70-200 2.8L IS flare problems

JohnnyJr

I just got this lens and I'm testing it out. While shooting with it last night as the sun was setting it seemed to be very prone to flare, both with/without a filter attached. Hood was attached. I've never had a long zoom before so I don't know if I should be experiencing this or not. I'm still in the return period so I can exchange it if necessary. Can anyone share their experience with this lens and if you've had flare problems?

wxwax

Not really. Always use the hood, it protects the glass and of course, helps with flare. Exactly how sharp was your angle to the sun?

ziggy53

JohnnyJr wrote:

I just got this lens and I'm testing it out. While shooting with it last night as the sun was setting it seemed to be very prone to flare, both with/without a filter attached. Hood was attached. I've never had a long zoom before so I don't know if I should be experiencing this or not. I'm still in the return period so I can exchange it if necessary. Can anyone share their experience with this lens and if you've had flare problems?

Sample photos would make it easier to comment about ordinary versus excessive flare.

As a rule, zooms are more prone than primes, but my copy of the 70-200mm, f2.8L (non IS) seems fairly good in that regard.

ziggy53

SpeshulEd

my non IS is pretty good too, I took a shot of the sun and it came out much better than I had expected.

pathfinder

The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L is a great lens, sharp, with good color and contrast, but is it made up from 23 lens elements in 18 groups. Thats a lot of reflecting and refracting surfaces to interact. It is a tribute to the skill of modern lens designers and computer power calculating optical rays.

The Canon 200 f2.8 L prime has only 9 elements in 7 groups - a lot fewer surfaces to reflect and refract.

Which lens would you suspect to be more subject to flare? The lens hood for the 200 prime does not have to compromise either, since it does not also need to work at 70mm like the 70-200 zoom does.

Without seeing a few frames of what you are seeing in your images, it is really hard to say very much, but ALL lenses will flare in the right circumstances - no matter what they cost. The best way to avoid flare is the use a lens hoods, shoot from shadows, and try to avoid lights shining directly into the lens. Of course, this limits you to not shooting a lot of interesting subjects like backlit portraits, sunsets, etc etc etc.

System

ziggy53 wrote:

As a rule, zooms are more prone than primes, but my copy of the 70-200mm, f2.8L (non IS) seems fairly good in that regard.

ziggy53

As is mine. I have yet to have any issues even shooting sunsets.

System

pathfinder wrote:

The Canon 2000 f2.8 L prime has only 9 elements in 7 groups - a lot fewer surfaces to reflect and refract.

where can i get my hands on one of these...lol

pathfinder

allensphoto wrote:

where can i get my hands on one of these...lol

Yeah yeah -- one too many zeros. You knew what I meant:D

claudermilk

Hmm...first time I've ever seen the comment that *any* of Canon's 70-200's are prone to flare. Haven't experienced it myself, even shooting direct into stage lights.

Shay Stephens

I have the 70-200 IS and have had it flare on me from time to time. Most likely to happen when pointing into a light source that is significantly brighter than the scene. The stronger the light, the stronger the flare.

I also get some when the light is just out of the frame. I rarely use a hood. It usually is not a problem, and I even use the effect on purpose:



Flare is more prominent when using wide apertures too. So if you want to minimize it, use smaller apertures.

JohnnyJr

Here's a couple of sample shots. I tried to shoot better ones tonight but it is raining cats-n-dogs. Setting sun was just out of the frame at maybe 30 degrees in the first shot...


f2.8 @ 80mm


f2.8 @ 130mm

...maybe not a fair test, but I'm trying to see what this thing can do. I understand it will flare more than a prime -- a fair trade-off considering what this tool is built to do vs. a prime. Most likely I just need to learn how to use this lens to it's strengths and should expect flare wide open. I just want to know if this looks right for this lens so I can be sure I've spent MasterCard's money on a good copy.

Shay Stephens

The sun may have been 30 degrees off, but look at that big bright white light throwing sky, shooting bright light right into the lens!!! That's the cause right there. The more of the white sky you shoot, the less contrast (more flare) you will experience.

