Visible Flare

[Jim Tittle]

I've been shooting with my new set of ZF.2 primes on the F3. I notice flare more than I have in the past, compared to the stock zoom on my HPX-500 and Canon L lenses on my 5D. Specifically, if I have a large soft source outside the edge of the frame, it produces a much more visible flare than I'm used to seeing.
I have to be more careful about flagging than I have been in the past.

The Zeiss lenses are great. And so is the camera. I'm wondering if I'm just noticing flare more, due to increased tonal range of the camera, and/or better/different glass?

I'm used to looking at images critically, (several decades of practice, and a long stint in the world of large format product photography), so I don't think this sort of flare is something I've just been ignoring up until now.

Any comments? I'll try to shoot some specific tests later.

[Aaron Newsome]

Thats weird. I fired up my F3 for the first time last night, just getting familiar with the controls in my living room. I noticed a crazy amount of flare going on. I thought something was broken, seriously. However, I'm using the kit lens.

[Timur Civan]

i've heard AF100 users having similar issues with ZF's. Somethign about the coating on the back element optimized for photography, and lacking an additional anti reflective coating. HDcameras has a glass layer floating above the sensor that can cause an extra reflection. HD camera designers and High end lens manufacturers compensate for this.

My Duclos 11-16 has this reflection, and my Panchros do not. This will probably happen with all converted still glass.

[Jim Tittle]

Thanks. That seems like a plausible explanation. I wonder if the Zeiss Compact Primes differ from the ZF.2s in that respect.

I'll have to try out some cinema lenses in the studio and see if they do better. I've never seen lenses so prone to flare.

[Aaron Newsome]

I've never seen lenses as prone to flare, as the kit lenses for the F3. I think my mattebox will no longer be optional.

[Andrew Stone]

Jim what ZF.2 lenses were you using when you got the flare?

[Nate Weaver]

35 just flares more than smaller sensors. That's why matteboxes, eyebrows and siders are standard issue on 35mm film packages. Bigger glass, bigger apertures.

[Timur Civan]

True, but this is a very specific flare. Its a green, upside down version of any specular highlight in frame. Candle, light bulb, sun, bright window.... IT happens mostly with still glass. i noticed when using the AF100 and the Voightlander 50mm F.95, and the Zeiss ZF 35mm F2. Zeiss CP2's and Cookes did not display this artifact.

[Jim Tittle]

I guess I'm going to have to test this more thoroughly. Haven't had enough time, yet.

I'm well aware of flare problems with larger glass, older glass, and just plain crappy glass. I haven't shot much 35mm motion picture film, but I've worked professionally with everything from 8x10 view cameras down to 16mm film cameras in the past 30 years. And the flare I'm getting with this camera is something new to me.

[Jim Michael]

Is the flare you see generated from something in the frame? Was the camera wearing a matte box?

I'm also curious re the curvature of the of the last surface on the lenses which are more prone to flare - positive or negative, high or low degree of curvature?

[Jim Tittle]

Camera was in my studio. Light sources were a big softlight, a couple of fresnels, and reflectors. All out of frame. I was using shades on the ZF.2s and flags. Flagging the flares wasn't the issue. I just noticed that they were much more prominent than I expected.

As far as the shape of the rear elements, I didn't look at that. I can make a note of it when I do a controlled test.

[Alister Chapman]

Is there any difference with the ND filters in place. this might tell us whether the flare is occurring in the lens or behind the lens. I had a really tough shot to do yesterday shooting almost straight into the sun. There was a lot of flare until I got the Matte Box flags correctly set, once set it was no worse than the EX1 that I had alongside the F3.