Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G and lens flare?

[frozenintime]

Hey there

I've been using the D50 kit lens, the 17-55 f /3.5-5.6G, for a while.
I've found it to be totally acceptable, and actually fantastic in one way - lack of lens flare.
Apparently, I like to take pictures with lights in the frame, and I swear, this kit lens hasn't flared on me once.

I'm thinking of upgrading significantly to the 17-55mm f/2.8G.  
However, several internet reviews make mention of not-great to surprisingly-bad flare on this lens.

Do any of you have a experience one way or the other?
And I'd love to hear of a mid-range/pro lens that is known to control flare well.

thanks!

[Per Ofverbeck]

Hey there

I've been using the D50 kit lens, the 17-55 f /3.5-5.6G, for a while.
I've found it to be totally acceptable, and actually fantastic in one way - lack of lens flare.
Apparently, I like to take pictures with lights in the frame, and I swear, this kit lens hasn't flared on me once.

I'm thinking of upgrading significantly to the 17-55mm f/2.8G. 
However, several internet reviews make mention of not-great to surprisingly-bad flare on this lens.

Do any of you have a experience one way or the other?
And I'd love to hear of a mid-range/pro lens that is known to control flare well.

thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I´ve used the 17-55/2.8 as my standard lens since March this year, and I don´t feel flare is a big problem (contrary to my usual custom, I even keep a UV filter on it; the front lens is BIG and exposed).

Here is a "worst-case" shot, with sun and reflection at the image borders, and there are no ghosts and good micro contrast in the shaded forest in the distance.[attachment=3326:attachment]

[bheiser]

I´ve used the 17-55/2.8 as my standard lens since March this year, and I don´t feel flare is a big problem (contrary to my usual custom, I even keep a UV filter on it; the front lens is BIG and exposed).
distance.[attachment=3326:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm evaluating a 17-55 2.8 on my D300 and several of my photos yesterday showed some lens flare (or maybe it's ghosting?).  I wasn't shooting directly at the sun - it was at an angle.  I'm using a UV filter and the (standard?) HB-31 hood.

I notice with this lens, the lens protrudes outward (forward) at the wider end, so it doesn't get much protection from the lens shade.

I'm wondering if there's a longer lens shade people use on this lens  to resolve this issue...

here's what happened:
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/bheiser/image/89729831]http://www.pbase.com/bheiser/image/89729831[/url]

[Per Ofverbeck]

I'm evaluating a 17-55 2.8 on my D300 and several of my photos yesterday showed some lens flare (or maybe it's ghosting?).  I wasn't shooting directly at the sun - it was at an angle.  I'm using a UV filter and the (standard?) HB-31 hood.

I notice with this lens, the lens protrudes outward (forward) at the wider end, so it doesn't get much protection from the lens shade.

I'm wondering if there's a longer lens shade people use on this lens  to resolve this issue...

here's what happened:
http://www.pbase.com/bheiser/image/89729831
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To me, this looks more like a dust speck on the filter, plus a stopped-down lens; flare is usually on the opposite side of the image from the light source.

About the lens shade: it *should* be shallower when the lens is at a wider setting, and this is one of the few zooms where it is so.  Otherwise, it will either vignette at the shorter setting or be inefficient at the longer ones.  That said, I´ve no idea how far it is from a truly "optimal" shade, like a compendium.  Most rigid shades seem to be smaller than they should mainly to keep them more compact; if you´ve used a compendium in the field, you know it is a royal pain in the a... rrear

[bheiser]

To me, this looks more like a dust speck on the filter, plus a stopped-down lens; flare is usually on the opposite side of the image from the light source.

About the lens shade: it *should* be shallower when the lens is at a wider setting, and this is one of the few zooms where it is so.  Otherwise, it will either vignette at the shorter setting or be inefficient at the longer ones.  ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi,  

Thanks for the feedback.  The same thing happened yesterday under similar lighting conditions, and (coincidentally?) in about the same spot in the frame.  I just inspected the lens pretty thoroughly, and found a few very tiny specs of dust, but none anywhere near that area.  I haven't seen any markings like that on any images except under those specific lighting conditions (low afternoon sun coming in at an angle).

Do you think maybe something further inside the lens, where I can't see, could be causing this?

I see your point about the shade and vignetting... though I haven't used a compendium I get your point .

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Per Ofverbeck]

...
Do you think maybe something further inside the lens, where I can't see, could be causing this?
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, normally nothing inside the lens will be focussed enough on the image plane to be even remotely identified, i.e. a speck wouldn´t show up as a small dot.

OTOH, up front on a zoom (esp. a fast fixed-aperture wide-angled one), it is not easy to decide which position on the filter/front lens would project at a given spot in the image.  That big front lens isn´t necessarily "used" at all focal length settings; one can see how the internal elements move back and forward when zooming.  They define a "cone" that the lens will see, and only at the wider settings that cone will fill the entire front lens (this is kind of "fuzzy reasoning", but it´s the general idea).

Your image is shot at 32 mm, far from the wide limit of 17 mm.  I´d guess that speck in the edge of the image might be at least half-way fron the edge to the center.  Admittedly, this is speculation; since you use a filter, why not experiment a little by purposely placing small specks on it and shoot into light (or the sky) and see what happens.

[bheiser]

...since you use a filter, why not experiment a little by purposely placing small specks on it and shoot into light (or the sky) and see what happens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea.  I'd rented that lens (I'm evaluating what lens I want to upgrade from my 18-70) but if I rent that one again (or if I buy it) I"ll give that a try .

The symptoms I described in the original post showed up in a number of different shots with this lens, and with another like it I subsequently rented.  Each time I was toward the sun, even if just barely, I saw these defects in my pictures.