Here are a couple of images demonstrating how the 75 Summilux handles flare (well, that and how good Renee looks on film). The first is the easy test: fluorescent light sources located withing the image. Renee is standing by a big, frozen food cooler at the grocery store; the out-of-focus white bands in the image are the fluorescent tubes inside the freezer. As you can see, there's no readily-apparent flare in this situation. (Film was HP5+ at EI 800, pushed one stop.) The second test was brutal: the sun located very near the edge of the frame. The sun was shining through very light cloud cover and could be seen within the 50mm framelines, though it was just outside the field of view of the 75. The aperture was either f1.4 or 1.7. Renee's face is lit primarily by the light reflected from a full-length mirror. See those small catchlights on the pupils of her eyes? Those are a reflection of the sun bouncing off the front of the lens! This is about as extreme a test for flare as it gets. And, as you'd expect, there's a lot of flare. What I didn't expect was what a beautifully soft quality it would give to the image; the slide and the original TIFF file have slightly less contrast and smoother, "creamier" gradation of tones than the what you see here. (Film was E100SW at EI 80.)

75 Summilux (about f2.4)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002

Answers

Mike, This is probably the most beautiful flare I have so far seen in a lens. How will your 90mm lens do in a similar test?

-- Igor (visionstudios@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

Igor, I don't think my older 90 Summicron would do nearly as well. It's shown as much flare in much less severe circumstances; if the 90 were put to this test, I doubt I would get a usable image.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

This is probably the most beautiful flare I have so far seen in a lens

you've got to be kidding me. flare is flare. how can one flare be more beautiful than another?

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Mike--

What developer do you use to process the HP5+ @ISO 800?

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), March 06, 2002.

renee is so beautiful i honestly want to cry. her face is like that of a greek godess. so rare. you captured it in ways i can't describe.

-- dave s. (dws69880@cmsu2.cmsu.edu), March 06, 2002.

I'm impressed ... I'm a wide angle person myself but I'm now lusting after a 75 after seeing your pictures ... though I doubt I'd do so well.

One ancedote, though .. I was once almost arrested by taking a picture of the front of an old art deco style sign on the front of a grocery store. I've also been warned about not taking pictures inside food stores - seems like most chains are VERY sensitive about this issue. So, next time you are near the frozen food cabinets, Mike, watch out, less you have to put up the lux for bail!

-- Tom (therbert@miami.edu), March 06, 2002.

you've got to be kidding me. flare is flare. how can one flare be more beautiful than another?

An overall veiling flare like this works much better for this subject than a string of hexagons across the diagonal of the image. Mike the 2nd photo is breathtaking.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), March 06, 2002.

thanks for a short and sweet review on a dear topic. have to admit that renee certainly has that je ne sais quoi. cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

Thanks for taking the time to post these semi-objective evaluations of lens flare on the 75 Mike. I've never tested the lens to the extreme as your second example and I can't say that I'm too enamored by that "David Hamilton" contrast robbing effect but this is good. At least I'll have a fair idea what situations to avoid with this lens and it vindicates my original convictions... when it comes to flare at large apertures the 75 is an exceptional performer. All things relative.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

Amazing photos, this last batch you are really getting into it. She's a beautiful subject, sophisticated too. Thanks.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Thanks for all the comments!

Douglas K., I use Kodak Xtol diluted 1:2 for all my b&w developing.

Dave, I know what you mean. The feeling doesn't seem to go away, either . . .

Tom, sounds like you had the misforrunte of encountering some low-wage security guard with delusions of grandeur. While there are limits to the commercial uses of such images, it's quite legal to take photos of the front of a public building. And, while Kroger has the right to ask me to not take photos or to leave the premises, they can't arrest me unless I violate some law (e.g. have me arrested for tresspassing if I refuse to leave). On the few occasions I've encountered such issues, I've been able to resolve things diplomatically, but if some jerk wants to take out his bad day on me by flaunting his non-existent "authority," I know how to stand up for my rights, too. If you run into serious sh*t of that sort, demand to see a manager, then threaten to call the cops yourself and file charges for illegal detention and assault--learn to play the power game yourself!

