Good Nikon lenses that will not flare?

[frozenintime]

I posted a week or two ago about this, but I have a bit of an update, and a question.

I like photos at night (inside or outside) with lights in them.  I don't particularly like lens flare.

The kit lens that came with my D50 (http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm) is very controlled in this department.

I'm looking to step up to a better lens of similar type and the 17-55 f/2.8 G (http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm) seemed like the right choice - better optics, virtually identical zoom range and 2.8 throughout.

I read a bit about flare being a problem with it, but couldn't find images to show what was meant by that.  I picked one up yesterday and have a few days to try it out and have not been impressed by the results so far.

Can anyone explain why a 10x more expensive, almost-pro lens is outperformed in this area by a kit lens for the lowest end of Nikon's dSLR line?  

Can you recommend a similar, high quality lens that would at least match the flare response of the 18-55mm kit lens?


Below are some very quick examples from last night. Note that these are somewhat extreme examples.  The lens hood helped a bit (not included here) but was still outperformed by the cheaper lens.  Especially in the street scene, the ugly splotches all over the sky are quite ugly, no?

Thanks for your time!

[roskav]

Flare on the 17-55 is made far worse with any filter such as a UV filter screwed on.  I have had problems with this too .. but it's far better without filters.

Ros

[mahleu]

Are you using any filters as they can drastically increase flare?

[frozenintime]

hey there

nope, no filters at all. i actually don't even own any.

someone mentioned to me that the 17-35 f/2.8 nikon lens tends to be exceptional with flare... i may look into that, it's more or less the same price.

he also mentioned that generally more expensive lenses will have more going on 'under the hood' and the more elements, the more room for flare.  any thoughts on that general concept?

thanks!

[Per Ofverbeck]

I posted a week or two ago about this, but I have a bit of an update, and a question.

I like photos at night (inside or outside) with lights in them.  I don't particularly like lens flare.

...
Below are some very quick examples from last night. Note that these are somewhat extreme examples.  The lens hood helped a bit (not included here) but was still outperformed by the cheaper lens.  Especially in the street scene, the ugly splotches all over the sky are quite ugly, no?

Thanks for your time!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not pretty!  Only, I don´t recognize this kind of behaviour from my own 17-55/2.8 (and I do have a multicoated UV filter on it).

Is your lens brand new or is it used? If the latter, can you see any dust inside (it´s fairly well sealed, but does change its length a little while zooming)?  Lenses clean?  OK, it might sound patronizing to ask such things, but really, it shouldn´t look that bad, and there must be a reason (or else, I was lucky when I picked my copy).

[frozenintime]

hey there

nope, it was brand new!
i had a similarly awful experience with the sigma 18-50 f/2.8, though the offending flare was in a different (somewhat worse - smaller but more intense and not even circular) configuration.


ah well, i'm leaving for 6 weeks and was hoping to have a decent upgrade but it looks like time is running out.  too bad  this lens didn't work out for me, it sounds like a bit of a mystery..


thanks all..