Flare, wideangle lenses (alternatives), dirty sensor?

[LongLensPhotography]

I've got a horrible ongoing flare issue.


This bad. All you need is super bright light inside or outside of the image and something dark. Shot at f/11 NO filters. F/4 would be less intense but who the hell shoots interiors at f/4 and ends up focus stacking on top?!

If you never shot this type of scene you would not have a clue what I'm talking about because it is largely fine with your normal low to medium contrast landscape shots. Some flare from sun but nothing of that sort!

This causes me to light everything with studio lights and do complex editing as if I was on £1000+ jobs instead of this average type. I can't handle this anymore to be fair.

That is EF 16-35mm f/4 lens and my sensor is admittedly rather dirty. I'm going to have it cleaned in Bristol shop when I get a chance because my own attempts make it far far worse. It is mostly oil problem.

Lens would be fine for sharpness and distortion particularly at wide angle but this is horrid. Long end is not so stellar on these.

I do wonder if cleaning sensor or changing to a different lens / system would eliminate this entirely. I need really good 16-24mm range. No distortion, no flare, little vignette, prefect corner to corner sharpness.

 

[ABTog]

You could book yourself a free trial of the R5 and RF 15-35 f2.8 and RF 14-35 f4 lenses from the Canon Test Drive service and do some comparisons to see if they have the same issues with flare.
In addition to getting the sensor cleaned, I'd also be tempted to get the lens professionally cleaned too.
It's possibly the worst lighting condition to subject a lens to, shooting interiors with large windows is always going to give problems with dynamic range, flare and chromatic abberation.
Are you shooting on a tripod? In which case does bracketing and exposure blending help at all?

You've tried lighting the room, but what about taking a roll of ND film for windows with you. Give you a chance to reduce the outside light and get a bit better shot to work with so hopefully reducing your processing time. Granted some windows would be nigh impossible to put ND film on the inside, but you could tape a larger piece on the outside for the shot.
I work in live TV and we use ND film a lot because you don't have the option to process the image like a photograph.

Judging by your website, your work is high quality and people obviously expect that level of work from you. Even if you could get it in one shot, you'd still need to light the interior to show it off at it's best.

 

[sk66]

I have a bellows lens hood and front mask that reduces the lens' circular FoV down to the rectangular recorded FoV; and that reduces a lot of lens bloom/veiling you are experiencing. I would guess that the lens could stand to be cleaned, possibly internally; but IDT how dirty the sensor is has anything to do with it. I've read that the 16-35/4 L is much better controlled in this aspect.

 

[soupdragon]

Those are kind of extreme conditions. Is all of your work into direct sunlight through French doors?
I'm guessing most lenses will flare under those conditions.
The EF 16-35 is one of the most highly regarded lenses in, what is now, the old lens line up. I owned one and flare was rarely an issue.

 

[nandbytes]

This bad. All you need is super bright light inside or outside of the image and something dark. Shot at f/11 NO filters. F/4 would be less intense but who the hell shoots interiors at f/4 and ends up focus stacking on top?!

If you never shot this type of scene you would not have a clue what I'm talking about because it is largely fine with your normal low to medium contrast landscape shots. Some flare from sun but nothing of that sort!

I normally don't shoot this type of scene but like you mention its not hard to reproduce it either.
I could reproduce it easily on a bright day.

This causes me to light everything with studio lights and do complex editing as if I was on £1000+ jobs instead of this average type. I can't handle this anymore to be fair.

That is EF 16-35mm f/4 lens and my sensor is admittedly rather dirty. I'm going to have it cleaned in Bristol shop when I get a chance because my own attempts make it far far worse. It is mostly oil problem.

Lens would be fine for sharpness and distortion particularly at wide angle but this is horrid. Long end is not so stellar on these.

I do wonder if cleaning sensor or changing to a different lens / system would eliminate this entirely. I need really good 16-24mm range. No distortion, no flare, little vignette, prefect corner to corner sharpness.

Perhaps the new 16-35mm f2.8 Liii might be better at handling such an issue? Don't know much about canon lenses tbh but most recent sony lenses I suspect would be able to handle this.

The closest example I have to your situation is this shot from long time ago. but in your case the light is coming in at an angle which is harder to work with tbh.

