what filter to tame da*16 50 flare?

**Pål Jensen** · 03-14-2012, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

I use my DA*16-50 quite a bit with my K7, sometimes with the K5, and I have yet to report continuous flare with that combo.
JP

The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced....

**jpzk** · 03-14-2012, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced....

Sorry to see that your DA*16-50 is so prone to flare !

Mine,on the other hand, doesn't really show that much flare, even in backlit situations.
Well, maybe I got lucky.

I started to check a few "reviews" here and there on the WEB about this flare and of course I've come across a few reports mentioning such behavior.
There were also some reports on the "positive" side of things, stating that many other high end lenses are also quite subject to this.

Where can I read the report stating that the DA*16-50 is the worst flare prone lens ever produced by Pentax? I am curious to see what sort of pics actually show this and under which lighting conditions.

@ OP: Did you get any suggestion(s) which will correct the situation?

Cheers to all.

JP

Don From The Radio · 03-14-2012, 04:55 PM

I had noticeable CA and flare on exactly one photo that I took with my DA*16-50 when I had it. For a lens with such a huge front element, it's remarkably good on flare, if you ask me. Use the hood, don't use a UV filter (the hood is sturdy enough to protect it), and don't shoot into the sun. You'll be fine.

**jpzk** · 03-14-2012, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Don From The Radio

I had noticeable CA and flare on exactly one photo that I took with my DA*16-50 when I had it. For a lens with such a huge front element, it's remarkably good on flare, if you ask me. Use the hood, don't use a UV filter (the hood is sturdy enough to protect it), and don't shoot into the sun. You'll be fine.

Ditto !

No filter ... use the hood and,

You must be, like me, one lucky fellow !

with hardly no flare from that lens.

JP

**Rondec** · 03-14-2012, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced....

Wow. Compared to the old non coated lenses? Even compared to a more recent vintage lens like the FA 50, the 16-50 does a lot better.

Sure, compared to recent primes (like the DA 15 limited), it is more flare prone, but it isn't that bad. Really.

lightbulb · 03-14-2012, 05:25 PM

Ok, will probably buy one later with so much reassurance;-)

**jpzk** · 03-14-2012, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Wow. Compared to the old non coated lenses? Even compared to a more recent vintage lens like the FA 50, the 16-50 does a lot better.

Sure, compared to recent primes (like the DA 15 limited), it is more flare prone, but it isn't that bad. Really.

Even the 15 Ltd, (I agree it is better than the 16-50 for flare) which I happen to use as well, flare is going to happen under some circumstances.

I think there is a bit of hyper mode here for saying this (the DA*16-50) lens is the worst ever produced by Pentax.
Nonetheless, I have it, use it, and sure enjoy it.

JP

**Rondec** · 03-14-2012, 06:11 PM

Just another shot (this one at 16 mm and f5.6) shot directly into the sun. Once again, a little bit of flare, but still pretty good overall contrast.

rfortson · 03-14-2012, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced....

I've owned the 16-50 almost since it came out, and I've never seen it on my copy. My 50-135 has shown flare in extreme cases, but I still love it.

lightbulb · 03-15-2012, 04:07 AM

Ok I hold you to your words and get one:-)

**Pål Jensen** · 03-15-2012, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Just another shot (this one at 16 mm and f5.6) shot directly into the sun. Once again, a little bit of flare, but still pretty good overall contrast.

No. It is horrid. You don't see much of the flare because you use such a wide aperture; it has the effect of reducing the contrast which is clearly visible in the image. If you had stopped it down to F:16 you would have been in for a surprise.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-15-2012, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Wow. Compared to the old non coated lenses?

I have never use a non-SMC lens. However, the 16-50 flare signifactnly more than any other Pentax lens I've used including super wides and fish-eye lenses.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-15-2012, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by jpzk

I am curious to see what sort of pics actually show this and under which lighting conditions.

Heres an example.

Verglace · 03-15-2012, 05:59 AM

I use a hoya hmc uv(0) filter. If I want to get rid of the flare I just remove it and use some tricks like a newspaper to block the sun if its not in the frame (which usually causes the unwated flare). I don't get much flare if I shoot at the sun, in fact I get the same starburst effects as my old DA15 ltd used to.

**Rondec** · 03-15-2012, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Heres an example.

You clearly either had a dirty filter on the front, or a dirty front element.

