[calculator01]

I was out shooting with the M50 f1.7 tonight and noticed some strange lights. This is a new to me lens and this was the first time I used it for this style of photo. Just wonder what would cause the strange "rainbow" lights across the photo about a third from the top... I know my A28 2.8 is terrible with flares and such, but they appear different than these lights

I was shooting with a hood on as well. This photo was shot as: 50mm, 100 ISO, 15s, and SHOULD be f16...maybe f8 The camera was a K-R

[Adam]

Looks normal to me- those are just reflections / flares caused by the direct light. Was there a filter on the lens? If so, it can worsen the effect.

[JeffJS]

That's a result of your time exposure and having it stopped down. Just about any lens will do it..

Here's one from a Voigtlander Nokton 58 f1:1.4 (K5)



DA15mm f4 Limited (K7)



Of course if you Really want some crazy lighting, put a DA12-24 on your camera..



(just kidding on the last one)..

[stevebrot]

Just wonder what would cause the strange "rainbow" lights across the photo about a third from the top

I don't see anything 1/3 from the top that looks unusual. There are rainbow lights 1/3 from the bottom, but those are from passing cars.


Steve

[ve2vfd]

Do you mean the blueish spots on the left of the light fixtures?

I'd guess you have a UV filter on the lens. Remove it.

I got those reflections with a M50 + UV filter, when I took the filter off, no more reflections.



Pat

[calculator01]

I'll post a picture where I circled the lights I'm talking about.

I did not have any filters at all on this lens, so we can rule that out. I tried using a hood and not using a hood, same thing happened.




Here is a comparison with my DA-L 55-300, no hood, no filters.



I cannot find any of these weird lights in the photos I took with the 55-300 or my 18-135. The 18-135 definitely took the more appealing pictures (14 point stars vs. 6 point)

[stevebrot]

Oh! Those weird lights! Definitely reflection from the filter.


Steve

[calculator01]

No filter was used though

[m42man]

It's just flare within the lens. You don't have to have a filter mounted on a lens for multiple reflections to occur between elements within the lens (it's just that a filter and front element tend to have more pronounced interactions, especially if the filter inner surface isn't multi-coated).

The multi-coating for the (much older) M50/1.7 doesn't seem to be doing as good a job as the thoroughly modern DAL55-300. I don't think this should come as a shock to anybody!

[calculator01]

Hmm, thank you very much for the response. That seems to make logical sense.

Could this also explain why my A28 f2.8 is just plain terrible with reflections? Having the extra element and such?

[m42man]

Hmm, thank you very much for the response. That seems to make logical sense.

Could this also explain why my A28 f2.8 is just plain terrible with reflections? Having the extra element and such?

That's interesting. I've just compared my M50/1.7 against my M28/2.8, and the 50 is definitely worse than the 28. That's the opposite of what you're seeing.

However, my 28 may be significantly different from yours, because it's the "Mk.1" version, whereas I would expect the A28/2.8 to be based on the Mk.2 M28/2.8.

Even so, it's a bit of a mystery. You're sure you haven't got a filter mounted on your 28?

[calculator01]

Nope, no filter on it. When I took a quick photo of the girlfriend sitting on the couch, with an overhead light behind her, I ended up with about 3 couches and 4 girlfriends. Not to mention a litter of kittens. But yet the A28 is great in sufficient, proper lighting.