JohnnyJr

It was a bright scene, but an average sky about an hour before sunset. I've shot this scene dozens of times with different lenses and never experienced flare unless it was intentional. In the second shot I turned a bit further from the sun and flare is very acceptable. I'm guessing the hood is more effective at the longer lengths. I'll have to try more tests at smaller apetures and see what happens.

I just want to know if every sunset shot will result in a frame full of flare. I like that effect in the wedding shot you posted but wouldn't like to see it in all situations. If anyone has sunset/landscape samples with this lens I'd love to see them!

Shay Stephens wrote:

The sun may have been 30 degrees off, but look at that big bright white light throwing sky, shooting bright light right into the lens!!! That's the cause right there. The more of the white sky you shoot, the less contrast (more flare) you will experience.

Shay Stephens

JohnnyJr wrote:

It was a bright scene, but an average sky about an hour before sunset. I've shot this scene dozens of times with different lenses and never experienced flare unless it was intentional. In the second shot I turned a bit further from the sun and flare is very acceptable. I'm guessing the hood is more effective at the longer lengths. I'll have to try more tests at smaller apetures and see what happens.

I just want to know if every sunset shot will result in a frame full of flare. I like that effect in the wedding shot you posted but wouldn't like to see it in all situations. If anyone has sunset/landscape samples with this lens I'd love to see them!

If you shoot the same scene on a clear day, you will get better results because the difference in brightness between the sky and the scene will be better. But when the sky is white like that, you might as well be shooting into a softbox.

pathfinder

JohnnyJr wrote:

It was a bright scene, but an average sky about an hour before sunset. I've shot this scene dozens of times with different lenses and never experienced flare unless it was intentional. In the second shot I turned a bit further from the sun and flare is very acceptable. I'm guessing the hood is more effective at the longer lengths. I'll have to try more tests at smaller apetures and see what happens.

I just want to know if every sunset shot will result in a frame full of flare. I like that effect in the wedding shot you posted but wouldn't like to see it in all situations. If anyone has sunset/landscape samples with this lens I'd love to see them!

I am sure the hood for the 70-200 at 70mm is not the best - it is a compromise after all. Shay is right, brgith white skies lead to soft diffuse light and lower contrast, and potentially to lens flare. That is certainly true with a 24-105 f4 IS L.

I had to stop and think, because I do not use the 70-200 for landscapes, nearly as frequently as the 24-105 or the 17-40, or even a long telephoto. Not shur why really - I suspect the weight is a significant reason - it is a rather heavy lens to hump very far into the field perhaps. But I did use it in Monument Valley recently, a fair amount on a 5D.

Here are a few frames all shot on a 5D. I believe these were all with the 70-200 I am not at home right now to check the original files for sure.

ziggy53

Johnny,

Thanks for the samples.

I do agree that this is unacceptable flare. I think it is "explainable" flare and not unusual and probably not unique to this copy (I don't think another copy will improve the situation.)

When I zoom in to the 80mm sample, to simulate the angle of view of the 130mm sample, it appears that you shifted the camera a bit down and to the right for the 130mm sample. I believe that the tilt down allowed the hood to come into play. I believe that action alone accounts for most of the difference between the two images. This shows how little it took and, I think, indicates a problem with the hood design.




I believe what happened is that the corner cutout of the "petal" hood design allowed some direct sunlight to shine onto the upper right corner of the image area.

Remembering that the 70-200mm, f2.8L, is a "full-frame" lens, and that the hood is designed for 70mm on a full-frame camera, it becomes clear why we don't see the flare in the image; the flare is out of the frame of view because you use a 1.6 crop camera (specifically, a Canon 20D, according to your profile). If you had used a full-frame camera, I believe the glint from the direct sunlight would have been obvious.

This points to a problem relating to the standard lens hood, it is designed for a full-frame application and is too "conservative" for a 1.6 crop camera. Ideally, it should be extended by a factor of 1.6 to provide the same level of protection.

