I find some of these comments very helpful. I guess I really do have to take into consideration that this lens has more elements than the 17-40mm lens, and so will probably exhibit more flare.
I'm going to return to this pier tonight and do some shooting with my old trusty 17mm-40mm lens and see what happens. In the past I haven't had problems doing evening shots on this pier but there are added Christmas lights on the pier now that we're approaching the Christmas holiday, these extra lights present a new challenge. I like shooting in the evenings and at times this does involve bright lights so I may not want to keep this new lens in the end (even when the contrast does seem a tad crisper). I may return this lens and replace it with the 24-70mm L lens. I gather that lens does not have as many elements.
Back in the day I used to try to get that look on purpose. If you stopdown to F16 or so (with FF) the diffraction caused by shotting through a tiny opening creates a "sun-star." To reduce or eliminate the effect, shoot at or near wide open.
Beni wrote:
Lose the filter, without it the starbursts will be more defined.
off topic:
or get the tammy 28-75 which has 7 diaphragm blades and thus produce nicer looking pointy stars than the Canons... (which have 8 blades producing 8 points compared to the tammy's 14).
Wilfredo: As a new owner of this lens myself, and as a frequent night shooter, I wanted to see if I could induce flaring when shooting bright point source lights at night. The following three images are representative of my efforts (in a somewhat more wintery setting than Southern Cal ). The images are very much on-par with what I would have expected with my 24-70L.
All images were captured RAW at ISO 400 with a 1Ds Mark II. No filter was used. Very little post-processing applied in the conversion to JPG.
I suspect that the "firefly" flares in your night images were due largely to use of a filter. Your daytime flared sample would probably show flare on most lenses, as the sun is at a tough angle for the lens.
Thanks for posting these. I did try shooting with no filter but it made no notable difference. After seeing your shots I'm more convinced something is not right with this lens. I'll take it back to the dealer to replace it or send it off for inspection. Great shots!
Very interesting, Wilfredo. It does look like your lens has some excessive flare problems with point source lights. I wonder if you inadvertently received one of the original models of this lens?
According to Canon, any lens with a service number of 1000 or below is affected. My lens service number is 1004, perhaps it's too close for comfort. I'll be taking this lens back to the dealer. The website below gives more information
on the affected lenses. What's the service number on your lens if you don't mind me asking?
No they say below 1000, that means made in September. Yours was made in October and it's not too close for comfort, it's the new one. That's the same code I had on my new one.
Wilfredo wrote:
Here's another shot with "bulb" lamps. No filter was used. I circled what I see as anomalies.
Regards,
WIlfredo+
It's more than likely that your examples are exposed at a higher level than the examples earlier in the thread by Ken Tanaka which would result in a stronger instance of flare. He's got the snowy ground which serves to raise the ambient light level relative to the brighter lights.
In other words, his contrast ratio is smaller than yours. You're exposing properly for the ambient level but your bright lights are much brighter by comparison.
I'm advocating shooting the exact same scene at the same aperture/shutter/ISO settings with 2 or 3 different lenses to see how they compare.
Franz you wrote "No they say below 1000" you are correct. Interesting that you get similar images with your 35L stopped down. I'll probably go out and shoot these scenes again at least with my 17-40mm L and see how that goes. My only other Canon EF lens is the 50mm macro. At any rate my dealer has agreed to exchange the lens if I want to do this. My thanks to all for your thoughts and comments on this. It seems the lessons in photography never end :-)
Here's another shot of the Chinese restuarant using the Canon 17mm-40mm f/4 L lens. Again, although there is some flare, it is far less then the picture taken with the 24-105mm lens the night before. I did a few other shots tonight with the 17-40mm L lens and all had significantly less flare.
Wilfredo wrote:
II'm going to return to this pier tonight and do some shooting with my old trusty 17mm-40mm lens and see what happens. In the past I haven't had problems doing evening shots on this pier but there are added Christmas lights on the pier now that we're approaching the Christmas holiday, these extra lights present a new challenge. I like shooting in the evenings and at times this does involve bright lights so I may not want to keep this new lens in the end (even when the contrast does seem a tad crisper). I may return this lens and replace it with the 24-70mm L lens. I gather that lens does not have as many elements.
Thanks for the helpful comments.
Wilfredo+...Show more →
I've found the 17-40L to be amazingly flare-resistant for a zoom. Still, if you take a lot of images pointing directly at bright sources maybe you should check out some single focal length lenses with less elements.
Ghosting has been and will always be a problem - unless they come up with a glass-less construction You just have to learn how to avoid them.
As someone mentioned - stop looking for trouble.
I'd rather spend my few precious hours of spare time shooting good pictures - instead of inducing so called flaws which just really are the result of everyday physics.
). The images are very much on-par with what I would have expected with my 24-70L.
You just have to learn how to avoid them.