data regarding this particular body (which I also own).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm">http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm</a></p>

<p>I wonder if Nikon themselves still offers this service? Since, the Los Angeles repair center happens to be on my way from work, that would be convenient. I may also check some independent camera repair shops around town--maybe I'll get lucky and find a technician locally. Thanks for your help!</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I'd rather capture a contrasty scene unmolested and try to map the contrast </em><br>

This guy's pictures were shot on film and printed in the darkroom room - no digital step at all. The contrast reduction was due to the fact that the lens he used was single-coated.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Andrew said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised we've got this far without mentioning the 43-86mm f/3.5 F lens. Not that I've ever used one (I usually try to avoid flare - and, in the case of the 43-86, rubbish lenses).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah ha! I had originally missed reading your post, and just happened to find <em>"The worst lens Nikon ever made"</em> on KR's site (then promptly went to Ebay, and bought one!). I didn't realize its dubious title was so widely recognized!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Leszec said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, if you want some distinction in your flare, you may want to try (maybe rent?) some of the older Angenieux zooms, particularly shorter ones . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! I just checked--there are some, <em>kind-of-affordable</em>, old 35mm-format Angenieux cine lenses online, but I can't seem to find anyone who makes an Arri-PL to Nikon F-mount adapter (which I don't even know if that's possible due to differing flange distances, etc.). [Edit: I just realized that you may have been referring to the line of lenses they made <em>specifically</em> for Nikon F-mount still cameras (which I didn't even know they made). Unfortunately, those are like collector's items or something--they're very expensive, used!]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do recall Vilmos talking about leaving the flare in . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, maybe it was an interview with Vilmos Zsigmond (Director of Photography, <em>Close Encounters</em>) in an old issue of <em>American Cinematographer</em> where I read that!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>This guy's pictures were shot on film and printed in the darkroom room - no digital step at all. The contrast reduction was due to the fact that the lens he used was single-coated.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, reports are that Portra captures a really large dynamic range. Ansel Adams did a pretty good job of controlling contrast post-capture. And wrote some books about it. :-) (Don't get me wrong, I love shooting Velvia, but if I had a contrasty scene I would prefer to find a solution that didn't involve random light bounces.)</p>

 

<blockquote>Ah ha! I had originally missed reading your post, and just happened to find "The worst lens Nikon ever made" on KR's site (then promptly went to Ebay, and bought one!). I didn't realize its dubious title was so widely recognized!</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, I only know about the lens from Ken's site. But I admit that the images I've seen from it are spectacularly awful (optically). Enjoy it! I hope it's as bad as expected. :-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I also found John White's site (linked below) in your previous thread, which indicates for D3-series bodies, I would need his type 'A' conversion (which he does for only $25). There are a few inconsistencies between the two compatibility lists. Also, John White's list makes no mention of an F6 body at all, so I would look for further confirmation of Nikonians' data regarding this particular body (which I also own).</blockquote>

 

<p>Interesting list. The gist is, hopefully, that for most cameras with a ring around the lens mount (an aperture follower ring) the tab that engages with the aperture ring on the lens is what allows the camera to know about aperture on a pre-AF lens; it's also what fouls on most pre-AI lenses, since "AI" is effectively implemented by removing a chunk from (or adding a chunk to) the back of the lens for the tab to hook onto. Some pre-AI lenses, I believe, are designed such that they don't catch on the tab anyway - but trying to force other pre-AI lenses onto the camera will certainly damage something. Some older film cameras (like the F4) have a way of flipping the tab out of the way for pre-AI lenses; for the F5 and F6, Nikon offered a service to modify the aperture ring, giving it a tab that can be flipped rather than a solid tab - making them "transitional bodies", in the nomenclature of the link. I've not had this done on my F5, but would kind of like to. I don't know whether anyone still offers it.<br />

<br />

There's a transitional step with some bodies that have an aperture sensing switch - that just tells the camera that the lens is in minimum aperture mode, which only helps (on a DSLR) for a non-G but chipped lens. See <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2276935">this thread</a> on dpreview. These will be the cameras for which a "type B" conversion is needed.<br />

<br />

For cameras without an aperture follower tab (currently D3xxx and D5xxx, but also some older models) <i>or</i> a switch, most pre-AI lenses will mount, because there's nothing for them to foul on; the camera can't tell what's going on with the aperture, which is why the metering doesn't work. I believe some pre-AI lenses can still hurt different bits of the camera, however, so I'd check on a case-by-case basis and mount gently (it's only polite).<br />