While you could design your own lens hood:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=35098

I think the best solution is to cover up some of the petal cutout to protect the corners more. Specifically, measure the hood from its attachment to the bottom of the cutout, and extend that distance by 1.6 times.

On my hood (Canon ET-83II), that dimension is around 6.2 cm, so my extension should be a total of 9.92 cm up from the base, which is actually more than the overall length of the hood.

I just tried this, and even with a hood extension totaling 15 cm I didn't see vignetting from the extension.





According to this, the standard lens hood isn't just conservative, it s*cks big time for providing adequate flare control, even at 70mm.

ziggy53

JohnnyJr

Bet you're right, Shay. It was extremely humid so perhaps atmospheric conditions contributed.

Shay Stephens wrote:

If you shoot the same scene on a clear day, you will get better results because the difference in brightness between the sky and the scene will be better. But when the sky is white like that, you might as well be shooting into a softbox.

JohnnyJr

Pathfinder, thank you a bunch for the beautiful samples! This is exactly my concern: I don't want to find I've got a flare problem when I go to shoot scenes with these levels of brightness. If my lens perform like your in similar situations I'd be very happy indeed -- and thrilled if my photos were evan half as beautiful as yours!

JohnnyJr

Ziggy, your explanation of why the lens hood s*cks and how to improve it makes perfect sense. I did exactly what you described in the second shot, tilted down and right to see at what point the flare would diminish. It just so happens the angle of the sun was such that light was beaming directly through that darn hood cut-out. I had not considered the physics of the lenshood with the 1.6 crop. In fact, I figured it worked the opposite way since the sensor was smaller, so thanks for the very helpful explanation! The how-to hood pix are awesome and I'll try that for sure.

It is also very reassuring to hear you don't think I've got a bad copy. It's so unnerving to purchase a lens I really can't afford and then worry there's something wrong with it. Thank God for the dgrin support group!

ziggy53

JohnnyJr wrote:

Ziggy, your explanation of why the lens hood s*cks and how to improve it makes perfect sense. I did exactly what you described in the second shot, tilted down and right to see at what point the flare would diminish. It just so happens the angle of the sun was such that light was beaming directly through that darn hood cut-out. I had not considered the physics of the lenshood with the 1.6 crop. In fact, I figured it worked the opposite way since the sensor was smaller, so thanks for the very helpful explanation! The how-to hood pix are awesome and I'll try that for sure.

It is also very reassuring to hear you don't think I've got a bad copy. It's so unnerving to purchase a lens I really can't afford and then worry there's something wrong with it. Thank God for the dgrin support group!

Understand that this paper extension is just to get a feel for how long to make a "real" extension, which will probably be some kind of dark construction paper with maybe black felt inside.

This excercise has made it clear that such a device is needed to prevent the problems you encountered, at least until Canon provides a "proper" custom hood.

ziggy53

JohnnyJr

I've got some nice, matte black watercolor paper with a good tooth to it that I think will work great for lens hood material. Hey, the sun just came out, I better get to work on that hood right now!

1.6 crop hoods seem like a great idea indeed.

ziggy53 wrote:

Understand that this paper extension is just to get a feel for how long to make a "real" extension, which will probably be some kind of dark construction paper with maybe black felt inside.

This excercise has made it clear that such a device is needed to prevent the problems you encountered, at least until Canon provides a "proper" custom hood.

ziggy53

pathfinder

claudermilk wrote:

Hmm...first time I've ever seen the comment that *any* of Canon's 70-200's are prone to flare. Haven't experienced it myself, even shooting direct into stage lights.

It took me a little while to dig up this image from 2 years ago in Page Arizona . It very clearly demonstrates significant flare shot with a 10D, at f11, 1/500th ISO 200 on a tripod with the hood on. Captured in RAW via ACR.

I do not think this is a bad lens at all, but a very excellent lens, that will flare in the right circumstances.