12-35/2.8 Panasonic: Flare/Ghosting?

[jhinkey]

A Question For those that have this lens -


How is the 12-35 regarding flare and ghosting resistance? For landscapes I like to have the sun in the frame and I try to have lenses that have little to no ghosting and minimal fare. Will this lens be OK in this regard and does it make a difference if it's mounted on an E-M5 or a GH-2?

Thanks -




John

 

[axlotl]

Lumix 12-35mm At 12mm f2.8




Lumix 12-35mm At 12mm f2.8

The lens generally behaves very well. With the sun in frame as in the lower photo there is a little flare around the sun but you can see the foliage is generally well perserved. In the upper photo the sun is just at frame edge which is the worst situation for this lens, producing in this case some magenta flare. Moving the camera very slightly changes the flare and can often eliminate it. Sometimes green blobs appear oppposite the sun but again a slight shift in camera position can often stop this. For further information see my review at Camera Ergonomics

 

[papillon_65]

jhinkey wrote:

A Question For those that have this lens -

How is the 12-35 regarding flare and ghosting resistance? For landscapes I like to have the sun in the frame and I try to have lenses that have little to no ghosting and minimal fare. Will this lens be OK in this regard and does it make a difference if it's mounted on an E-M5 or a GH-2?

Thanks -

John

 

[Bruce Clarke]

I was expecting trouble with this one, but no problem, and generally seems very good for landscapes to me. Taken with the E-M5.

Bruce


--

Bruce Clarke

Explore Bruce Clarke’s 1,883 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Flickriver - view large on black as a stream:

Flickriver: Photos from Bruce Clarke

Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...

www.flickriver.com

 

[jhinkey]

Thanks everyone! Exactly what I was looking for.




- John

 

[RobbieV]

I don't know if this is considered flare or ghosting, But, I do get this strange coloration in some of my photos with the 12-35. I actually tried to disguise it out of this shot but you can still see it in the left side of the frame.

--
***************
Robbie
www.flickr.com/photos/rvaughn
www.pixbyrob.com

 

[Big Ga]

jhinkey wrote:

Thanks everyone! Exactly what I was looking for.

You may have heard what you wanted to hear, unfortunately its probably not really the whole story.




Most of the panny lenses are pretty good, however flare resistance isn't one of their best traits and the 12-35 is one of the offenders. Veiling flare from off axis light sources is actually very well controlled, but a direct light in the frame isn't. Shooting into the sun is often going to cause problems.

 

[jhinkey]

Big Ga wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

Thanks everyone! Exactly what I was looking for.

You may have heard what you wanted to hear, unfortunately its probably not really the whole story.

Most of the panny lenses are pretty good, however flare resistance isn't one of their best traits and the 12-35 is one of the offenders. Veiling flare from off axis light sources is actually very well controlled, but a direct light in the frame isn't. Shooting into the sun is often going to cause problems.

No, I did not hear what I wanted to hear, but I did get some good responses with images which is what I was referring to when I said it was exactly what I was looking for.

I'd love to know if it's body agnostic or if it's worse with an E-M5 vs. a GH2/3. I have some Nikon lenses that are the same way - ghosting, but if you move the sun around in the frame you can sometimes get rid of it completely or mostly.

 

[Big Ga]

jhinkey wrote:
No, I did not hear what I wanted to hear, but I did get some good responses with images which is what I was referring to when I said it was exactly what I was looking for.

Hmm .. well I wasn't trying to be funny or anything, but the to me, the responses you got don't really tell the whole story.

Put it like this, I love my 12-35, but if I'm shooting into the sun (which you specifically asked about), then if I've got my Nikon or Oly kit with me as well, then I've come to the conclusion I'll always try to use that instead, because so far, in this very specific situation, the 12-35 is actually one of the worse performers out of the lenses I use. I'm just asking for trouble. Its possible I actually have very few lenses that are worse. Which is intensely irritating, as its so good in other areas and I'd much rather use it all the time!

I'd love to know if it's body agnostic or if it's worse with an E-M5 vs. a GH2/3.

If the flare is going to be there, its going to be there, however I've yet to come across a flare problem that wasn't visibly worse in intensity on an EM5 than on any panasonic body.

