I just bought the Canon 24mm - 105mm lens today and took it for a shoot. Is this not a glare problem? This is the new corrected lens after the recall. What do the experts think?
Incase you are wondering, I did not have another lens with me to compare. I bought the lens, put it on my Canon 20 D and headed for the beach. I've shot pictures of this pier before but never got glare like this before. I'm thinking I may have to return this new wonderful lens.
I did use a UV filter and removed the filter to see if it would make a difference but it made no difference. It was a bit hazy so I am wondering if that aggravated the situation?
My advice is stop looking for trouble.
You'd be hard pressed to find any lens that won't show some type of anomaly when you point it directly at a bright light source - *especially* point light sources - and *even more especially* multiple point light sources.
Jeez fella, it's a lens;multiple chunks of glass - which itself is a reflecting surface. Give the lens a break. Part of your job is to be aware of light and its' effects.
My 2 cents
Jon
I hear what you are saying but I never had a problem before shooting on this very pier. Here are some comparison shots I did this morning deliberately pointing at a "bright light source" knowing it would produce glare. This first shot is with my 17-40mm EF L (F/4 version).
The starbursts around the point sources are normal, and the other few spots are of course to be expected with many lenses. I've found in practice that keeping the UV filter off avoids flare.
Seems everyone comes to the defense of your lens poor performance. Not me. I would take the lens back. While it's true just about any lens will flare under the right conditions, your lens flares (and starbursts) much too easily.
The 17-40 has only 12 elements while the 24-105 has 18, which is likely going to have some effect on flare. At least the 24-105 shows more contrast in the upper left corner of the tree silhouette.
I am not aware of lenses being designed for a resistance to starbursting, or for "good copies" to show better burst/flare patterns, but it would be interesting to hear about that. It looks like this lens doesn't have the flare problem addressed by the recall, so the choices are probably either to deal with its current flare characteristics or to not own one.
Indeed, the 17-40 has fewer flare discs or spots, but it does exhibit some veiling flare over the tree to the upper left (this might be filter-induced). The number of flare discs in the 24-105 are greater due to there being more elements in the glass.
Some lenses do this more than others, but all lenses can be induced to flare spots.
I hear what you are saying but I never had a problem before shooting on this very pier. Here are some comparison shots I did this morning deliberately pointing at a "bright light source" knowing it would produce glare. This first shot is with my 17-40mm EF L (F/4 version).
Man I wish I had a shot I deleted not too long ago. It was with my 17-40 and literally looked like someone took an eraser to the middle of the picture. Junk lens? Nope - just a fluke of the light angle. My 28-135 IS seems to be flare prone but more of the hazy picture variety which I hate the worst of all. I too wish there was a flare-proof lens but have learned just to be extra careful when shooting into the light.
regards,
Jon
Wilfredo wrote:
I just bought the Canon 24mm - 105mm lens today and took it for a shoot. Is this not a glare problem? This is the new corrected lens after the recall. What do the experts think?
The image shows several phenomena. Which effect do you mean?
I get flare problems with all my lenses when pointing towards direct sunlight, but it's easy to spot when framing your photo, and it only takes a small adjustment of angle to get rid of it (like 180º )
That type of shot would do better with a prime due to fewer elements. It looks like what I'd expect and I would not be upset. With some careful post-process you could clone out the flare, or possibly minimize by feathered selection and exposure/contrast adjustments.
This attached picture is not a direct comparison. Yours was shot an angle which will accentuate flare. This shot with 35L was parallel to the light, which minimized the risk of streaking flare. This shot does have flare in a couple places, but it's mild.
There is one weird anonomly in that shot - look around the 1 or 2 o'clock position between the edge & center. Some odd highlight or flare. If were to print this picture that would be clean up in post.
)