 

[soupdragon]

I normally don't shoot this type of scene but like you mention its not hard to reproduce it either.
I could reproduce it easily on a bright day.



Perhaps the new 16-35mm f2.8 Liii might be better at handling such an issue? Don't know much about canon lenses tbh but most recent sony lenses I suspect would be able to handle this.

The closest example I have to your situation is this shot from long time ago. but in your case the light is coming in at an angle which is harder to work with tbh.

I know this is off topic but, what a nice picture.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

; but IDT how dirty the sensor is has anything to do with it.

I'm just throwing all ideas on the table. This https://photographylife.com/what-is-ghosting-and-flare potentially suggest there could be some link (reflection from sensor oily surface to the back element of the lens). I will try to test this against 5Ds with same lens and clean sensor when I get the chance. I need those dark curtains which I don't have (or like).

is much better controlled in this aspect.

It is until it gets beyond its threshold. I had black glossy bathroom to shoot. That was [not] fun at all. Lighting that also not fun.

In addition to getting the sensor cleaned, I'd also be tempted to get the lens professionally cleaned too.

How much is that? I suspect it is back to Canon London then.

Are you shooting on a tripod? In which case does bracketing and exposure blending help at all?

Tripod, 6 brackets, the whole lot as always. Magic lantern takes care of that. DR is really not an issue at all with this.

Granted some windows would be nigh impossible to put ND film on the inside, but you could tape a larger piece on the outside for the shot.
I work in live TV and we use ND film a lot because you don't have the option to process the image like a photograph.

That's an interesting idea. I will look into this. I suppose it requires to have other windows or good old studio lights setup behind to work.

Those are kind of extreme conditions. Is all of your work into direct sunlight through French doors?

Quite typical conditions for my work. obviously that's just a part of the image. The key here is dark curtains or very sharp transition from bright to dark. The bright bit can be even just outside of the shot and it will still do that.

Even if you could get it in one shot, you'd still need to light the interior to show it off at it's best.

Not always. Natural light is fine or even preferable in many cases where scene is not 100% backlit or badly lit. With stills we have the luxury to process same image (well the 6 image stack here as non-tonemapped HDR in LR) in 2 or even 3 ways and blend those. Here this would be room, window detail and possibly floor / carpet. Selections are dead easy here.
At least I wouldn't be lighting specifically for curtains and window frame!


thats one example. 3 way processing (left , middle and right) + shot with room lights blended on top for lights ON effect. Some of that flare is visible in the centre section but is reasonably well hidden. For an image that I expected to be an instant delete it looks OK to me.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Todays update. I've done a strip softbox and two black garbage bags on each side setup to evoke the very worst from gear.

First of all, it doesn't appear sensor dirt related or at least no that much to be of primary concern. Based on the pics below is there any link at all with the slight extra haziness on 5d3? It will get cleaned eventually because it needs to. I looked through the lens and it seems very clean and clear inside

16-35 f/4 (my copy, no filter) is terrible at f/11 and acceptable at f/4 for flare.

24-70mm f/2.8L II - acceptable at f/11 without filter, and looks a bit like 16 with Sigma WR UV

Sigma 35mm art at f/11 no filter - almost perfect. Still plenty of contrast left too. With B+W f-pro UV it is a bit worse but no much worse than naked 24-70



I would be intrigued to see if anyone else can replicate same with their copy of 16-35 or get completely different results? And perhaps some others like EF 16-35 III, Sigma DN 14-24 (Sony), Nikon Z 14-24, Sony Zeiss 16-35 f/4

 

[LongLensPhotography]

5Ds clean 16-35 f/11 no UV


5D3 dirty 16-35 f/11 no UV. Same settings and processing. 5Ds have lower gain?


All below are 5D3
16-35 f/4 no UV. Lights on this were brighter. Still hazy. but no dots!


24-70 @ 24 f/11 no UV


24-70 @ 24 f/11 with UV


Sigma 35 f/11 no UV


Sigma 35 f/11 with UV

 

[LongLensPhotography]

5Ds but with Adobe Standard v2 profile. You pretty much normally have to use that with this body.

 

[sk66]

Adding a UV filter (or any other kind) is not going to make any beneficial difference... it can only make it worse.

