|
WOw I've never seen it so pronounced. WHat Filter are you using?
My Hoya Super HMCs never show anything like that. Only rarely do I see some minor flare in harsh contra light like sunsets when I forget to remove the filter and I've usually blamed it on the lens itself.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mine are usually green in color. I started using the hood as primary protection, unless there's a chance of things splashing/flying at me, in which case I'll use the filter.
It happens with bright light sources in the frame (and sometimes slightly out-of-frame) and dark elsewhere.
Sometimes it's subtle: www.flickr.com/photos/christopherlin/2075186242/ - Christmas lights, green, bottom of frame--only saw it when I was looking for it;
www.flickr.com/photos/christopherlin/631249563/ - candle on right
I read in EF lens work (free PDF version) that Canon uses meniscus-shaped front elements in super-telephotos to reduce this ghosting.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The filter in question is the Tiffen 58mm UV protector. I guess the problem must be caused by the combination of the highly reflective sensor surface and the flat filter surface(s). Something I'll be more conscious of in future! The real "gotcha" is, you don't see it through the viewfinder, but rather only after you've taken the shot, since the sensor is part of the problem.... :-)
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Take the UV filter off. You don't need one. Just use a lens hood to protect the lens and fit the lens cap when not in use.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've seen this a LOT. To the point where I now recommend only the use of hoods. The coatings on the filter help reduce this problem (and yes, it's caused by the bright lights bouncing off the sensor, and coming back from the back of the filter), but even the very, very best (most expensive) filters still have reflections in conditions like this.
The reason it didn't show in the viewfinder is because the mirror is down, blocking the sensor - and this is caused BY the sensor..
By the way, this reflection is *always* present, you just may not be able to see it - visibility depends on contrast.
Originally posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
BoldPuppy edited this topic 52 months ago.
|
|
I have the Tiffen 58mm and get the same irritating reflections. I've learned to take my filter off and rely on the lens hood for protection in environments where this is an issue.
Originally posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
Siggi Churchill edited this topic 52 months ago.
|
|
Mr Mono nailed it: I attended a Canon sales event at Calumet in San Francisco a while back and the two Canon reps said that they have begun recommending lens hoods and no lens filter. Canon technicians gave them a very involved technical reason, but when they started doing their own tests, they were instantly convinced that a filter lowers sharpness and provides problems like reflections. I suppose It doesn't make sense to spend $1200 on an L series lens and then add a layer of glass (even good glass like a B+H filter). Do what they suggested: go outside and photograph a tree with and without a filter. The results will be clear.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In the past, with film cameras and good quality filters, I had no issues with image quality. These results with the 400d (and its highly reflective sensor) however have convinced me to forget the UV filters, when possible. Thanks for all the validation! Glad I wasn't just missing something obvious.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"two Canon reps said that they have begun recommending lens hoods and no lens filter"
It's funny the reps would say that because many Canon lenses require a filter be installed in order to complete the weather sealing of the lens. Some of the Canon Super Telephoto lenses cannot take screw-in UV filters (such as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens and the Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM Lens) but have a front element designed for protection exclusively. Is this Canon's endorsement for protective filters?
Also, B+W filters have special coatings that are supposed to prevent this kind of reflection. Buying an inexpensive filter is not recommended.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In the harshest of conditions - like this shot - even the hallowed B+W filters would still have some reflection. It would be quite muted, but still there.
And - just because you need a filter to complete the weather sealing, does it HAVE to be a UV filter? Can it be a CPL? ND? GND? Red? Of course it can...
