To flare, or not to flare?

[like2fiddle]

My family and I are off to a sunny place in a week, and I've decided to minimize my lens selection for the trip. I'm trying to decide on a primary lens to go with the M6 and will be choosing between the following four lenses. I am most interested in your initial reaction to, and opinion of, the flare present in the images because I expect the sun, and hence potential flare, to play a significant role in many of the photos I will be taking.


Summaron 35mm/2.8; hood and 1A filter


Rokkor 40mm, CL version; hood and 1A filter

 

[like2fiddle]

And here are the two 50's:


Canon 50/1.4; hood and UV filter


Hexanon 50/2; hood, no filter

 

[Rafael]

I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Are you asking people to describe the flare present in these photographs? If so, I'm not really sure what you gain.

Why not disclose the lenses from which you are choosing and ask people for their experiences (backed up with posted photographs) of the flare resistance of each in different types of circumstances? It seems to me that you would get more useful information that way. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.

 

[like2fiddle]

I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Are you asking people to describe the flare present in these photographs? If so, I'm not really sure what you gain.

Why not disclose the lenses from which you are choosing and ask people for their experiences (backed up with posted photographs) of the flare resistance of each in different types of circumstances? It seems to me that you would get more useful information that way. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.

Marc, thank you. I should have been more clear. I will try to edit the original post and make my question more specific.

 

[kbg32]

I love flare! When it is used properly, it can be an integral part of an image.

 

[Rafael]

I tend to agree with Roland that the 50/1.4 would be a good choice, both for flare resistance and for the extra speed. Just be careful of small point light sources in your frame at around f/4. This lens can show those in quite an ugly way. I believe that Roland posted a thread on the behaviour of this lens at f/4 some time back. It might be worth a look (HERE is the link). Enjoy your trip!

 

[gnashings]

Traditional wisdom would dictate that a filter serving no other purpose is just an additional 2 air-to-glass surfaces, thus that much more room for flare. I do understand that high quality brand name filters are coated and very good in that regard - but still.
I do agree that flare can be used very creatively to great powerful effect - but unless that is the specific case, its just a killer of all good things...mainly contrast. From the photos you show, I would go with the 35mm and 50f1.4. But that is just from what you posted.

 

[like2fiddle]

Thanks for your replys guys. Where did Roland's post go? I actually took several photos with the above lenses under different conditions and, to my eye at least, the Canon gives better results than any of the others, especially at wide apertures, though the Rokkor is pretty good too. I just wish it was as small as the Rokkor.