 

[jhinkey]

Big Ga wrote:
If the flare is going to be there, its going to be there, however I've yet to come across a flare problem that wasn't visibly worse in intensity on an EM5 than on any panasonic body.

Hmm . . . so perhaps the anti-reflective coating on the EM5 sensor is less forgiving than on the Panasonics? I've read of this before somewhere that the EM5 was worse in this regard.

Right now B&H has the GH-2 on sale along with $200 off of the 12-35 when bundled together. I was thinking of grabbing this kit to start off in m43 as the GH-2 ticks a lot of positive boxes for me (more than the EM-5, though the EM-5 has lots of positives too) and the 12-35 is way better than the 12-50. That and a 75/1.8 + 7-14/4 would get me a long ways in a compact system.




Currently my compact camera is a LX-7 and it's a little too compact at times and even the GH-2 IQ will beat the heck out of it.

Thanks Big Ga - could you show some flare/ghosting examples of your own from the 12-35?




John

 

[Bruce Clarke]

Big Ga wrote:

jhinkey wrote:
No, I did not hear what I wanted to hear, but I did get some good responses with images which is what I was referring to when I said it was exactly what I was looking for.

Hmm .. well I wasn't trying to be funny or anything, but the to me, the responses you got don't really tell the whole story.

Put it like this, I love my 12-35, but if I'm shooting into the sun (which you specifically asked about), then if I've got my Nikon or Oly kit with me as well, then I've come to the conclusion I'll always try to use that instead, because so far, in this very specific situation, the 12-35 is actually one of the worse performers out of the lenses I use. I'm just asking for trouble. Its possible I actually have very few lenses that are worse. Which is intensely irritating, as its so good in other areas and I'd much rather use it all the time!

That does surprise me Gareth. I presume you're not using filters? I think it's a lens that has to be kept clean. I've given mine quite a bit of grief with contre-jour landscape stuff, and been impressed with the lack of flare (on the E-M5). I've got a load waiting for editing, but will try to stick some up soon.

Bruce

 

[String]

Hey John, here is a shot with the sun directly in the frame. I was shooting at f10 and was trying to get some flare into the shot (OM-D). This is the worst example I have:

And here is another, again with the sun directly in the frame:

In my experience, its no worse or better than any of my Nikon glass (24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8)

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

 

[Steve_]

Most people in this thread are being amazingly ineffective at spotting the rather obvious ghosting issue of the 12-35 when used on the OMD. The issue is well documented on the 7-14, and from what I can tell, no less an issue with the 12-35.

Notice both purple ghosts emanating from the light source, as well as the green flare. The green flare is somewhat understandable as it's the light bouncing about inside the lens. But the purple ghosts are the issue like the 7-14's, and I don't think they happen when using a Panasonic body. Waving the camera around as a test, the flare and ghosts walk all around the frame until you get the incident light off the front element, and even then, you can still have a bit of ghosting.

This is rather field-relevant, especially if you are under artificial lights:

Notice the purple ghost again emanating from the light source. It is very evident in full resolution examples or prints.

I tried about 10 shots, adjusting my framing to minimize the ghost. This was the best I could do, and although I'm sure I like the composition better there's still a little bit of the ghost.

I had much more dramatic effects, but they so ruined the respective shots I didn't take them. It's definitely an issue, and considering how extensively Panasonic brags on the new 'Zero' coatings I'd certainly hope it does better on their bodies.

'Is it still worth it?' for OMD owners is a valid question. These days we are spoiled by extraordinary performance with regard to flare and ghosts, with lenses like the Oly 45 being astounding good in the very face of the sun. But primes have a big advantage here, and zooms, especially those with large and enough elements to start at 12/2.8 on m43, do have less a resistance inherently. You are back to the 60's with the 12-35 on the OMD, ghost and flare-wise. If you work around it the lens is optical dynamite:

 

[jhinkey]

Thanks Steve - anyone else have anything to share or images showing ghosting flare with the 12-35/2.8 Pany on either an OM-D or an GH2?




