MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

Started Jul 13, 2017 | Discussions
Alan WF
Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
MFT Lens Turbo II Flare
5

Summary

The FD to MFT Zhongyi Lens Turbo II gives unacceptable flare in common situations. I’d expect this to be true for the other MFT models too.

The flare can be reduced by using compact baffles. This works well with the New FD 28/2.8, and I am fairly confident it will work well with other wide, slow, prime lenses. Baffling is more difficult for zooms and for longer and faster primes.

Problem

I have noticed that the FD to MFT Zhongyi Lens Turbo II (FD-MFT LT2) focal reducer gives a very bright flare when there was a bright light just outside the field. This makes the lens almost useless in many situations.

Here is an example, in which I’m using a GM5 and a New FD 28/2.8 on an (unbaffled) LT2 to photograph myself. I have a window behind me and to my right. The image shows strong flare and is essentially unusable. Photographing someone next to a window is not an extreme situation; this flare is a real problem.

New FD 28/2.8 mounted on a GM5 with an unbaffled LT2 focal reducer. There is strong flare over the right side of my face.

Origin

The flare doesn’t arise in the adapted lens. I can demonstrate that by repeating the photograph above with a plain adapter.

New FD 28/2.8 mounted on a GM5 with a plain adapter. The absence of flare here points to the LT2 as the origen. This image was taken just after the previous image and without moving the camera.

Rather, the flare arises from grazing reflections off surfaces within the LT2 lens barrel. These appear to be internal reflections at the edges of the lens elements.

The photograph below shows an unbaffled New FD 28/2.8 on a FD-MFT LT2. The lens is pointed at a window to the left. The bright arcs on the right of the LT2 lens barrel are the reflections of the window light. These reflections illuminate the sensor and cause flare.

An unbaffled New FD 28/2.8 on an FD-MFT LT2 viewing a scene with a bright window to the left. The bright arcs on the right of the LT2 lens barrel are grazing reflections of light from the window and will cause flare.

I note that even when these surfaces are not illuminated by a dominant bright source, they will be illuminated by any source within or close to the field. This is shown in the following photograph of an unbaffled New FD 28/2.8 on a FD-MFT LT2 imaging a uniform scene with no bright sources close to the field. The first bright ring around the lens aperture is from grazing reflections in the LT2 lens barrel. These reflections will lead to haze and lower contrast, even if there is no obvious flare.

An unbaffled New FD 28/2.8 on an FD-MFT LT2 viewing a uniform scene. The first bright circle around the lens aperture is caused by reflections in the LT2 lens barrel and will cause haze and loss of contrast.

The reflections are caused by a combination of three things. First, the adapted lens is designed to illuminate the 43 mm diameter field of 35-mm-format film, and so over-illuminates the roughly 30 mm diameter equivalent field of the focal-reduced MFT sensor. Second, the LT2 lenses are undersized with respect to the output beam of the adapted lens. Finally, the LT2 lens barrel is not adequately engineered against grazing reflections.

Solution

The flare and haze can be largely eliminated using two baffles.

The inner baffle goes between the rear element of the adapted lens and the front element of the LT2. Its job is to shade the LT2 lens barrel from light relatively close to the optical axis.

The outer baffle goes in front of the front element of the adapted lens. Its job is to shade the LT2 lens barrel from light beyond the field seen by the sensor.

Ideally, the holes in both baffles should be as small as possible without vignetting the field seen by the sensor, but this may not always be possible. In particular, the relatively small optics of the MFT LT2 already vignette the sensor with some adapted lenses (typically at longer focal lengths), and adding the inner baffle will reduce the effective diameter of the optics still further. The outer baffle may also cause vignetting. The vignetting will probably be less at longer focal distances and slower apertures.

In general, larger inner baffles require smaller outer baffles to fully shade the lens barrel and vice versa. So, there is some room to explore different tradeoffs between effective shading and baffling.

Here, for example, is the situation without and with baffles.

New FD 28/2.8 mounted on a GM5 with an unbaffled LT2 focal reducer.

New FD 28/2.8 mounted on a GM5 with a baffled LT2 focal reducer. The baffles are a 14.5 mm inner baffle and a 26 mm diameter outer baffle. They almost completely eliminate the flare seen in the previous image. This image was taken just after the previous image and without moving the camera.

As the following photos show, these baffles cause slight vignetting wide open and at the closest focal distance, but the vignetting is negligible when the lens is stopped down and focused at infinity. It will also be negligible in 1:1, 3:2, or 16:9 aspect ratios.