<br />

And there are a few lenses, like the invasive fish-eyes, that are a bad idea on any DSLR (because they don't have permanent mirror lock-up like, say, the F5).</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em> if I had a contrasty scene I would prefer to find a solution that didn't involve random light bounces</em><br>

I personally find LOCALIZED flare (spots and streaks) of rather limited appeal, but the GENERALIZED flare of a single-coated lens (even more so with an uncoated lens) is a quite different matter - the flare may not be immediately obvious but spreads light into the shadows, giving a quite unique effect. One area where this is noticeable is if you try to reproduce a classic Hollywood-style portrait - duplicate 1930s lighting with a modern lens and you will get screaming and most unattractive contrast. Another example of what I mean is the work of an English guy called James Ravilious - he worked in the 1950s but insisted on using older uncoated Leica lenses for their unique quality.<br>

Color neg film certainly has a wide dynamic range, since it is inherently low contrast, but I really don't like shooting color film and then printing in b+w.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hmm. Thanks, David. I really tend to think that relying on what is essentially a lens defect to produce a reliable result is asking for trouble - but I admit that I've not really tried to make use of this effect, so I promise to give it more consideration.</p>

[robertbanks]

<p>I found the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI quite easy to make flare (I have some old studio fashion shots where I used that), whereas the VRII is quite hard, I found.<br>

My most "flarey" lens is a Rodenstock (I had to fit it with Nikon mount) but suitable subjects are very limited.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Although not a FF lens my Tamron 17-50 VC flares quite easily.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks again for everyone's replies--I'm really looking forward to trying each of your suggestions! Here's something odd--I shot two different shots with an APS-C ILC tonight. The first one has the light source (a red RGB ColorBurst LED) just on the edge of the frame; the second, includes it. But the one on the edge of the frame creates a huge, blooming flare, and the one in-frame doesn't:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/fx1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Samsung NX200 + 16mm f/2.4 @ f/2.4</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/fx2.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Samsung NX200 + 16mm f/2.4 @ f/2.4</p>

<p>Here's a shot looking directly into one of the ColorBursts. The mirror-image "flare" is likely due to the Tiffen protective filter I have on the lens (things get banged around pretty good when I'm working):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/fx3.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Samsung NX200 + 16mm f/2.4 @ f/2.4</p>

[studio460]

<p>I just found this article which gives a bit more detail on how J.J. Abrams achieved the dynamic lens flare effects in <em>Star Trek</em>:</p>

<p>http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous</p>

<p>Also, an interesting 2011 SIGGRAPH white paper regarding real-time, computer-generated lens flares for motion-graphics, including a nicely illustrated online <em>vimeo</em> presentation:</p>

<p>http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/lensflareRendering/</p>

[studio460]

<p>I found this stand-alone OS X app in the AppStore: LensFlare Studio 2.2 for OS X ($19.99). This stand-alone app has several dozen presets, each with their own set of controls. Each filter can be "layered" over another, using a Photoshop-like layers interface. This is just the first thing I tried. Pretty cool!</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/flarebeach1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[studio460]

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/century3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

ColorEfex Pro + LensFlare Studio</p>

[studio460]

<p>Now, LensFlare Studio is a fun and powerful tool, but I still want to be able to achieve these effects optically as well, and if anyone else has any additional recommendations, I'm all ears. I just realized that my AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D is Nikon's <em>second-worst</em> lens (according to some guy named, "Ken"), and is apparently highly susceptible to flare. So, between this lens, my soon-to-be, AI-converted Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5, and my AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I, it looks like I'll have plenty of opportunity to experiment!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Interesting, Ralph! A company I worked for about ten years back had some patents in software lens flare. They're probably still valid. It's probably in nobody's interest for me to tell them about the apps, though. :-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ralph, be careful you don't have a J.J. Abrams moment. <a href="http://io9.com/j-j-abrams-apologizes-for-all-those-star-trek-lens-fla-1429457615">He recently emerged from lens flare rehab after finally admitting he was an addict</a>.</p>

[robertbanks]

<p>Found an example I took years ago using a 70-200 f/2.8 VR I</p><div></div>

[chip_chipowski]

<p><a href="http://sdrv.ms/17PskWp">Nikkor Ai 35mm f/2.8</a></p>