Posted: 11/30/2009 9:21:16 AM EDT
|
I think the answer in this case is "No", but I figured I would ask anyway.
Is it possible to avoid lens flare when shooting directly into the sun? Example posted below. Tech Specs: Nikon D300, Nikkor 17-55mm F/2.8, No filters, Shot was over exposed by one stop and brought back down in PP. 
|
|
Lens choice makes a big difference. The 17-55 is well known to have more flare than many others. It is one of it's big negatives. If that is the type of shooting you want to do, you might pick a different lens such as the 17-35.
I have also read to remove all filters as this can add to the problem, but you said none were used. |
|
Quoted:
Just to note, I am not bashing the 17-55. I have it and really like it. Never thought you were. I hadn't read anything about the flare issues with the lens. The primary concern that I remember reading about them was the possibility of getting a copy that doesn't focus right or was soft. I've had mine for over 3 years now. Initially I suspected that it was ever so slightly less sharp, but it didn't bother me enough to send it in. When I got the D300 and I finally fine tune the focus, the lens performance totally blew me away. It seemed to look 3 times better. |
|
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html He does a pretty good job of rating lenses, IMO and flare is one of the things he usually touches on. |
|
Quoted:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html He does a pretty good job of rating lenses, IMO and flare is one of the things he usually touches on. Yes, he talks about it (which sounds stangely like what I said, but I hadn't read his comments before I wrote mine, I swear!): The real issue with this design is its propensity to flare and ghosting. The AFS 17-35 is very resistant to both areas (at least when the lens is new and dirt-free inside), whilst the 28-70 is troubled with flare. The 17-55 DX exhibits quite nasty ghosting under strongly backlit conditions, and there is significant flare shown as well. I guess this is the inevitable price to be paid for the added versatility and the bigger zooming range. If your typical sessions include shooting into the sun, you might be advised to use another lens. However, if you are basically lazy like me, you will be endeared by the charm and versatility of the 17-55. So I ended up (for a while) shooting with 17-55 as my main bread-and-butter lens on D2H and D2X. Now it is retired in favour of prime lenses. But I might reconsider once again. And Thom Hogan: Flare performance is quite good except for direct into the sun. Unless light is hitting directly on the front element, I've not seen any visible contrast degradation, and the supplied butterfly type hood is excellent in keeping light from hitting the front element in most situations. But if the light source is directly in the picture, things get a little wonkier, and you're likely to see contrast reduction if not ghosting. That's typical of virtually all modern zooms, though. And some more comments: "Also the hood size might be a remedy to lens flare which is prone on this lens. Although this lens is prone to flare, it is not as bad as you might hear in photography forums by Nikon 17-35 loyalists." "The lens is subject to flare at wide apertures when pointed at stupidly bright light sources, like the sun. Stopping down improves resistance in this regard. This performance –– or lack thereof ––- may or may not prove problematic, depending on your shooting style and subject. Personally, it's not something I lose sleep over and not a factor that prevents me from making the images I want to make. I haven't experienced problems with flare so severe that they would ruin an image. In my own experience, flare is relatively a non-issue, but it is one of the few criticisms I can claim of the optic. In instances in which the lens does exhibit flare, the effect is apparent in the viewfinder. From my experience, the lens is more flare resistant than the 70-200VR, which is much more prone to that issue. " It is my most-used lens. |
|
I love it when software packages ADD "lens flare" options... As if it's a really desirable thing in your photo.
For non-commercial photography, I've never minded it unless it's obnoxious. For commercial photography, figure something out, son, 'cuz I ain't putting that in my layout. 
|
|
Good Info. I never knew and I am usually pretty studious in researching. The 17-55 and the 105 micro are the only 2 lenses that I have.
This type of shot isn't a normal thing for me. Just given the circumstances, it was pretty much unavoidable. Any good ways of eliminating the flare in PP? |
|
Lens flare can be a welcome addition sometimes. If you need to shoot into the sun and want to avoid lens flare I would suggest positioning the subject in front of the sun and you will be able to stop the lens flare. Otherwise if the sun is out of the frame you can use your hand as a lens shade to help block the sun while you are shooting. Often the supplied lens shade is not enough, especially when shooting back lit and 3/4 lit subjects.
Another solution is to use a flash direct on the subject and to overpower the daylight. If you underexpose the daylight by about a stop or so you will get a nice deep sky and a well lit subject. Can be an interesting effect. Best tp play around with a few options and see what suits your style. |