Filters and Sharpness and Flare, oh my!

[darinwc]

On my most recent outing with my new 17mm canon FD lens, i noticed that there was a considerable amount of flare whenever i aimed into or near the sun. I removed the UV filter, a quantary brand, and there was a big difference in the flare and image quality. I was very disappointed that a filter would flare so bad. Should I plan on not using a filter with such a wide lens? I like it there mainly for protection.

 

[archphoto]

I would keep it on when it benefits you and take it off when you are in flairy conditions.

Peter

 

[Mark Antony]

You could get a lens hood, I know it has a wide 104° FOV so you'll need one with cut outs, I think some call them 'petal' shaped this would afford some protection as well.

 

[Bill Harrison]

I know they are expensive, but B&W makes "MRC" (multi-resistant coating) filters made with optical glass. As mentioned, a shade is far cheaper and taking it off and putting it on is free. I'd do the two latter ones till I get a shot I can sell, then buy the filter as a reward.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Hi, Darin;

As others have suggested, use a lens hood or lens shade. Even with a B&W multi-coated filter, a lens shade will be a help, especially with a wide-angle monster like the 17 mm. I have the Tamron Lens Shade for my 51B, and it was not a "low cost" lens shade, but it does help with a demanding (at times, difficult) lens.

 

[Prest_400]

I always have my Hoya SC sky on my Zuiko 50mm. A little (but kind of powerful) LED on a phone, was enough to create a ghost. And some focus made some noticeable ghosting (like in the pentax test below)...
If you want to keep the filter always on, it should be at least Multi Coated, specially on this wide lengths.
Just buy a shade and take out and in the filter, no need for expensive filters. And the shade will protect enough.

A guy here tested the differences between having a filter on, and their coating types:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...5-lens-filters-versus-flare-ghost-images.html

 

[Klopstock]

I know they are expensive, but B&W makes "MRC" (multi-resistant coating) filters made with optical glass. As mentioned, a shade is far cheaper and taking it off and putting it on is free. I'd do the two latter ones till I get a shot I can sell, then buy the filter as a reward.

I second this one, the prices for the MRCs are horrid, but they feel better when you consider them as important as the lenses. The MRC coating lasts forever unless you sandblast it.

But take care where you buy them, it looks like some falsifiers from China are selling fake B+Ws via eBay.

 

[david b]

quantary is crap.

spend the money and get a b+w.

what size is it?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

On my most recent outing with my new 17mm canon FD lens, i noticed that there was a considerable amount of flare whenever i aimed into or near the sun. I removed the UV filter, a quantary brand, and there was a big difference in the flare and image quality. I was very disappointed that a filter would flare so bad. Should I plan on not using a filter with such a wide lens? I like it there mainly for protection.

I can vaguely remember the FD 17mm being highly prone to flare without protection (my last use of this UWA was in 1989). Even though I use Canon's 17-40 f4L lens and the 17mm end gets a lot of use, I very rarely experience image-ruining flare: as with all of my optics, a HOYA (or B+W) Super HMC Skylight 1B filter is in place and I don't remove it. The most flare I have ever experienced with a very strong point light source has been very small and negligible; at the time (on the beach in the early morning at sunrise) I was saiilng close to the wind with the bright morning sun right at the edge of my viewfinder. So, the addition of a very high quality multi-coated filter (left on at all times) used with an effective petal-style hood and your judicious awareness of where the sun is in your image will go a long way in avoiding flare. And finally, flare should never be considered as having ruined an image unless it is so big and obstructive, or if it clearly detracts from an important detail, rather than automatically assuming the image has been botched based on aesthetic value alone.