Flare Issue with New 16 - 85mm

[Ursusminor]

I received the 16 - 85 a few weeks ago and at first was thrilled with the sharpness and color rendition. I still like it, but there are some issues that are concerning me and one that is downright annoying. First, the focus jumps a bit - it will be smooth and then right before it locks focus it seems to jump. It doesn't do it all the time and it does not do this when I manually focus. Also, when I manually focus you can keep turning the ring even after it has focused as close as possible. I would have expected it to stop once the closest focus was achieved. The other issue that has me most concerned is how the lens handles flare. I have include two pictures below that has this weird artifact. It is not the result of a dirty lens. I get this artifact in about 75% of the shots I take where this is potential for flare. Any guesses as to what this is about? Is it an issue with coatings? Is it possible I have a defective lens?

 

[MightyMike]

I received the 16 - 85 a few weeks ago and at first was thrilled with the sharpness and color rendition. I still like it, but there are some issues that are concerning me and one that is downright annoying. First, the focus jumps a bit - it will be smooth and then right before it locks focus it seems to jump.

I have no answer for the focus jump, could be normal, could be a flaw

It doesn't do it all the time and it does not do this when I manually focus. Also, when I manually focus you can keep turning the ring even after it has focused as close as possible.

This is by design, in order to have quick-shift ability you can't have hard stops

I would have expected it to stop once the closest focus was achieved. The other issue that has me most concerned is how the lens handles flare. I have include two pictures below that has this weird artifact. It is not the result of a dirty lens. I get this artifact in about 75% of the shots I take where this is potential for flare. Any guesses as to what this is about? Is it an issue with coatings? Is it possible I have a defective lens?

Flare is not a defect, few lenses offer little to no flare and what i see in your posted photos is actually rather impressive for the class of lens. Flare is normal even with the best lens coatings, and lens coatings aren't the whole fix to the problem... without coating light will reflect off every glass-air and air-glass surface, this reduces light transmission and will notably add tot he visibility of flare. however if you have surfaces with a small gap between them that have a similar curvature or lack of curvature in a design this will increase the chance of flare too. Don't worry about your lens, the vast majority have flare, yours is actually one of the better ones.

Here is an example of an extremely highly regarded modern lens, the Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art

Loading…

www.lenstip.com

I think your lens is much better in flash control, impressive for a zoom!

--
Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '

http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg

Aviation Photo Search | Airliners.net

www.airliners.net

 

[UtahManSir]

I have not noticed any jumping around the focus with mine, it does the usual Pentax Double Check in lower light at times.

As Mike said that lens flare is actually quite good for a zoom. My old Sigma 17-70 flares a LOT more than my 16-85.

Lloyd

 

[gaddigad]

I have include two pictures below that has this weird artifact. It is not the result of a dirty lens. I get this artifact in about 75% of the shots I take where this is potential for flare. Any guesses as to what this is about? Is it an issue with coatings? Is it possible I have a defective lens?

I like it.

 

[robbo d]

Ummm ........ your shooting into the sun and complaining about flare ?? Thats why you buy Pentax lenses !!! Lol

 

[Roland Karlsson]

With due respect. You that have answered that it is actually is less than normal flare is of course right. But, I think the Op do not talk about the amount of flare, but the strange spots and the rainbows.

In both pictures there is an almost circular spot with companion rainbows. That looks quite uncommon.

 

[stsimmer]

Flare is to be expected when shooting into the sun. I presume the lens hood is attached in these shots? If not, it should be.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Flare is to be expected when shooting into the sun. I presume the lens hood is attached in these shots? If not, it should be.

A lens hood will not help when the sun is in the image. On the contrary actually, as there might be reflections from the lens hood.

And - still - I do not think the OP objects to flare, but how it looks. And I guess he is talking about the orbs and the rainbows.

 

[leopold]

I don't see anything strange about the flare, depending on the lenses model the flare will look different. As I can see here my 16-85mm produces the same flare pattern, it's nearly impossible not to have flare when you have the sun directly in your shot like these.

 

[DAVID MANZE]

The lens is maintaining an almost unchanged level of contrast and is only producing a couple of spots of highlights, this is an excellent showing!

Many lesser lenses produce a feeble contrast level with no blacks and row of inverted mushroom shaped flares in a line towards the sun, like some of the previous Tokinas, however the focus jumping issue doesn't sound like all is as should be.

 

[MightyMike]

With due respect. You that have answered that it is actually is less than normal flare is of course right. But, I think the Op do not talk about the amount of flare, but the strange spots and the rainbows.

In both pictures there is an almost circular spot with companion rainbows. That looks quite uncommon.

 

[Ursusminor]

Bingo. That is exactly what is bothering me. Not so much the flare, but the strange artifacts that are in the flare.

 

[Ursusminor]

Flare is to be expected when shooting into the sun. I presume the lens hood is attached in these shots? If not, it should be.

A lens hood will not help when the sun is in the image. On the contrary actually, as there might be reflections from the lens hood.

And - still - I do not think the OP objects to flare, but how it looks. And I guess he is talking about the orbs and the rainbows.

 

[Ulkesh]

Bingo. That is exactly what is bothering me. Not so much the flare, but the strange artifacts that are in the flare.

Don't take pictures into the sun if you don't want flare.

Don't take pictures into the sun with a zoom lens if you want to minimize flare.

Your 16-85 looks like it is doing pretty good for you. You have nothing to complain about.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

With due respect. You that have answered that it is actually is less than normal flare is of course right. But, I think the Op do not talk about the amount of flare, but the strange spots and the rainbows.

In both pictures there is an almost circular spot with companion rainbows. That looks quite uncommon.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Don't take pictures into the sun if you don't want flare.

Don't take pictures into the sun with a zoom lens if you want to minimize flare.

Your 16-85 looks like it is doing pretty good for you. You have nothing to complain about.

Hmmmm .... "Little Bear" has actually not complaint about there being flare. Just like me he probably fully accept flare if the sun is in the frame.

Its the looks of the flare he so not like.

Now, of course, if you plan to take an image into the sun, then you have to look at the flare in the finder and you then have to adapt your image to getting a flare you like. Maybe turning the lens just a bit makes it look better? Do not know. Have not tested this with this lens.

 

[Ursusminor]

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I'll just continue to monitor, try some fixes to the weird artifact in lightroom and go from there. To those who noted the nice color saturation - it's what most thrilled me about the lens when I got it - that and it's sharpness.

 

[MightyMike]

With due respect. You that have answered that it is actually is less than normal flare is of course right. But, I think the Op do not talk about the amount of flare, but the strange spots and the rainbows.

In both pictures there is an almost circular spot with companion rainbows. That looks quite uncommon.

 

[HonourableTyr]

That looks to me to be excellent flare control. Try the DA*16-50 f/2.8 for comparison and you'll find much worse flare.

I'd be exceptionally pleased with that lens.

 

[mepaca]

Did you have a filter on? If so take it off.