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why would you get a reflection from the back of the filter, when you have all the elements of the lens in between, surly it would reflect from the lens element nearest the sensor. You see reflections like this all the time on the T.V., if it was just a case of taking a filter off, don't you think they would do it. I'm not convinced.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Digital cameras have a glass UV filter over the sensor, and that's quite reflective. Light bounces off of that, and off the back of the filter then back into the camera. That doesn't happen in film cameras, only digital. Most lenses are multicoated to prevent internal reflections from showing up (off of the various elements). Many lens vendors turn that coating into a marketing thing (Super MRC!). The quality and quantity of that coating is very important with regards to this sort of thing. In a cheap lens, it shows up as flare/reduced contrast and other unwanted effects. In the bullet points for the 1.2L 50mm, canon notes: Super Spectra coatings and optimised lens element shaping to suppress flare and ghosting. The new Sigma 1.4 50mm has this: Super multi-layer coating reduces flare and ghosting.. The 1.4 version of Canon's 50mm doesn't have much in the way of talking about coating, which is partly a contributing factor here. It says: "Two high-refraction lens elements and new Gaussian optics eliminate astigmatism and suppress astigmatic difference. "
Cheap/inexpensive filters either have a single protective coating, or none at all. Inexpensive filters with coatings can also have that coating come off when you clean it...
Try this for yourself - find some neon lights and shoot them in the dark... with and without the filter.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
BoldPuppy edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
Thanks for the info, I had the same problem a few days ago and I thought it's only because of the cheap Tiffen UV filters, I guess I will just go with the lens hood from now on.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
At almost $100+ for a good 77mm (3 out of four of mine are 77mm) UV filter and countless problems like what happened here, I just ended up getting one really good filter for shots where a hood will not help. Salt water and sand are not something I want flying around at my lens. That said, use a hood and watch whats going on around you and you will be fine.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
maxxsmart edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
For sand and salt, I bought a 'rain cape'... that encases the whole camera and lens (with a glass porthole) ... worked great when on a boat island hopping in the south Carribean last month! I didn't worry about spray, sand, or even grease from my hands from the sunscreen... and - a filter would only have protected the front element, this protected everything.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i recently discovered also the uv filters are pants, get rid of them and use lens hoods to protect.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Filters may be pants, but the lens hoods don't always protect the lens, depending on the lens and the shape of the hood. I've dinged my Sigma 10-20 (petal-shaped hood) a few times.
Hoya makes a Digital Multi-Coated UV filter to reduce this sort of thing. Has anybody had any experience with those?
I'm considering shelling out the $$ for a 77mm one since I'd rather scratch a filter than my nice L series 24-105 f/4 lens...if they'll reduce this sort of thing, I may get a 58mm one for my 50 f/1.4 while I'm at it.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've used the B+W MRC filters, and they are great, no ghosting at all. But they're not cheap. I only have one for my most expensive lens, for the rest I just use the lens hoods for protection, and they seem to do the job.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Because the 1.4 lens is not coated for digital use there is a possibility of internal reflection from the AA filter that covers the sensor, so it might not be filter problems. I lways use a hood and don't use filters with this lens. You can get away with the more expensive digital coated filters, but even then it's a bit hit and miss as to whether or not you get ghosting. UV filters are prone to flare and I never use them.
Following advice from this group I never take my hood off my lens and cover it with one of those hood hats from Optech/USA which replaces the lens cap. They are great. I also set the lens back to infinity when storing to make sure the moving part of the lens is safely tucked inside the outer barrel.
I have two filters for my 24-105 Lseries lens - one is the Canon Polarizer and the other is the Hoya Digital Pro 8x solid ND. No trouble with either of these filters.
Tiffen filters are two pieces of optical glass with a gell filter sandwiched between them. This is not ideal in my opinion and a single piece of glass heat blended to the right filtration colour is best, though more expensive by way of the science involved.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
image freak edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
If the contrast is high enough, any filter, even the highly rated B+W's will cause a reflection to show - neon lights in the night are great for demonstrating this.
I've never seen internal reflections on the 50/1.4, though it is possible with digital. It's time for Canon to update this lens.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
my UV filters are Jessops and CamLink but i've never had anything like this happening - Image Freak's point does make sense about the Tiffen's construction with the layers and gel - it might be worth getting a single piece UV filter to try a comparison test
Originally posted 39 months ago.
(permalink)
TooMuchTyne edited this topic 39 months ago.
|
|
|
Wait 15 days. Take a picture of the full moon (it's new right now). With the filters on. Then with them off. Ensure that the moon is right at one of the 1/3rd lines, and also expose for the stars, not the moon (that will overexpose the moon a bit...)..
This site reviewed filters for their ability to actually remove UV...
photo.net/equipment/filters/
Posted 39 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM. /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM. discussion threads
