I'm looking for the "ultimate" short to mid-range zoom, with respect to sharpness and flare control for landscape sunsets/sunrises and night cityscapes. Cityscapes and sunsets are a bear on many lenses, so want the best that I can find.
I just read a thread that had several mentions of how sharp the new 16-85vr is, so would like to know how it handles bright lights in the frame, like a typical night cityscape or architecture shot with a street light prominent in the frame. Several posters mentioned that the 16-85 was better than the 18-70 and 18-200 for sharpness and distortion. That would be very cool if if also stamped out flare.
I would prefer a lens that can be used on both DX and FX, but if the 16-85 is the best, then that will do. I very rarely go wider than 18 on DX, so DX only is not really a problem.
I'd also like to hear about any other lens that you think handles flare very well. Samples would be greatly appreciated!
"The 17-35 performs extremely well when shooting into bright light, in fact its performance in this respects surpasses most prime lenses. Flare and ghosting evidently are strictly controlled. I've never used a zoom with this degree of superior flare and ghosting control before. Likely the fancy optical formula and the bizarre front element pay dividends in this respect, too. However, an early report by "Moose" Peterson claims this lens flares easily. His sample may differ from mine, or test conditions may be quite different. Leaving a UV filter on will make the ghosting much more visible so any filter should be removed before shooting into the sun."
Thanks, guys. Both lenses are a little short for my needs. For example, I want to do some more shooting of the Detroit skyline from Windsor, which is at least half a mile across the river at the narrows, with a perpendicular shot.
Bjorn says that the 24-70 is very good, as did someone here on the forum. But, given that I already have a 28-70 that I'm happy with, except for this issue, I was hoping for an option that would give me more coverage, while being more than a little cheaper.
For most of these types of shoots, I'll be using one of my d200s at base ISO, tripod, etc. That also has the advantage of not being such an expensive loss, should I dump it the river or get mugged while shooting in downtown Detroit.......
Kerry, I know flare is a PITA for your landscape shots. And this is off topic, but it's interesting to see some of the fashion/glamour guys try really hard to get gobs of intentional flare in their images. I kinda like it!
As Numfar says about 10 posts in:
"This is my favourite ultra-high end set up for getting close to something like a Holga shot. Throw enough light down the barrel of an expensive lens and high end sensor, and random goodness starts to happen. =)"
jmcfadden wrote:
ahh Windsor, one of the few , perhaps only places to drive South into Canada from the US
You're right, John. AFAIK, portions of the Detroit area, along the Detroit River, are the only places that are directly north of a portion of Canada.
This shot was taken from the eastern side of Belle Isle, probably the farthest eastern point that is north of Windsor, which is on the left, Detroit on the right.
When it's all said and done zooms generally have more elements than primes; even the best are more prone to flare, at least until lens coating is truly perfected..........
williamkazak wrote:
Lens flare is the reason I shoot all primes and always with a lens shade. I tested the 17-35mm and I rejected it.
I always use lens hoods and always clean the lenses before such a shoot, but primes and hoods won't do what I want/need either. When the hotspot is in the frame, the hood is useless. I shoot in too many places where I am physically restrained by barriers that prevent proper framing.
IME, slow zooms are very good for flare control, ie the 24-120 and 80-400 are 2 of my favorites for this stuff. The 24-120 isn't as sharp as I'd like, though, which is why I was asking about the 16-85.
Most fast zooms will flare easily and badly, especially the 28-70. The old 35-70 is not too bad, much better than the 28-70 in this regard, but my current go to lens for shorter stuff in this situation is the sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I had to reshoot an assignment that I'd taken with the 28-70, with the 18-50. One bright light in the frame, ruined every 28-70 shot, which the 18-50 handled very well.
turnert wrote:
Kerry, I know flare is a PITA for your landscape shots. And this is off topic, but it's interesting to see some of the fashion/glamour guys try really hard to get gobs of intentional flare in their images. I kinda like it!
Yes, those guys are in another league. They likely have more money in lighting equipment than I have in camera gear. I'm a little surprised that they don't know how to easily get flare spots. IIRC, there is even a filter for PS that will do this. Most any really bright light in the outer quadrants will generally run flare spots across the frame. But, if they want a flare machine, I'll sell them my sigma 12-24. That lens will put polka dots all over the frame in lots of less than challenging situations.
Some of those shots, though, are nicely enhanced by the flare.