I just have never seen anything resembling that, but maybe copies differ...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic A Flair for Flare	jheu02	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	1466	1 Day Ago 10:35 AM
Measurement of lens flare (veiling glare) with and without UV filter	labnut	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	05-14-2011 09:13 AM
Nature Tame, yet wild, rabbit	topgun	Post Your Photos!	3	05-10-2011 11:56 AM
What is this (flare?) ?	sterretje	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	05-03-2011 08:37 AM
Manfrotto 359 Long Lens Support with gimbal head? need to tame the SMC 1000mm	tvfd911	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	9	05-08-2010 05:51 PM

03-14-2012, 04:16 PM	#16
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by jpzk I use my DA*16-50 quite a bit with my K7, sometimes with the K5, and I have yet to report continuous flare with that combo. JP The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced....

03-14-2012, 04:45 PM	#17
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced.... Sorry to see that your DA16-50 is so prone to flare ! Mine,on the other hand, doesn't really show that much flare, even in backlit situations. Well, maybe I got lucky. I started to check a few "reviews" here and there on the WEB about this flare and of course I've come across a few reports mentioning such behavior. There were also some reports on the "positive" side of things, stating that many other high end lenses are also quite subject to this. Where can I read the report stating that the DA16-50 is the worst flare prone lens ever produced by Pentax? I am curious to see what sort of pics actually show this and under which lighting conditions. @ OP: Did you get any suggestion(s) which will correct the situation? Cheers to all. JP

03-14-2012, 04:55 PM	#18
Don From The Radio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Delaware Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 344	I had noticeable CA and flare on exactly one photo that I took with my DA*16-50 when I had it. For a lens with such a huge front element, it's remarkably good on flare, if you ask me. Use the hood, don't use a UV filter (the hood is sturdy enough to protect it), and don't shoot into the sun. You'll be fine.

03-14-2012, 04:58 PM	#19
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Don From The Radio I had noticeable CA and flare on exactly one photo that I took with my DA*16-50 when I had it. For a lens with such a huge front element, it's remarkably good on flare, if you ask me. Use the hood, don't use a UV filter (the hood is sturdy enough to protect it), and don't shoot into the sun. You'll be fine. Ditto ! No filter ... use the hood and, You must be, like me, one lucky fellow ! with hardly no flare from that lens. JP

03-14-2012, 05:20 PM	#20
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced.... Wow. Compared to the old non coated lenses? Even compared to a more recent vintage lens like the FA 50, the 16-50 does a lot better. Sure, compared to recent primes (like the DA 15 limited), it is more flare prone, but it isn't that bad. Really.

03-14-2012, 05:25 PM	#21
lightbulb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 691 Original Poster	Ok, will probably buy one later with so much reassurance;-)

03-14-2012, 05:38 PM	#22
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Rondec Wow. Compared to the old non coated lenses? Even compared to a more recent vintage lens like the FA 50, the 16-50 does a lot better. Sure, compared to recent primes (like the DA 15 limited), it is more flare prone, but it isn't that bad. Really. Even the 15 Ltd, (I agree it is better than the 16-50 for flare) which I happen to use as well, flare is going to happen under some circumstances. I think there is a bit of hyper mode here for saying this (the DA*16-50) lens is the worst ever produced by Pentax. Nonetheless, I have it, use it, and sure enjoy it. JP

03-14-2012, 06:11 PM	#23
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Just another shot (this one at 16 mm and f5.6) shot directly into the sun. Once again, a little bit of flare, but still pretty good overall contrast.

03-14-2012, 06:56 PM	#24
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax have ever produced.... I've owned the 16-50 almost since it came out, and I've never seen it on my copy. My 50-135 has shown flare in extreme cases, but I still love it.

03-15-2012, 04:07 AM	#25
lightbulb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 691 Original Poster	Ok I hold you to your words and get one:-)

03-15-2012, 05:32 AM	#26
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Rondec Just another shot (this one at 16 mm and f5.6) shot directly into the sun. Once again, a little bit of flare, but still pretty good overall contrast. No. It is horrid. You don't see much of the flare because you use such a wide aperture; it has the effect of reducing the contrast which is clearly visible in the image. If you had stopped it down to F:16 you would have been in for a surprise.

03-15-2012, 05:34 AM	#27
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Rondec Wow. Compared to the old non coated lenses? I have never use a non-SMC lens. However, the 16-50 flare signifactnly more than any other Pentax lens I've used including super wides and fish-eye lenses.

03-15-2012, 05:47 AM	#28
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by jpzk I am curious to see what sort of pics actually show this and under which lighting conditions. Heres an example.

03-15-2012, 05:59 AM	#29
Verglace Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 468	I use a hoya hmc uv(0) filter. If I want to get rid of the flare I just remove it and use some tricks like a newspaper to block the sun if its not in the frame (which usually causes the unwated flare). I don't get much flare if I shoot at the sun, in fact I get the same starburst effects as my old DA15 ltd used to.

03-15-2012, 06:33 AM	#30
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Heres an example. You clearly either had a dirty filter on the front, or a dirty front element. I just have never seen anything resembling that, but maybe copies differ...