[quote name='wim' timestamp='1287001969' post='3620']
Not all of it no, but 99% of especially all veiling, plus some flare, caused by reflections of the back element will.
Regards, Wim
[/quote]
Flares are not caused by the back element, though, nor is the veiling in these situations.
Thanks for the replies!
Unfortunately these lenses are for sale too far away for me to go to. So, they would send it to me, but that means that I am unable to test the lens.
I do a lot of beach photography, which includes sunset, waves, reflection in the water or wet sand, storms, boats, etc, etc. Would you think that I will have too much problems with flare in my case?
Best wishes,
Reinier
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1287005708' post='3622']
Thanks for the replies!
Unfortunately these lenses are for sale too far away for me to go to. So, they would send it to me, but that means that I am unable to test the lens.
[/quote]
You can just ask the owner/seller about its compatibility with Canon EOS DSLRs. They should know.
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1287005708' post='3622']
I do a lot of beach photography, which includes sunset, waves, reflection in the water or wet sand, storms, boats, etc, etc. Would you think that I will have too much problems with flare in my case?
Best wishes,
Reinier
[/quote]
No, not at all. I have a lens that has the same or worse flare and veil "resistance", the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM. You can use lenses like these fine, up to a certain point of course... in extremes veiling gets to be a lot (but that is not with sunsets... rather with direct bright sunlight into the lens).
The newest generation of lenses (like the new Nikon and Canon 70-200's) perform better, but do not underestimate lenses like the Sigma and my non-IS Canon.
I would be FINE with a Sigma 100-300 f4, with or without "DG" addition in its name.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1287002760' post='3621']
Flares are not caused by the back element, though, nor is the veiling in these situations.
[/quote]
You know, I give up. It actually CAN result in veiling, but I am not going to get into a yes-no game here any further than this has gone already. If you honestly believe it doesn't, fine with me. I guess you also believe monocoated filters can't cause veiling and/or (extra) flaring. Same problem. I've seen the results personally, I've struggled to try and fix those results. Both cases. With and without.
I'm outta here.
Bye, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
I am familair with flare, unfortuntely. But don't know what veiling is. Is it something which only happens with digital camera's or just as well with film camera's?
I have the EF 70-200/4.0, but that's is one of the worst lenses I have to photograph sunsets truthfully. I owned a Tokina 80-200/2.8 which was much better in that regard. Maybe I should wait for a 400mm/5.6 comes up. My Sigma 400mm/5.6 works on the Canon D30 and D60, but it failed to work on my previous 40D and current 5D. So, I never know for sure if the lens operates as it should do, without properly testing it.
Best wishes,
Reinier
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1287014164' post='3624']
You know, I give up. It actually CAN result in veiling, but I am not going to get into a yes-no game here any further than this has gone already. If you honestly believe it doesn't, fine with me. I guess you also believe monocoated filters can't cause veiling and/or (extra) flaring. Same problem. I've seen the results personally, I've struggled to try and fix those results. Both cases. With and without.
I'm outta here.
Bye, Wim
[/quote]
Actually the flare/glare subject is very complex and difficult to quantify. That is why nobody is wrong and nor right.
The good starting point would be the following article.
http://www.imatest.com/docs/veilingglare.html
10-14-2010, 09:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2010, 11:16 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1287014164' post='3624']
You know, I give up. It actually CAN result in veiling, but I am not going to get into a yes-no game here any further than this has gone already. If you honestly believe it doesn't, fine with me. I guess you also believe monocoated filters can't cause veiling and/or (extra) flaring. Same problem. I've seen the results personally, I've struggled to try and fix those results. Both cases. With and without.
I'm outta here.
Bye, Wim
[/quote]
I have never said that a back element can not cause anything. I said, the back element is NOT the cause for flaring and veiling from light sources that cause flaring and veiling. The back element only causes some problems with reflected back light from the sensor, which can cause some kinds of "purple" fringing and some light loss of contrast which is VERY low compared to the veiling we talk about here.
Why you want to drag in filters in this discussion, I do not know. What they can cause is totally different (they sit on the FRONT of a lens system, they are the ones that catch lights/side lights, and so on).
Anyway, the fact that Sigma uses a DIFFERENT coating in newer lenses on the back surface of the back element has nothing to do with what filters do/cause. And has also nothing to do with flares and veiling from back/side light sources.
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1287042655' post='3629']
I am familair with flare, unfortuntely. But don't know what veiling is. Is it something which only happens with digital camera's or just as well with film camera's?
I have the EF 70-200/4.0, but that's is one of the worst lenses I have to photograph sunsets truthfully. I owned a Tokina 80-200/2.8 which was much better in that regard. Maybe I should wait for a 400mm/5.6 comes up. My Sigma 400mm/5.6 works on the Canon D30 and D60, but it failed to work on my previous 40D and current 5D. So, I never know for sure if the lens operates as it should do, without properly testing it.
Best wishes,
Reinier
[/quote]
No, flare is exactly the same with film and with digital.
I did some digging in reviews for you, and I can tell you that the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is better than the Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM (non-IS) with veiling.
http://www.lenstip.com/17.9-Lens_review-Sigma_100-300_mm_f_4_DG_EX_APO_IF_HSM_Ghosting_and_flares.html
(Can't show you the old german magazine test from the 100-300 f4 non-DG).
I know that the Canon D30 and D60 were ok with older Sigma lenses that were not rechipped, it was with models AFTER that where the stricter electrical implementations began to pose problems with these lenses. It is not a big gamble, the lens either works or does not work with Canon EOS DSLRs that came after the D30/D60.
The current owner will know that, so ask the owner about it (does it function when you close the aperture down on an EOS 350/400/450/500/550D. 1000D, 1D(s), 5D, 7D, 20/30/40/50.60D). And of course also ask if it has any problems he(/she) knows about.
If the 100-300 f4 will work with the modern (post D60) EOS DSLRs, I would have no problem of getting it, if I was in the market for such a lens.
|
