I'm new to SLR and just got my camera so i was taking pictures of my car. When I was shooting the car from behind I noticed that the brightness from the tail lights was causing a ghost/flare. Is this normal with this lens (or normal in general)? Or is it because of the UV/haze filter I have on it? I know lens flares happen when the camera is facing light, and that there are hoods, etc but I didn't really think it would be this visible..Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks

I've seen this problem with other lenses, and it is often caused by the filter on the lens.

Try shooting without the filter and see what you get. Be sure not to over expose/blow the high lights.I just received my 17-55 last night and attached a B+W MRC UV filter. Hopefully the quality is sufficient to minimize flare. I prefer to keep a UV filter on in the attempt to minimize dust.What filter brand/model are you using?

To know if it is your filter, just take it off and try againI have this lens for 6 months and got no major flare problem, even if it is not its main strength. I don't use any UV filter. I also didn't got any dust inside, if anybody asks...By the way, nice car. Mine doesn't have LED stops so I can't try.edit : grilled by Marcos

Those are the reflections from the dust floating in the air (or fog). -- Yongbo Photo Gallery:http://www.photo96.com/

thanks for the replies and complimentthe filter is a canon filter. funny thing was that i forgot it was on the camera when i was taking the pic. it didnt even occur to me until long after the shot. i will try to reproduce the shot tonight and see what happens with out the filter. i guess it was surprising that the filter would have that impact. i originally thought id put on the filter and forget about it. lol. already making newbie mistakes.

thanks for the suggestion. there was no fog so far as i know. the ghosting would move when i moved the camera but never went away so i just figured it was something to do with the lens... it didnt occur to me to be dust as i thought i might have seen it with my own eyes if that were the case? anyway i will keep this in mind when i try to reproduce the shot

Canon makes great lenses, but bad filters. (Actually, rumor has it Canon filters are made by Tiffen.)I know for the "best" image quality many would recommend going without a filter. But my lenses see a lot of harsh extremes and I would never go without one. I always use the B+W MRC filters. They're a bit pricey, but well worth the money.There are also a few other good quality filters from other manufactures, but I'll let others recommend those since I haven't used them.

If it's a Canon filter, trash it. It screwed up my 100mm macro. either not use it or get the B+W MRC UV. BTW, the best circular polarizer is Hoya Pro1. -- Yongbo Photo Gallery:http://www.photo96.com/

ok i just got the filter from bh so i will try to return/exchange it.which b+w mrc is best for me?they have1-77mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter Slim 2-77mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter3-77mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter Extra Wide (95mm Front)i'm assuming i need #2?i also have the canon hood. is that safe?i will do research on polarizing filters. thanks again

The 17-55 is rather succeptible to flare I am afraid. You could have tried taking off the filter, but my guess is that it's the lens itself. Not the best lens for night photography. Flare can be much more apparent in night photos since you often have a dark background. This is a superb lens with this one weakness.Good luck,jgbtekknikal32wrote:I'm new to SLR and just got my camera so i was taking pictures of my car. When I was shooting the car from behind I noticed that the brightness from the tail lights was causing a ghost/flare. Is this normal with this lens (or normal in general)? Or is it because of the UV/haze filter I have on it? I know lens flares happen when the camera is facing light, and that there are hoods, etc but I didn't really think it would be this visible..Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks

The slim one doesn't have a front thread, you should get the #2. Btw, they are closed now, will reopen on Sunday. -- Yongbo Photo Gallery:http://www.photo96.com/

jgb is absolutely right, the 17-55 can have pretty sever flare in situations like this. I am guessing taking the filter off isn't going to change anything. I had the Canon filter on mine and many people say they're junk....OK, my junk didn't perform any worse than the $175 junk filter (reccomended above) I replaced it with.I have had a few L zooms and the 17-55, if there is a fault with the lens it is flare, just try to catch a different angle. My 24-70 handled flare much better, my 24-105 not as good as the 24-70 but better than the 17-55.In the end have fun. Find this lenses strengths and exploit them. that is a sweet combo, enjoy.-Mattjgbwrote: The 17-55 is rather succeptible to flare I am afraid. You could have tried taking off the filter, but my guess is that it's the lens itself. Not the best lens for night photography. Flare can be much more apparent in night photos since you often have a dark background. This is a superb lens with this one weakness.Good luck,jgbtekknikal32wrote:I'm new to SLR and just got my camera so i was taking pictures of my car. When I was shooting the car from behind I noticed that the brightness from the tail lights was causing a ghost/flare. Is this normal with this lens (or normal in general)? Or is it because of the UV/haze filter I have on it? I know lens flares happen when the camera is facing light, and that there are hoods, etc but I didn't really think it would be this visible..Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks

jgbwrote:The 17-55 is rather succeptible to flare I am afraid. You could have tried taking off the filter, but my guess is that it's the lens itself.This kind of heavy flare? Neither seen anything like that on mine. I'm suspecting the filter.Not the best lens for night photography. Flare can be much more apparent in night photos since you often have a dark background. This is a superb lens with this one weakness.The 17-55 doesn't perform any worse than other comparable f/2.8 lenses.Check:http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htmfor a comparison of flare with a whole bunch of comparable lenses. While I don't neccesairly agree that the 17-55 did best, it certainly didn't do worse than average!