Vignetting of the New FD 28/2.8 on the LT2 without the baffles described here

Vignetting of the New FD 28/2.8 on the LT2 with the baffles described here — wide open and at the closest focal distance. There is some vignetting in the corners.

Vignetting of the New FD 28/2.8 on the LT2 with the baffles described here — at f/11 on the adapted lens (f/8 at the sensor) and infinity focus. The vignetting is negligible.

Practical Considerations

Baffles

I had the baffles laser cut from thin black plastic, but you with care you can cut them with a craft knife. Thinner is better, since it reduced the glancing reflections off the cut edge. I cut different diameter holes, to allow some experimentation. I cut circular holes, but rectangular holes might work better.

To separate the inner baffle from the front element of the LT2, I cut two spacers from 2 mm soft foam board. These are placed snuggly around the barrel and then the inner baffle is placed on top of them. I had to cut both the baffles and the spacers along a chord to give space for the FD lens stop-down lever; other mounts might need similar accommodations. My separators and masks are a sufficiently tight fit that they do not need additional support, but if they did I would consider using small pieces of masking tape to hold them in position.

The LT2 and the components of an inner baffle. On the right are the two spacers cut from 2 mm thick foam. On the left is the baffle cut from thin plastic. The spacers and baffle have a segment removed to accommodate the stop-down lever on the lens.

An inner baffle mounted on the LT2.

I mounted the outer baffle in a filter ring after removing the glass filter. I used Amazon Basics UV filters, which cost about $5 each. I had to add a spacer ring cut from plastic so that the mask would be centered and held tightly by the filter retainer. These outer baffles have the advantage of being very compact compared to lens hoods.

The New FD 28/2.8 lens and the components of an outer baffle. On the left, the baffle and spacer cut from think black plastic. On the right, the filter ring and the filter retainer.

An outer baffle mounted on the New FD 28/2.8.

If you move the adapted lens from the LT2 to a plain adapter, you do not have to remove the outer baffle. If it doesn’t vignette badly with a focal reducer, it won’t vignette badly with a plain adapter.

(I’d also note that outer baffles like these are probably useful for reducing haze in any lens adapted to a smaller format. Provided they are large enough not to vignette the smaller sensor, they will prevent useless light from entering the lens where is can be scattered by coatings or mechanical parts.)

Optimization

To determine the best sizes, I place the camera on a tripod imaging a uniform wall with the lens set to the widest aperture and closest focus distance. These settings give the most likelihood of vignetting. The wall doesn’t have to be in focus. I then try different inner baffles until I began to notice vignetting.

Once I have determined the appropriate size of inner baffle. I remove the lens and LT2 from the camera, illuminate them from behind, view them from the front, and determine the largest size outer baffle that just prevents me seeing the reflective parts of the lens barrel. I then mount the LT2 on the body again and check vignetting.

Often, some iteration is necessary.

For example, for my New FD 28/2.8, I find that I get no vignetting with an inner baffle of 18.5 mm diameter, slight vignetting with one of 16.5 mm, and slightly more with one of 14.5 mm diameter.

With the 18.5 mm inner baffle, I need an outer baffle of 12 mm diameter to shade the LT2 lens barrel, and this causes severe vignetting. With the 16.5 mm inner baffle, I need an outer baffle of 15 mm diameter, and again this causes severe vignetting. With the 14.5 mm inner baffle, I only need a 26 mm diameter outer baffle, and this almost perfectly shades the LT2 lens barrel with only quite slight vignetting. In my opinion, this is the best compromise, and is shown below.

GM5 with FD-MFT LT2 and New FD 28/2.8. The compact outer baffle mounts on the filter thread.

Lens Hoods

Of course, instead of an outer baffle, one could use a lens hood. However, to fully prevent flare it has to be fairly precisely tuned to shade the LT2 lens barrel. For example, with my New FD 28/2.8, I need to mount my Fotasy 52 mm standard metal hood on two empty filter rings to extend it sufficiently to shade the LT2 lens barrel.

Baffling Primes

This baffling scheme works well with my New FD 28/2.8, and I am fairly confident it will work well with other wide, slow, prime lenses. I expect baffling longer and faster primes, which are already susceptible to vignetting , will be more difficult without unacceptable additional vignetting.

Baffling Zooms

My experience is that it is difficult to find a combination of inner and outer baffle diameters that give a zoom good protection from glare and only slight vignetting over all focal lengths.

For example, on my New FD 35-70/3.5-4.5, I find an inner baffle of 14.5 mm diameter gives no vignetting at 35 mm and 50 mm and only slight vignetting at 70 mm. A 12.5 mm diameter inner baffle gives severe vignetting at 70 mm.

With the 14.5 mm diameter inner baffle, if I then add an outer baffle of 28 mm diameter, I get no vignetting at 50 and 70 mm and only slight vignetting at 35 mm. A smaller outer baffle gives worse vignetting at 35 mm.

This combination — 14.5 mm diameter inner baffle and 28 mm diameter outer baffle — gives only slight vignetting at 35 and 70 mm and gives good protection from flare at 35 mm and 70 mm, but has much weaker protection at 50 mm. To give good protection at 50 mm, I need either a tighter inner baffle (which will vignette more at 70 mm) or a tighter outer baffle (which will vignette more at 35 mm). For example, a 24 mm diameter outer baffle works well at 50 mm and 70 mm, but vignettes quite strongly at 35 mm.

One can accept the vignetting. One can carry two outer baffles, one permanently mounted for the wide end and then another tighter one to be mounted in case of problems at longer focal lengths. One can try to avoid the worst flare at the longer end by shading the lens manually. Finally, one can just avoid the problematic focal lengths. None of these options is entirely satisfactory.

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
Alan WF
OP Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
Other People's Experience

Has anyone else seen this problem with their focal reducer?

I’ve searched for references to this problem with the LT2, and I can’t find any. This surprises me; the flare was very obvious the first time I took a back-lit photograph. I bought my LT2 quite recently, so I wonder if Zhongyi have changed the mechanical design of the lens barrel so that recent ones flare.

I’ve also not found any references to this problem with the MetaBones SpeedBooster™. This has larger optics than the LT2, so it should be less susceptible. I’d also not be surprised if the barrel was better designed to avoid reflections, given the higher quality of the design and manufacturing of the SpeedBooster. Perhaps Brian might like to comment on this.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 40,623
Re: Other People's Experience

Alan WF wrote:

Has anyone else seen this problem with their focal reducer?

I’ve searched for references to this problem with the LT2, and I can’t find any. This surprises me; the flare was very obvious the first time I took a back-lit photograph. I bought my LT2 quite recently, so I wonder if Zhongyi have changed the mechanical design of the lens barrel so that recent ones flare.

I’ve also not found any references to this problem with the MetaBones SpeedBooster™. This has larger optics than the LT2, so it should be less susceptible. I’d also not be surprised if the barrel was better designed to avoid reflections, given the higher quality of the design and manufacturing of the SpeedBooster. Perhaps Brian might like to comment on this.

Regards,

Alan

Alan, thanks for the trouble that you have taken here.  Such detailed work must provide a valuable reference point.

Mentioning Metabones and Speedbooster in one post should attract Brian's attention

My own little comment is that I may be too casual to notice issues.  If something doesn't work out I tend to just assume that my skills are to blame and my good shots were just a lucky streak.

I do have some Zhongyi (MkI only) from way back and I have not used them for quite awhile.  I do have some RJ made dumb focal reduction adapters for M4/3 and I will see if I can see if they are particularly glare prone.  RJ have been poor marketers and more often than not don't even bother to brand their product, but I have been happy enough to keep using them so far.

But I can say that my two Metabones adapters are well flocked up inside and I presume that this indicates that some serious attention has been given to internal reflections already.

But Brian is the oracle - I am simply an accountant spending my kids inheritance

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Alan WF
OP Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
Re: Other People's Experience

Tom Caldwell wrote:

My own little comment is that I may be too casual to notice issues. If something doesn't work out I tend to just assume that my skills are to blame and my good shots were just a lucky streak.

I think you're being too modest.

If anyone wants to look for this, try taking a photo of a patch of interior wall right next to window, with the sensor edge at the boundary between the wall and the window.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
SiFu
SiFu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,085
have you seen this...

Hello!

... older comparison? The issue might be comparable to the hotspotting?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53156458

Best,

Alex

-

carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

Alan WF
OP Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
Re: have you seen this...

SiFu wrote:

Hello!

... older comparison? The issue might be comparable to the hotspotting?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53156458

Best,

Alex

Yes, comparable in the sense that they both makes a mess of your image, but the origen, susceptibility, and appearance in the image are very different:

  • Origin: Hot spots are ghost images of the pupil caused by reflections between the two surfaces, normally the sensor and one of the lenses. This glare is caused by internal grazing reflections within the focal reducer lens barrel.
  • Susceptibility: Hot spots depend critically on the adapted lens exit pupil position. This glare depends on the illumination in and around the field.
  • Appearance: Hot spots appear in the center of the image and tend to be more or less in focus. This glare appears towards the light source and is hugely out of focus.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
obsolescence
obsolescence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: Other People's Experience

Fabulous job of correcting a deficiency in the Lens Turbo II Adapter. Thank you for that. I notice this too, but much less so with longer lenses. I would never use WA lenses with a focal reducer, anyway. Usually, I find that the veiling flare can be corrected in post. This shot is obviously beyond repair, but I gave it a stab.

original

corrections applied

Alan WF
OP Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
Re: Other People's Experience

obsolescence wrote:

I notice this too, but much less so with longer lenses. I would never use WA lenses with a focal reducer, anyway.

Interesting. Thanks for the confirmation. Perhaps with a longer lens, the more distant exit pupil causes these reflections to be geometrically diluted. I might look at that with my 50/1.4 and 100/2.8.

When did you buy your LT2? I ask because the absence of reports made me think there might have been a recent tweak to the design or manufacture hat caused this problem. I got mine only this April.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
Alan WF
OP Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
Longer Focal Lengths

Alan WF wrote:

I might look at that with my 50/1.4 and 100/2.8.

Yeah, they flare too.

I pointed the camera at an interior wall just below a brightly illuminated window. The window was just outside the top of the frame. I tested the New FD 100/2.8, 50/1.4, and 28/2.8 on an unbaffled LT2. I shot each lens wide open focused on the wall, once with no shade and once with a 15 x 20 cm piece of cardboard above and in front of the lens to shade it from the window. This is pretty much a torture test for this sort of flare.

Here is the BTS:

And here are the results. The top row is the 100/2.8, the middle row the 50/1.4, and the bottom row the 28/2.8. On the left, without the shade. On the right, with the shade.

So, yes, they all suffer from this flare.

Interesting, the flare changes character with focal length. With the 100/2.8, it seems to be a fairly uniform veiling. With the 50/1.4 and more so with the 28/2.8, the flare acquires more structure and is worse at the top of the frame.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
obsolescence
obsolescence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: Other People's Experience

Alan WF wrote:

obsolescence wrote:

I notice this too, but much less so with longer lenses. I would never use WA lenses with a focal reducer, anyway.

Interesting. Thanks for the confirmation. Perhaps with a longer lens, the more distant exit pupil causes these reflections to be geometrically diluted. I might look at that with my 50/1.4 and 100/2.8.

When did you buy your LT2? I ask because the absence of reports made me think there might have been a recent tweak to the design or manufacture hat caused this problem. I got mine only this April.

Regards,

Alan

I got mine in Sept. of 2016. I can't imagine they would make a change for the worse. I have 50, 55, 105, and 180mm Nikkor lenses -- the flare in your test gets progressively less with increasing FL. I also put deeper lens hoods on, since the effective angle of view with FR Adapter is less than what the lenses were designed for.

obsolescence
obsolescence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: Longer Focal Lengths

Alan WF wrote:

Alan WF wrote:

I might look at that with my 50/1.4 and 100/2.8.

Yeah, they flare too.

I pointed the camera at an interior wall just below a brightly illuminated window. The window was just outside the top of the frame. I tested the New FD 100/2.8, 50/1.4, and 28/2.8 on an unbaffled LT2. I shot each lens wide open focused on the wall, once with no shade and once with a 15 x 20 cm piece of cardboard above and in front of the lens to shade it from the window. This is pretty much a torture test for this sort of flare.

Here is the BTS:

And here are the results. The top row is the 100/2.8, the middle row the 50/1.4, and the bottom row the 28/2.8. On the left, without the shade. On the right, with the shade.

So, yes, they all suffer from this flare.

Interesting, the flare changes character with focal length. With the 100/2.8, it seems to be a fairly uniform veiling. With the 50/1.4 and more so with the 28/2.8, the flare acquires more structure and is worse at the top of the frame.

Regards,

Alan

Using the LTii, from one lens to the next there may be "fairly uniform" flare when they are all angled to produce flare, however I found that the longer FL lenses are less susceptible to flare through different camera angles. IOW the flare appears in a narrower range of camera angles to the light source, which is what one would expect. This means it's easier to avoid flare with longer lenses simply by slightly changing position and/or camera angle.

brian Senior Member • Posts: 1,211
Re: Other People's Experience

Alan WF wrote:

Has anyone else seen this problem with their focal reducer?

I’ve searched for references to this problem with the LT2, and I can’t find any. This surprises me; the flare was very obvious the first time I took a back-lit photograph. I bought my LT2 quite recently, so I wonder if Zhongyi have changed the mechanical design of the lens barrel so that recent ones flare.

I’ve also not found any references to this problem with the MetaBones SpeedBooster™. This has larger optics than the LT2, so it should be less susceptible. I’d also not be surprised if the barrel was better designed to avoid reflections, given the higher quality of the design and manufacturing of the SpeedBooster. Perhaps Brian might like to comment on this.

Regards,

Alan

Hi Alan:

I've seen Speed Boosters produce faint greenish ghost images when a super bright object like the sun is in the field of view.  However, I haven't seen the sort of glare you are showing - though to be honest I haven't deliberately searched for that particular effect.  The inner mechanical barrels of Speed Boosters are fairly simple with only two or three parts.  Also, the coatings are a high quality multilayer type with typically ~0.3% reflection in the visible waveband.

My schedule is chaos these days, but if I get a chance I'll shoot some trial images to see if I get the kind of glare you are seeing in back-lit situations.

-- hide signature --

Brian Caldwell

Alan WF
OP Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,312
Re: Other People's Experience

brian wrote:

My schedule is chaos these days, but if I get a chance I'll shoot some trial images to see if I get the kind of glare you are seeing in back-lit situations.

That would be very interesting, thanks.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
SiFu
SiFu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,085
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

Hi Alan!

This is a shot using a Metabones Speedbooster with a Minolta Auto 100/2.0 wide open near minimum focus distance:

Would this qualify as a test image? The whole upper portion is a window facing the sea/beach gleaming from brutal sunlight (I just silghtly managed to get away with the 1/4000th of the EM5 at base ISO).

Best,

Alex

-- hide signature --

carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

farmer35 Contributing Member • Posts: 848
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

I have a Minolta - M4/3 Lens Turbo II adapter, about a year old.  Perhaps I'm not testing it properly but I haven't noticed the problem so much.  This is with a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens.

-- hide signature --

Bruce Regier

obsolescence
obsolescence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

farmer35 wrote:

I have a Minolta - M4/3 Lens Turbo II adapter, about a year old. Perhaps I'm not testing it properly but I haven't noticed the problem so much. This is with a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens.

There's a certain arc of camera angle through which the flare occurs. You can't just set up the camera in one position and expect it to happen. What was your method?

farmer35 Contributing Member • Posts: 848
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

obsolescence wrote:

farmer35 wrote:

I have a Minolta - M4/3 Lens Turbo II adapter, about a year old. Perhaps I'm not testing it properly but I haven't noticed the problem so much. This is with a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens.

There's a certain arc of camera angle through which the flare occurs. You can't just set up the camera in one position and expect it to happen. What was your method?

I moved around.  I just didn't come up with the flare like Alan did.

-- hide signature --

Bruce Regier

obsolescence
obsolescence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

farmer35 wrote:

obsolescence wrote:

farmer35 wrote:

I have a Minolta - M4/3 Lens Turbo II adapter, about a year old. Perhaps I'm not testing it properly but I haven't noticed the problem so much. This is with a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens.

There's a certain arc of camera angle through which the flare occurs. You can't just set up the camera in one position and expect it to happen. What was your method?

I moved around. I just didn't come up with the flare like Alan did.

Was the scene outside the window (visible at the camera position) illuminated by direct sunlight? That's what I used, and I definitely got flare (in differing amounts with different lenses through different arcs).

farmer35 Contributing Member • Posts: 848
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

obsolescence wrote:

farmer35 wrote:

obsolescence wrote:

farmer35 wrote:

I have a Minolta - M4/3 Lens Turbo II adapter, about a year old. Perhaps I'm not testing it properly but I haven't noticed the problem so much. This is with a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens.

There's a certain arc of camera angle through which the flare occurs. You can't just set up the camera in one position and expect it to happen. What was your method?

I moved around. I just didn't come up with the flare like Alan did.

Was the scene outside the window (visible at the camera position) illuminated by direct sunlight? That's what I used, and I definitely got flare (in differing amounts with different lenses through different arcs).

Yes.

-- hide signature --

Bruce Regier

obsolescence
obsolescence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: MFT Lens Turbo II Flare

farmer35 wrote:

obsolescence wrote:

farmer35 wrote:

obsolescence wrote:

farmer35 wrote:

I have a Minolta - M4/3 Lens Turbo II adapter, about a year old. Perhaps I'm not testing it properly but I haven't noticed the problem so much. This is with a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens.

There's a certain arc of camera angle through which the flare occurs. You can't just set up the camera in one position and expect it to happen. What was your method?

I moved around. I just didn't come up with the flare like Alan did.

Was the scene outside the window (visible at the camera position) illuminated by direct sunlight? That's what I used, and I definitely got flare (in differing amounts with different lenses through different arcs).

Yes.

Thanks for your responses. Well, this means that either OP and I got stuck with an older model, or else there's some other difference with the Vivitar lens vs. Nikon. The luck of the draw.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads