[BarryE]

I have a DA* 16-50 which on balance I enjoy using, however it does seem to flare a little too much at times. I've mostly learnt how to handle this lens and how it behaves and I've had great results, except for the flaring. Yesterday I was shooting a misty stream with a low sun out of shot, perhaps about 30 degrees out of frame. I use the hood, and yes it's attached correctly. I also use a high quality UV filter, Hoya Pro1 - in tests this does not seem to cause any extra flare problems, it is down to the lens I feel. I know it's an issue for me and normally I manage around it, but sometimes I can't avoid the problem. Does anyone know if the 20-40 is more flare resistant ?

Thanks

[k0og]

Barry,

I suggest that you try to eliminate the filter. In my opinion, if you use a hood it is best to not have a filter. The hood gives good protection to the front glass of a lens so you don't really need the filter for protection. Also, in my opinion, you don't need a filter on a digital camera for color balance reasons since that is controlled in post processing software, especially if you shoot in RAW mode.

Even a very good multi-coated filter can add some extra intra-glass reflections and cause or exacerbate flare.

The next time you encounter a situation with flare, immediately remove the filter and try the same shot again in the same lighting to see if it is improved by removing the filter.

-Joe-

[microlight]

I have no experience with the 16-50, but the HD coating on the 20-40 makes for excellent flare resistance. I agree about not using a filter; my view is why add an extra piece of glass between you and your subject that the camera manufacturer didn't design for. The hood does a good job of protecting, even the small one on the 20-40!

[Rondec]

I would just say that I think the hardest flare situations are where you aren't shooting directly into the sun, but the sun is at an angle to you -- just outside of your photo. It feels like that flares worse than if you are focused right at the sun.

As to the 20-40, I would imagine it would have to be better, as it has less glass and newer coatings.

[mattb123]

Yeah, ditch the filter. My 16-50 flares but I wouldn't expect it to under those circumstances without a filter on.

[Nicolas06]

I have a DA* 16-50 which on balance I enjoy using, however it does seem to flare a little too much at times. I've mostly learnt how to handle this lens and how it behaves and I've had great results, except for the flaring. Yesterday I was shooting a misty stream with a low sun out of shot, perhaps about 30 degrees out of frame. I use the hood, and yes it's attached correctly. I also use a high quality UV filter, Hoya Pro1 - in tests this does not seem to cause any extra flare problems, it is down to the lens I feel. I know it's an issue for me and normally I manage around it, but sometimes I can't avoid the problem. Does anyone know if the 20-40 is more flare resistant ?

Thanks

What do you mean in tests? Did you actually shoot the same scene with an without filter and got the same flare issue? Or did you do so tests on a scene in other circonstances?

From experience, the best filter does terrible thing to our lenses. They increase flare a lot, but also in more subtle ways decrease contrast and resolution. Even if they are not too bad, they don't clean remotely as easily as the front lens element of Pentax lenses and a dirty front element/filter is also a very good reason for quite crappy results.

Adding filter to your lenses, reduce their quality in many occasion. Worse you may discover the problem too late when it is not possible to go back and take some picture without the filter.

The HD ltds are very resistant to flare, including the DA20-40 zoom. They are truely great for this kind of shoot, better than almost anything on the market because they combine prime with very few glass elements and outstanding coatings.

So yes the 20-40 would do much better, but if you plan to add a filter to it, don't even bother, you'll get flare anyway.

[BarryE]

What do you mean in tests? Did you actually shoot the same scene with an without filter and got the same flare issue? Or did you do so tests on a scene in other circonstances?

From experience, the best filter does terrible thing to our lenses. They increase flare a lot, but also in more subtle ways decrease contrast and resolution. Even if they are not too bad, they don't clean remotely as easily as the front lens element of Pentax lenses and a dirty front element/filter is also a very good reason for quite crappy results.

Adding filter to your lenses, reduce their quality in many occasion. Worse you may discover the problem too late when it is not possible to go back and take some picture without the filter.