 

[nandbytes]

I would be intrigued to see if anyone else can replicate same with their copy of 16-35 or get completely different results? And perhaps some others like EF 16-35 III, Sigma DN 14-24 (Sony), Nikon Z 14-24, Sony Zeiss 16-35 f/4

Meant to reply back but didn't have a sunny day till today, I don't have any of those lenses but I have 16-35mm GM.
Example at 19mm (yes my window needs a clean) @ f/11. Exposed for the sky outside and shadows recovered in post from a single image.
Not sure if this is the kind of example you are after...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I

Meant to reply back but didn't have a sunny day till today, I don't have any of those lenses but I have 16-35mm GM.
Example at 19mm (yes my window needs a clean) @ f/11. Exposed for the sky outside and shadows recovered in post from a single image.
Not sure if this is the kind of example you are after...

View attachment 343776

I think that looks quite tidy. I'm not sure if it would have made any real difference if you exposed for the curtains as you would push the lens harder and certainly doesn't need sunshine specifically just very bright vs very dark. I guess not, you would see nasties in this already with mine. Many thanks.

 

[Petrochemist]

I have a bellows lens hood and front mask that reduces the lens' circular FoV down to the rectangular recorded FoV; and that reduces a lot of lens bloom/veiling you are experiencing. I would guess that the lens could stand to be cleaned, possibly internally; but IDT how dirty the sensor is has anything to do with it. I've read that the 16-35/4 L is much better controlled in this aspect.

Dirt on the sensor would show as dark shadows, so that's clearly not the issue.
Dirty lens elements will indeed cause these sort of effects, but I would think it would have to be quite bad to show this much!

The bellows hood is an excellent option, if you need more than the lens's standard hood. I find them a bit more work than rigid hoods, but they allow the shading to be optimised for the shot.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Dirty lens elements will indeed cause these sort of effects, but I would think it would have to be quite bad to show this much!

I can assure you my lens very clean

The bellows hood is an excellent option,

not at 16mm. It vignettes heavily with anything over the size of standard canon hood

 

[sk66]

not at 16mm. It vignettes heavily with anything over the size of standard canon hood

It will work with pretty much any FL... the bellows hood is much larger than any typical rigid hood (near 77mm). You use masks to make the opening the right format (3:2), and then you extend/retract it so that it exactly matches the recorded FoV (blocking any stray light from the front element).

 

[nandbytes]

I

I think that looks quite tidy. I'm not sure if it would have made any real difference if you exposed for the curtains as you would push the lens harder and certainly doesn't need sunshine specifically just very bright vs very dark. I guess not, you would see nasties in this already with mine. Many thanks.

Ah I see what you mean well it made a difference in that I needed to take my filter off the lens to get a clean image
There is no problem with the lens for me, filters I use are for transport purposes mainly, I use cheap Hoya ones. they suck we all know.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Ah I see what you mean well it made a difference in that I needed to take my filter off the lens to get a clean image
There is no problem with the lens for me, filters I use are for transport purposes mainly, I use cheap Hoya ones. they suck we all know.

View attachment 343799

There is a tiny tiny bit of flare on the top right side slightly reducing contrast but essentially that's completely non-issue. P.S. How do you find corner sharpness at 16mm and 35mm?

I would say outdoors and normal contrast situations you definitely want to keep UV filters on. Protection of front element and weather seal are far greater benefits while you hardly see any drawbacks until you get into this sort of situation.

 

[nandbytes]

There is a tiny tiny bit of flare on the top right side slightly reducing contrast but essentially that's completely non-issue. P.S. How do you find corner sharpness at 16mm and 35mm?

I would say outdoors and normal contrast situations you definitely want to keep UV filters on. Protection of front element and weather seal are far greater benefits while you hardly see any drawbacks until you get into this sort of situation.

Well I wouldn't shoot like this or like the first image tbh. both are extremes. I would shoot slightly overexposed till the highlights were just short of clipping and the recover the highlights and pull out the shadows which would have given me a clean shot.

Its sharper at 16mm than at 35mm which is normal for lenses of this kind. But its excellent all round even at f2.8.
I bought it to replace two lenses for night time shooting to be covered at both ends well enough. I would be shooting it wide open and its plenty sharp for printing big.
Any more is just academic for me.