- John

Steve_ wrote:

Most people in this thread are being amazingly ineffective at spotting the rather obvious ghosting issue of the 12-35 when used on the OMD. The issue is well documented on the 7-14, and from what I can tell, no less an issue with the 12-35.

Notice both purple ghosts emanating from the light source, as well as the green flare. The green flare is somewhat understandable as it's the light bouncing about inside the lens. But the purple ghosts are the issue like the 7-14's, and I don't think they happen when using a Panasonic body. Waving the camera around as a test, the flare and ghosts walk all around the frame until you get the incident light off the front element, and even then, you can still have a bit of ghosting.

This is rather field-relevant, especially if you are under artificial lights:

Notice the purple ghost again emanating from the light source. It is very evident in full resolution examples or prints.

I tried about 10 shots, adjusting my framing to minimize the ghost. This was the best I could do, and although I'm sure I like the composition better there's still a little bit of the ghost.

I had much more dramatic effects, but they so ruined the respective shots I didn't take them. It's definitely an issue, and considering how extensively Panasonic brags on the new 'Zero' coatings I'd certainly hope it does better on their bodies.

'Is it still worth it?' for OMD owners is a valid question. These days we are spoiled by extraordinary performance with regard to flare and ghosts, with lenses like the Oly 45 being astounding good in the very face of the sun. But primes have a big advantage here, and zooms, especially those with large and enough elements to start at 12/2.8 on m43, do have less a resistance inherently. You are back to the 60's with the 12-35 on the OMD, ghost and flare-wise. If you work around it the lens is optical dynamite:

--

http://www.seanet.com/~hinkey/Signature6.jpg

 

[Big Ga]

Bruce Clarke wrote:
That does surprise me Gareth. I presume you're not using filters?

Incorrect assumption. I do use filters.

 

[Bruce Clarke]

Big Ga wrote:

Bruce Clarke wrote:
That does surprise me Gareth. I presume you're not using filters?

Incorrect assumption. I do use filters.

I'm sure you use good ones, but worth eliminating this as the cause next time you experience flare.


Bruce

 

[Big Ga]

Bruce Clarke wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

Bruce Clarke wrote:
That does surprise me Gareth. I presume you're not using filters?

Incorrect assumption. I do use filters.

I'm sure you use good ones, but worth eliminating this as the cause next time you experience flare.

LOL, Bruce, I'm almost insulted. Do you honestly think I would be saying that I see bad flare and NOT have checked to see if its the filter????

In fact, one of the reasons I am sure that flare is an issue, is that I've been in a couple of situations where its been clearly noticeable, so I actually took a pair of identical shots with and without the filter (and I don't have to do that very often). It wasn't the filter.

 

[Bruce Clarke]

Big Ga wrote:

Bruce Clarke wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

Bruce Clarke wrote:
That does surprise me Gareth. I presume you're not using filters?

Incorrect assumption. I do use filters.

I'm sure you use good ones, but worth eliminating this as the cause next time you experience flare.

LOL, Bruce, I'm almost insulted. Do you honestly think I would be saying that I see bad flare and NOT have checked to see if its the filter????

In fact, one of the reasons I am sure that flare is an issue, is that I've been in a couple of situations where its been clearly noticeable, so I actually took a pair of identical shots with and without the filter (and I don't have to do that very often). It wasn't the filter.

Of course not Gareth, but your previous reply was unnecessarily obtuse. Thank you for the fuller explanation. I've had a good look through my shots with the sun in the frame, and it generally copes very well, with no coloured flare. I've found one overexposed shot with the sun nearly top left reflected off the edge of the canal middle left. The reflection is burnt out, but purple flare is visible against the dark canal edge next to it. Pretty much a complete torture test.


Bruce

 

[Steve_]

If you're indoors, and it's nightime, chances are you've got the lights on. Take your OMD and 12-35, turn it on, and point it around the room while observing the live view. Really, I know it's bad technique to point at the sun, but any light source in or near the frame is a potential problem with this camera/lens combo:

 

[gs94121]

Hello fellas, here's a photo showing early morning sunrise, around 6:45am, from Fort Lauderdale with flare. Any comments about this photo ? It was shot from E-M5 with Panasonic 12-35mm