The HD ltds are very resistant to flare, including the DA20-40 zoom. They are truely great for this kind of shoot, better than almost anything on the market because they combine prime with very few glass elements and outstanding coatings.

So yes the 20-40 would do much better, but if you plan to add a filter to it, don't even bother, you'll get flare anyway.

Hi Nicolas, "my tests" ? Yes, I've carefully tried all my lens with/without filters in identical circumstances. I've found the Kenko Zeta filters to be very good, though they are pricey. The Hoya Pro, marginally less so.

They do afford good protection, especially as I'm often working in poor conditions. I appreciate they might cause some degradation in some cases, but it's a balance....

Maybe, I should try yet again and see if I can perceive a difference, especially for flare.

I have HD primes and smc primes and the flare resistance is better on the HDs, I've found (not surprisingly). So my thoughts were to consider the 20-40, its smaller too and carry a 15mm with it.

[lmd91343]

Barry,

I have used both the 20-40 and the 16-50. On the 20-40 I have a Hoya HMC UV behind the shallow hood. On the 16-50 I have a B+W Pro MRC nano UV behind the tulip hood. I have taken thousands of photos with the 16-50 on a K3 and hundred or so with the 20-40. On my K10, I have taken hundreds of shots with my 20-40. My K10 has been converted to IR FWIW. The shallow hood of the 20-40 is always a constant concern.

I have seen better flare control with the 20-40. I am very happy with the flare control of the 16-50. I have seen flare from bright lights in the 16-50 on occasion. I can't recall flare at all from the 20-40. But my technique with that lens and K10 IR camera is relatively high sun angles far from the frame.

Sun on a low angle,with a stream in the frame with thousands of water droplets in the air sounds like a recipe for all sorts of flare and low contrast issues. You had a very wide lens for this photo. That's a difficult situation for any lens and photographer.

[Sandy Hancock]

The HD DA20-40 is definitely more flare resistant, but I found the DA*16-50 to be a more versatile performer across its focal length range. My 20-40 was very weak at the wide end so I returned it.
If I'm shooting wide into the sun, the DA15 and DA21 are my go-to lenses. The DA10-17 isn't bad either.

I won't add fuel to the filter debate except to say my hoods have done an excellent job of protecting my front elements over several years of heavy use in trying environments.

[clackers]

Treat the filter as a lens cap - take it off before you shoot.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

If flare resistance in challenging situations is a priority for shooting digital, only two rules rise above the others:

1) Shoot primes. (I shoot zooms much of the time, but challenging lighting is when you most need a prime.) The 16-50 is a typical zoom - fine for normal shooting when stopped down; the 20-40 certainly is better, but it isn't a prime. The main issue is glass surfaces. Fewer is better.

2) No filters. Pretty much everything you want to do with a filter designed to subtly enhance sharpness and contrast can be done better with Photoshop or the various tools that are even better. Filters are the lazy way out for those who don't have the patience to learn modern techniques.

[BarryE]

Ok, I think I'm concluding ...thanks. It's good to draw out opinions and we did not go off piste, which was helpful ;-) I find that at times I can get into a rutt, using a narrow set of lenses, so a discussion like this can help to reset me.

# I prefer primes and the fewer glass layers and HD coatings are best for flare resistant - it's just a shame that when the weather is challenging AND access is not easy on a location that I have to choose zooms.
# Filters *do* degrade a image, but the differences *may* not be perceptible.
# The 16-50 has several advantages over the 20-40. It is perhaps, a tricky lens to master and I will continue my learning. x is a tricky shot I took with the 16-50 in rain, with a low sun, and a Hoya filter. No flare. I recall, a slight re-composition and it flared badly. The main problem is that subtle flaring is often not appreciated until I get back to process the image, by then it's often too late. Post processing to get rid of flare is rarely successful I find.

I agree with Jim above, that PS, especially the latest Process Model in ACR negates the need for most filtering, polarising apart. The often heard debates (and hard selling) of the square filter suppliers leaves me cold. The idea of sticking a plastic sheet and holder over a 21mm limited is almost abhorrent...

Thanks for the discussion ...