Nice demo Jon, and thanks for taking the time to share this!
The images without the filter certainly look more pleasing to me as well.
I think the improved contrast may make it appear that the bare lens has more flare, but I think it just makes it more obvious, because those shots are clearer.
I agree that the weather sealing and element protection appear to worth the tradeoff.
I think that I will now consider to remove the filter on occasion, if I have a special shot.
Rich
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
That's my interpretation as well. Interestingly, when I took the shots and checked them on the rear LCD, I though it was odd that the with-filter shots looked like they had less flare - so odd that I shot another set, just to be sure. But of course, that's why you use the histogram for on-camera review - the camera's LCD is not a fully adequate representation of the image, and upon review on my computer, the slightly reduced contrast with the filter was evident.
It occurs to me that there's a way to quantify this - a lightbox in the frame with a transmission step wedge (anyone else remember those from printing negatives - real ones, not RAW files?) would allow one to measure the loss of contrast with the increase in flare.
Yes.., so the bare lens has improved flare control, but because the contrast is greater some of the flare rings stand out more, however.., the filtered lens does in fact have more flare as well as some additional secondary flare spots.
In addition, the filtered lens also has more flare (and blown-out highlights) as you get closer to the light source, especially directly in the upper left portion of the frame.
Rich
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote