NickTrop
Veteran
The Lynx 14 is one of my favorite cameras (perhaps "the" favorite camera). That said, straight up, its wonderful sharp, contrasty, super fast lens is absolutely flare prone. Recently, I thought I might try a Hoya SMC Pro 1 UV filter on this camera. This is a thin filter with 12 layers of coating on both sides of the filter. The ad said (and, sorry, I can't find the link to it, now) it helps reduce flare. This is a pricey filter (seems to run around $60 plus on the Internets) but I snagged a new one on eBay for around $30. I bit...
I just got my first roll back using this filter on the Lynx 14. Though there is debate around whether filters help flare at all, and some will tell you they add flare because you increase surface to air instances, it really seemed to help get the flare under control judging from my first trial.
Granted, I only shot one roll using the filter. The roll I shot was indoors. But with the Lynx, at wider apertures pointed at a light, the flare would really predominate under ordinary circumstances. After a little while you know your camera. I know when I point this at an object with a light-fixture in the scene, the light will usually produce flare. And that was not evident on any photo I shot yesterday, except a little bit on one.
Next to do an outdoor test with sunlight...
File this under FWIW... but if this filter broke, I would buy another one for the Lynx immediately. Worth every cent, thus far.
I just got my first roll back using this filter on the Lynx 14. Though there is debate around whether filters help flare at all, and some will tell you they add flare because you increase surface to air instances, it really seemed to help get the flare under control judging from my first trial.
Granted, I only shot one roll using the filter. The roll I shot was indoors. But with the Lynx, at wider apertures pointed at a light, the flare would really predominate under ordinary circumstances. After a little while you know your camera. I know when I point this at an object with a light-fixture in the scene, the light will usually produce flare. And that was not evident on any photo I shot yesterday, except a little bit on one.
Next to do an outdoor test with sunlight...
File this under FWIW... but if this filter broke, I would buy another one for the Lynx immediately. Worth every cent, thus far.
Dfin
Well-known
Nick,I have a Yashica YL with a period skylight filter, but no hood. Did/do you use a lens hood, if so,how much of the v/f does it block. Is there a product number for the Hoya filter? thanks in advance,Dfin.
terrafirmanada
Well-known
Did you notice any other attributes of the filter? Did it alter contrast? Were you shooting b/w or color? If color, was there any cast?
I would also like to know the product number. It would be nice to see some with and without photos if you get the chance. This sounds like a useful gadget. I would be interested to know how something like this works. For now -enjoy. Sounds like a pleasing effect.
I would also like to know the product number. It would be nice to see some with and without photos if you get the chance. This sounds like a useful gadget. I would be interested to know how something like this works. For now -enjoy. Sounds like a pleasing effect.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I had the same experience with some of the older Zeiss lenses on my Contax IIIa. Bright backgrounds created flare even with a lens hood. So I bought a B+W MRC filter and found that it really helped a lot.
NickTrop
Veteran
Dfin - I do have hood for this and it cuts into the viewfinder a bit. But these were all indoor shots, low tungsten lighting. I haven't used the filter outdoors yet.
Terrafirmanda - I was shooting Ilford XP2 Super (C41 B&W). I didn't notice any degradation but can't speak to color shifts. I'm not much of a scanner but I'll try to post some as I continue to use. I've got some Agfa Optima 400 print film in her now, so I'll let you know if it affects color balance when I finish the roll.
Here's the description on the Hoya site:
Super HMC
These outstanding filters offer revolutionary performance in light transmission and color balance. 12 layers of Super Multicoating are applied to the surfaces of the Skylight 1B and UV(0) models, which produces an average transmission of 99.7%! Coupled with maximum surface precision, this allows increased resistance to flare and stunning images can be recorded at wide apertures without compromising the performance of your lenses.
http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/coatings.html
It's called the Hoya Super HMC Pro1 UV(0)
Google around or check eBay. It is a bit pricey for a UV filter but worth it based on my first roll of shooting. The Lynx is a terrific camera but the lens is by all accounts, flare-prone. Flare would have definately turned up shooting into scenes with lamps and light fixtures in the background in low light at wide apertures. This filter seems to live up to its billing...
Of course, as always with photo gear recommendations, YMMV ; )
Terrafirmanda - I was shooting Ilford XP2 Super (C41 B&W). I didn't notice any degradation but can't speak to color shifts. I'm not much of a scanner but I'll try to post some as I continue to use. I've got some Agfa Optima 400 print film in her now, so I'll let you know if it affects color balance when I finish the roll.
Here's the description on the Hoya site:
Super HMC
These outstanding filters offer revolutionary performance in light transmission and color balance. 12 layers of Super Multicoating are applied to the surfaces of the Skylight 1B and UV(0) models, which produces an average transmission of 99.7%! Coupled with maximum surface precision, this allows increased resistance to flare and stunning images can be recorded at wide apertures without compromising the performance of your lenses.
http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/coatings.html
It's called the Hoya Super HMC Pro1 UV(0)
Google around or check eBay. It is a bit pricey for a UV filter but worth it based on my first roll of shooting. The Lynx is a terrific camera but the lens is by all accounts, flare-prone. Flare would have definately turned up shooting into scenes with lamps and light fixtures in the background in low light at wide apertures. This filter seems to live up to its billing...
Of course, as always with photo gear recommendations, YMMV ; )
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
NickTrop said:
There is no magic in the way filters work. The coating on an SMC filter will enhance light transmission and reduce flare on the 2 glass surfaces of the filter only, thus allowing to retain most of the image quality of the original lens. An UV filter, as good as it is, won't reduce the existing flare on a lens. In the same way, adding a coated filter to an uncoated lens will not provide the same results as using a coated lens.
Flare is caused by the scattering of light due to multiple reflections between elements inside the lens and inside the film chamber. Adding a filter in front of a lens will not help reducing the aforementioned reflections, except for the reflections between the filter and the front & other glass surfaces of the lens, which obviously do not occur with no filter mounted.
It is much more important to shade the lens from stray light with a good lens hood. This is the one (link) that I use on my Lynx 14E; there is no vignetting and it doesn't block the rangefinder window. Then add a good UV filter if you want to protect the lens.
Anyway, if you shoot against the light with the Yashinon DX 1.4/45mm, you will get flare, as with many super fast lenses from the 60s.
Cheers,
Abbazz
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Hi Abbazz,
I read this before, and this is what I've always understood. I agree, also, that a lens hood is the best solution - and it is, which is why I have a few of these too. However, not based on photogaphy, but more on logic, I always had a nagging question about the "filter thing".
The reason that modern lenses have more contrast and have better flare management than older lenses is largely attributed to better and more layers of coating. If you put a modern antireflective multicoated filter on a lens, it seems comparable to adding another element to the lens - specifically the front element. So, what would the difference be between an 8-element, 5 group lens with a "super multi-coated" front element, and this particular 7-element, 5 group lens with a super multicoated filter?
This is a good article on flare: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm
While it discusses use of a hood - and there's no argument there, it also states:
Lens filters, as with lens elements, need to have a good anti-reflective coating in order to reduce flare. Inexpensive UV, polarizing, and neutral density filters can all increase flare by introducing additional surfaces which light can reflect from.
So, cheap filters with no/crappy coating = increase in flare
Quality filters with good antireflective coating = help reduce flare (same as a supermulticoated front element).
But the best solution (but not always practical) is a lens hood.
I read this before, and this is what I've always understood. I agree, also, that a lens hood is the best solution - and it is, which is why I have a few of these too. However, not based on photogaphy, but more on logic, I always had a nagging question about the "filter thing".
The reason that modern lenses have more contrast and have better flare management than older lenses is largely attributed to better and more layers of coating. If you put a modern antireflective multicoated filter on a lens, it seems comparable to adding another element to the lens - specifically the front element. So, what would the difference be between an 8-element, 5 group lens with a "super multi-coated" front element, and this particular 7-element, 5 group lens with a super multicoated filter?
This is a good article on flare: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm
While it discusses use of a hood - and there's no argument there, it also states:
Lens filters, as with lens elements, need to have a good anti-reflective coating in order to reduce flare. Inexpensive UV, polarizing, and neutral density filters can all increase flare by introducing additional surfaces which light can reflect from.
So, cheap filters with no/crappy coating = increase in flare
Quality filters with good antireflective coating = help reduce flare (same as a supermulticoated front element).
But the best solution (but not always practical) is a lens hood.
Last edited:
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
NickTrop said:
Hi NickTrop,
Thanks for the link.
As you say, a non-coated filter can add flare to a lens. But I would like to stress that a good quality coated filter cannot cure existing flare from a lens. When the marketing guys at Hoya say that theirs filters can help reduce flare, it's an advertising gimmick. It' s the same to say that hybrid cars help reduce global warming. That's not false, because they pollute less than conventional cars. But they do not lessen the global warming, to the contrary, they add a little bit to it. The same stands for multi-coated filters: they do not lessen existing flare, but they add less flare of their own than non coated filters.
The coating on the Yashinon lenses from the 60s is not very efficient, so there is quite an amount of light reflected at each glass-air interface. Of course, this is much more a nuisance on wide aperture lenses with many glass elements.
In fact, the coating on the front glass surface is less important than the coating on the inner surfaces of the lens, because light reflected off the front surface will not contibute to create the image on film, while part of the light scattered between the glass elements will be reflected back to the film, thus reducing image contrast. Good coating on the front surface of the lens will only help light transmission by reducing the amount of light reflected from the glass, but it will not improve flare performance of the lens.
I use a B+W MRC UV filter on my Lynx 14E, but only to protect the lens from fingerprints, dust and water. I have never seen any difference regarding flare on the pictures taken with the filter. That's a good point, because it proves that the filter doesn't add flare of its own.
Cheers,
Abbazz
NickTrop
Veteran
Hi Abbazz...
Yes, this is what I've read and always understood. However, 'tellin ya, I know this camera and this lens. It flares everytime you point it at a tungsten light source. It didn't this time, except for one shot, and that wasn't really bad. I was /trying/ actually to get flare. Shooting between 1.4-2.0 point it at lights. Granted, this was indoors and I wouldn't expect it to do so well in the sun. To me seeing is believing. My take is if the light is reflecting back to the rear surface of the filter with anti-reflective coating, the stray light is "absorbed" if it's coming from a weak tungsten source as opposed to the sun? Dunno.
For this camera - outdoor, hood. Absolutely. But I'm gonna leave the hood at home for indoor natural light candids based upon my results from this roll. I don't like jabbing big lenses in people's face when doing that - defeats the purpose (and the Lynx lens is big enough without a hood... : )
It's funny. If you Google the phrase "multicoated filter reduces flare" you get the following links as a search result all in a row:
Everything Else Forum: Are Multi Coated filters usefull for Single ...
A multicoated filter may reduce a little flare, but not enough to make enough of a difference in my opinion. You are better off using good lens hoods and ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0046zb&tag= - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Canon EOS Forum: Canon 70-200 F4L Lens Flare
(Most of) the above answers are correct. Filter can't reduce flare. Multicoated ones just add less flare than the others. Buy a MC filter if you want, ...
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007rem - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.photo.net ]
Filter options for digital cameras
Multicoated filters certainly reduce flare, but the ultimate anti-flare weapon remains a lens hood, also called a lens shade. Digital cameras with built-in ...
dpfwiw.com/filters.htm - 112k - Cached - Similar pages
So much for info on the web - eh?
Cheers,
Nick
Yes, this is what I've read and always understood. However, 'tellin ya, I know this camera and this lens. It flares everytime you point it at a tungsten light source. It didn't this time, except for one shot, and that wasn't really bad. I was /trying/ actually to get flare. Shooting between 1.4-2.0 point it at lights. Granted, this was indoors and I wouldn't expect it to do so well in the sun. To me seeing is believing. My take is if the light is reflecting back to the rear surface of the filter with anti-reflective coating, the stray light is "absorbed" if it's coming from a weak tungsten source as opposed to the sun? Dunno.
For this camera - outdoor, hood. Absolutely. But I'm gonna leave the hood at home for indoor natural light candids based upon my results from this roll. I don't like jabbing big lenses in people's face when doing that - defeats the purpose (and the Lynx lens is big enough without a hood... : )
It's funny. If you Google the phrase "multicoated filter reduces flare" you get the following links as a search result all in a row:
Everything Else Forum: Are Multi Coated filters usefull for Single ...
A multicoated filter may reduce a little flare, but not enough to make enough of a difference in my opinion. You are better off using good lens hoods and ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0046zb&tag= - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Canon EOS Forum: Canon 70-200 F4L Lens Flare
(Most of) the above answers are correct. Filter can't reduce flare. Multicoated ones just add less flare than the others. Buy a MC filter if you want, ...
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007rem - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.photo.net ]
Filter options for digital cameras
Multicoated filters certainly reduce flare, but the ultimate anti-flare weapon remains a lens hood, also called a lens shade. Digital cameras with built-in ...
dpfwiw.com/filters.htm - 112k - Cached - Similar pages
So much for info on the web - eh?
Cheers,
Nick
Marko
Established
I also use a Yashica Lynx 14. On my camera i have a Heliopan protection filter and in very bright sun a heliopan short lens shade. The problem is that i can use the shade only at 5.6 and up to 16. If i go under aperture 5.6 i became dark edges! Other filter will small down the beautiful lens bokeh of the lynx, i think. Especially wide open!
Not to forget! A film, with a very good anti halo coating, will also help a lot! I use for my lynx Rollei R3 film. It slow down refelctions before the contact with the emulsion.
Not to forget! A film, with a very good anti halo coating, will also help a lot! I use for my lynx Rollei R3 film. It slow down refelctions before the contact with the emulsion.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Hmmmmmmmmm.... Rollei R3. Never tried it, never considered the antihalo coating on the film as a flare reduction thing. Thanks for the recommendation!
Marko
Established
Hey Nick.
Think about, that the antihalo coating is not the all wonder thing! It helps but its not the solution of your problem! A filter helps (skylight for example), a lens shade and at last the anti halo coating of the film. These three things fight the flare! Of my meaning the Rollei R3 has the best anti halo coating of all b/w films at this time.
Think about, that the antihalo coating is not the all wonder thing! It helps but its not the solution of your problem! A filter helps (skylight for example), a lens shade and at last the anti halo coating of the film. These three things fight the flare! Of my meaning the Rollei R3 has the best anti halo coating of all b/w films at this time.