Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost

[jwilton]

Since it is a new lens, I'd exchange it for another. Sometimes there can be a manufacturing defect that makes internal reflections worse.

I doubt it most 24-105s i've seen and used do this when shooting into hard large spotlights

Met a young chap, DJ, who was taking photos of the bridge early this morning. He had just purchased the same camera as mine. I asked him if he was getting internal reflections, explained why etc. and he was not. Even composed same photo and could not reproduce the internal reflections.

SO I found at least one example of the lens that does not mis behave.

 

[jwilton]

Just tidying up some photos from last year and here is a photo of the 24-105 shoot straight into the sun on a 5D @ f11. I think I would have left my Hoya Pro-1 UV filter attached because of the conditions in Antarctica. I think that the flare resistance is more than acceptable for a zoom. The green ghost was easily cloned out.

Thanks, love the photo.

 

[Skirball]

I'm putting my money on it being ghosts. Your best bet is to return the lens, or buy a shirt that says "My camera sees dead people".

 

[jwilton]

I'm putting my money on it being ghosts. Your best bet is to return the lens, or buy a shirt that says "My camera sees dead people".

 

[Pi]

The lights are extremely bright for the exposure. I have taken many night shots with this lens without visible problems. Still, with extremely bright light sources, you will see ghosts symmetric to the light sources about the center, like the green flare right here, in the lower left corner.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/9905830385/#

On the other hand, the next shots seems to be OK, the "flare" around the highlights are due to the high humidity and pollution:


The Shanghai oriental pearl tower

 

[surapon]

These are reflections, could be internal...

+1

Great Engineer's Thinking, Dear Arjay
In my Idea, and It happend to me long time ago. just 1 small reflective dust on the front of UV. filter, that create the UFOs on the dark sky for me. I hope that are the real UFOs, that I can sell to the Newspaper for millions Us Dollars.----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Surapon

OH-O-----I might wrong again---Sorry " just 1 small reflective dust on the front of UV. filter, that create the UFOs on the dark sky for me. "---Sorry for my Low tech of Photographic undestanding.

 

[Frodo]

These are reflections, could be internal...

+1

Great Engineer's Thinking, Dear Arjay
In my Idea, and It happend to me long time ago. just 1 small reflective dust on the front of UV. filter, that create the UFOs on the dark sky for me. I hope that are the real UFOs, that I can sell to the Newspaper for millions Us Dollars.----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Surapon

Dust on the filter would not cause "UFOs". More likely dust on the sensor. A filter will increase the chance of ghosts, a dirty filter will increase the chance of veiling (a lack of contrast).

 

[Pi]

Dust on the filter would not cause "UFOs". More likely dust on the sensor. A filter will increase the chance of ghosts, a dirty filter will increase the chance of veiling (a lack of contrast).

In the OP case, those are reflections from the sensor reflected back by the lens. See this, for example:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1120319

 

[surapon]

These are reflections, could be internal...

+1

Great Engineer's Thinking, Dear Arjay
In my Idea, and It happend to me long time ago. just 1 small reflective dust on the front of UV. filter, that create the UFOs on the dark sky for me. I hope that are the real UFOs, that I can sell to the Newspaper for millions Us Dollars.----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Surapon

Dust on the filter would not cause "UFOs". More likely dust on the sensor. A filter will increase the chance of ghosts, a dirty filter will increase the chance of veiling (a lack of contrast).

Thanks you, Sir, Dear Frodo. Sorry, I make the mistake and Misunderstanding of the UFOs.
Surapon

 

[mackguyver]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

 

[Skirball]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

 

[mackguyver]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

 

[Skirball]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

Multi-coating or not, no surface is going to reflect less than coated surface.

Mostly though, it's just opposite of my experience, even with the same lens. You can easily see the results of cheap un-coated filters in dark situations with bright points of light. When I moved to nice multi-coated Hoya filters I noticed a significant reduction in the same situation, and it colors them so they don't stand out as much, but they still show. I'm a filter guy (we don't need to re-hash this hackneyed discussion), but if I'm out at night, even in dusty, crowded, third-world streets, I take off my filter because of this very problem.

 

[mackguyver]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

Multi-coating or not, no surface is going to reflect less than coated surface.

Mostly though, it's just opposite of my experience, even with the same lens. You can easily see the results of cheap un-coated filters in dark situations with bright points of light. When I moved to nice multi-coated Hoya filters I noticed a significant reduction in the same situation, and it colors them so they don't stand out as much, but they still show. I'm a filter guy (we don't need to re-hash this hackneyed discussion), but if I'm out at night, even in dusty, crowded, third-world streets, I take off my filter because of this very problem.

I understand and it doesn't exactly make sense, but it does work under the circumstances I mentioned. That's all I can say. With newer lenses with coatings optimized for digital sensors, filters can only hurt.

 

[Sporgon]

I've had random green internal reflections with the 24-105 when shooting into intense light. On one occasion I was shooting a lighthouse and cliffs as the sun was just rising above the horizon. For quite some time I thought I had found something like green copper under the water, below the cliffs. :-[

 

[photonius]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

Actually, physically this makes no sense. A filter in front of the lens will not prevent light bouncing off the sensor from reflecting from the front element or any other internal element. Once the light is through the filter, nothing can prevent any internal reflections.

 

[mackguyver]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

Actually, physically this makes no sense. A filter in front of the lens will not prevent light bouncing off the sensor from reflecting from the front element or any other internal element. Once the light is through the filter, nothing can prevent any internal reflections.

I'm not an optical engineer by any means, but I believe it works because it lessens the amount of the light from bouncing off the sensor from bouncing back into the sensor, which is what's causing the ghosting. The reflection off the sensor is going to hit the foremost piece of glass and reflect back into the sensor. By putting a better coated piece of glass in the front, I think it reduces the ghosting.

That may or may not be sound logic, all I can say is that when I got my 50 1.4, I couldn't believe how badly it ghosted with night shots very similar to the OP's. I screwed a multi-coated filter on the front and the problem practically disappeared. Going back in my mind, it was a 450D, 50 f/1.4, and a Hoya HMC Super filter.

 

[Skirball]

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

Actually, physically this makes no sense. A filter in front of the lens will not prevent light bouncing off the sensor from reflecting from the front element or any other internal element. Once the light is through the filter, nothing can prevent any internal reflections.

I'm not an optical engineer by any means, but I believe it works because it lessens the amount of the light from bouncing off the sensor from bouncing back into the sensor, which is what's causing the ghosting. The reflection off the sensor is going to hit the foremost piece of glass and reflect back into the sensor. By putting a better coated piece of glass in the front, I think it reduces the ghosting.

But, 'no glass' is a better coated piece of glass than the best coated pieces of glass.

 

[mackguyver]

But, 'no glass' is a better coated piece of glass than the best coated pieces of glass.

Like I said, it works, and thus addresses the OP. My degrees are in Arts & Management, not Science

 

[Skirball]

But, 'no glass' is a better coated piece of glass than the best coated pieces of glass.

Like I said, it works, and thus addresses the OP. My degrees are in Arts & Management, not Science

That's fine, but you were the one postulating theories of the allegedly observed results of your experiment; consider this your peer review. That is science.

Edited to add smily