John, generally I'm no fan of the soft-focus look, either (I don't even own a soft focus filter), but there are some images where it fits the overall mood. It does get old pretty quickly, though--a couple of images a year of that sort are as much as I want to produce.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

For a flare shot, the second one sure is breathtaking. That's an approach that could be used intentionally for weddings & portraits. Though consistent results would be tricky, it looks like the 75 gives you better odds. Just "bracket the sun position".

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 06, 2002.

James, LOL! Don't want to shatter any illusions here, but I've never heard the term sophisticated applied to someone who likes a bologna sandwich (with the crust cut off!) and chocolate milk for lunch . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

Hahaha! Hey maybe her diet habits aren't sophisticated, but she looks the part...we all have our peccadillos!

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

James, LOL! Don't want to shatter any illusions here, but I've never heard the term sophisticated applied to someone who likes a bologna sandwich (with the crust cut off!) and chocolate milk for lunch . . .

Wow, sounds like she's a girl I can take home to mom. I think we'd get along... I like peanut-butter and jelly sandwichs for lunch with a little lemon water (cheap) on the side. Although my epicurean side demands that the peanut butter be at least the Jif grade (or Skippy if I'm feeling especially squanderous) so this may be a character conflict.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

mike:

that was a great back lit shot. i like to photograph woman with long curly hair with a very strong backlight, prefferably sun light. it works for a very dramatic non traditional look. the limiting factor is how well the lens handles the flair. although i like the length of the 90 better, i am now sold on the 75.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), March 06, 2002.

Thanks, Mike. Creative use of flare is another tool in our trick bag. It's one of the reasons some Leica photographers prefer older lenses.

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Mike, the specific case I mentioned about being told not to take pictures did involve a cop - an off duty officer who began with something like "you can't take pictures .. stop immediately or I will arrest you for trespassing .. and the market owns the parking lot so you will have to step out into the highway". The manager wasn't much help as he said the company policy (a large supermarket chain) was that any photography requires written permission from the home office.

-- Tom (therbert@miami.edu), March 06, 2002.

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I think of "almost arrested" as the cops ready to slap on the cuffs, read me my rights, and haul me off to jail unless I can weasel my way out of the situation; just lowering the camera or leaving the property is no big deal. Not sure how well that reflects on the life I've led so far . . . ; )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

Let's face reality, gentlemen: it takes Mike to be on command of the 75 Lux to get images like the second one we have seen here.

Thanks for the free seminar on flare, Mike. To be kept in mind to see what I can do with old Crons instead.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 06, 2002.

Mike: With these images, I'm starting to regret selling my second 75 ;-) Great work, and thanks for sharing!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 06, 2002.

This thread raises for me the question of whether a given lens can produce either the "string of hexagons" or an overall veiling flare, depending on circumstances; or whether a given lens produces only one effect or the other, depending on how it's designed.

Comments?

This thread gives me an idea for a self-assignment.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 06, 2002.

Thank´s for share Mike, 75 has a nice prespective really, with a lot of caracter.

let me see, the black and withe picture was made at about 2.4 i love evry thing, even the perfet qualities of this lens.

what about the second?, is interesting knowing how flare develops, although a beautiful moment, I wish I could see the bunch of hair that follows her sigth, just to get closer and smell just up her ear... but that beautiful flare Mike...

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Bob, I don't have definitive answers, but here are my theories. I suspect that the circumstances and whether the the lens is stopped down so you have a hexagon (or, for M lenses, a decagon) are the main factors. The number of lens elements (and angle of light) would influence the number of hexagons in the string. I'd be interested in seeing your results.

You can have veiling flare and hexagons at the same time. The example below was shot with a Tokina 28-70/2.8 zoom near the tele end (not sure about the aperture). The scan was from a drugstore print and has been altered a bit in PS, so it's not a valid to compare it directly to the shot above. The subject was my girlfriend at the time (and for a couple of years after); she compared reasonably well to my subject above. : )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

MIKE! I love the above photo!!! Gorgeous girl, gorgeous hint of Japanese architecture (?), priceless expression. You are an artist of portraiture.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

I'm meeeeeellllllllltttttiiiiinnnnnnggggg! (just kidding) gotta soft spot for Asian girls yow!

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Then don't look here!!! The setting is Tongdosa, a Buddhist temple in southern Korea.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

*sigh* nice indeed. people and places are what it's all about!

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.