Hot spots are more of an issue the more restrictive the IR filter cutoff. Some work great at 590 or 650 but develop issues at 720 or 850. The best wide angle lenses I have used are:
Canon EF 17-40/4L (not the newer image stabilized one, no experience with that one)
Sony FE 16-35/4 OSS (a little hot spot with 720nm but mostly at tight apertures)
Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM
Sigma 19/2.8 E-mount
Minolta MD 28/2 (fully manual lens)
Nikon 24/2.8 Ai-S (fully manual lens)
mediocre / fairly significant hot spot, even with 590nm:
Sony FE 50/1.4 ZA
Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA
Canon 16-35/2.8L II
Zeiss 35/1.4 ZE or ZF line
Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE or ZF line
Good non-wides (some are fully manual, vintage lenses)
Contax 85/1.4
Contax 100/2
Canon EF 85/1.2L II
Canon 100/2.8 macro (non-IS version)
Leica M 50/2 v4
Canon 200/2.8L II
Contax 50/1.4 but really prone to flare/internal reflection with IR if sun is in shot
I have not extensively tried other Sony lenses. I had the 16-35/4 and lucked into it working well with IR, and that is what I use most of the time. I was bummed that the 50/1.4 ZA was a bust, because I love that lens, but wider is usually better for what I shoot anyway.
Kolari Vision has some data on their website for various lenses.
Hot spots are more of an issue the more restrictive the IR filter cutoff. Some work great at 590 or 650 but develop issues at 720 or 850. The best wide angle lenses I have used are:
Canon EF 17-40/4L (not the newer image stabilized one, no experience with that one)
Sony FE 16-35/4 OSS (a little hot spot with 720nm but mostly at tight apertures)
Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM
Sigma 19/2.8 E-mount
Minolta MD 28/2 (fully manual lens)
Nikon 24/2.8 Ai-S (fully manual lens)
mediocre / fairly significant hot spot, even with 590nm:
Sony FE 50/1.4 ZA
Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA
Canon 16-35/2.8L II
Zeiss 35/1.4 ZE or ZF line
Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE or ZF line
Good non-wides (some are fully manual, vintage lenses)
Contax 85/1.4
Contax 100/2
Canon EF 85/1.2L II
Canon 100/2.8 macro (non-IS version)
Leica M 50/2 v4
Canon 200/2.8L II
Contax 50/1.4 but really prone to flare/internal reflection with IR if sun is in shot
I have not extensively tried other Sony lenses. I had the 16-35/4 and lucked into it working well with IR, and that is what I use most of the time. I was bummed that the 50/1.4 ZA was a bust, because I love that lens, but wider is usually better for what I shoot anyway.
Kolari Vision has some data on their website for various lenses.
Thank you for taking your time to provide the info, Jim! I may start with the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f4 first, if my Sigma 14-24 or the Sony 16-35 GM are problematic.
I suspect you refer to the M mount lens and not the Leica R system (not sure if there is even a version IV in R-mount). I agree, all Leica M mount lenses including this Summicron-M version work well in IR. Just that the lenses don't often have an IR mark, only older lens versions do. But from my experience there is not a lot of IR focus shift with M lenses, only a bit for wider focal lengths.
Voigtlander M lenses are a different story, I found that some are very good and well performers in IR while others should better be avoided.
retrofocus wrote:
I suspect you refer to the M mount lens and not the Leica R system (not sure if there is even a version IV in R-mount). I agree, all Leica M mount lenses including this Summicron-M version work well in IR. Just that the lenses don't often have an IR mark, only older lens versions do. But from my experience there is not a lot of IR focus shift with M lenses, only a bit for wider focal lengths.
Voigtlander M lenses are a different story, I found that some are very good and well performers in IR while others should better be avoided. ...Show more →
Yes...the M was in the name as I wrote it. No need for an IR focus mark with live view on mirrorless bodies. Regardless of whether you modify the camera or pop a filter on the lens, WYSIWYG. Focusing is a piece of cake.
And for AF lenses, they focus correctly with the filter in camera or on the lens as well.
Grenache wrote:
Yes...the M was in the name as I wrote it. No need for an IR focus mark with live view on mirrorless bodies. Regardless of whether you modify the camera or pop a filter on the lens, WYSIWYG. Focusing is a piece of cake.
And for AF lenses, they focus correctly with the filter in camera or on the lens as well.
True, but I use the lenses sometimes with IR film and Leica M film cameras.
retrofocus wrote:
True, but I use the lenses sometimes with IR film and Leica M film cameras.
I had assumed that the hot spot issue was purely digital. I did not do a lot of film IR work, and all that I did do was BW, but I never gave any thought to lens choice and never had issues.
Douglas Liu wrote:
I saw some pretty interesting infrared photos so I thought I would give it a try to have some fun. I just bought a used A7RII (will have it on Monday) for the sole purpose of converting it to a infrared camera by Life Pixel, before I found this on their website:
"Note: The Sony A7S II, A7R II, A7R III and A9 use an IR LED as part of their electronic shutter monitor. Once these models are converted to IR, the internal IR LED will contaminate all images shot at exposures greater than 1 second."
Looks like the A7RII is not a good candidate if shooting longer than 1 second could be problematic. I may get a cheaper body for conversion to try out. What I am afraid of is that I will try a couple dozens shots and will never touch it again. I know everyone has different interest, just wondering those who have converted infrared cameras, was it a fad for you or you use it a fair amount?...Show more →
I don't do a lot of it, but Idk that I'd call it a fad. I just got filters though. Really long ss on the bodies I used, you'd probably need a tripod.
Grenache wrote:
I had assumed that the hot spot issue was purely digital. I did not do a lot of film IR work, and all that I did do was BW, but I never gave any thought to lens choice and never had issues.
The hot spot drives on the construction of the lens itself. The effect of bad IR performance/ hot spot can be seen both with digital and film. I am also using digital IR, but here mostly with a converted 5D MkII DSLR and L lenses (main reason for me to keep the Canon EF L lenses I have is for their excellent IR performance). The Leica M 240 has a thin enough IR-reflective coating on the sensor glass that I can use it with the external IR filter method, too - together with the M lenses I mentioned. I am still using IR film though since the result is different than from digital IR.
Jan 18, 2021 at 07:06 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.5 #10 · Is Infrared Photography a Fad (for you)?
Douglas Liu wrote:
I saw some pretty interesting infrared photos so I thought I would give it a try to have some fun. I just bought a used A7RII (will have it on Monday) for the sole purpose of converting it to a infrared camera by Life Pixel, before I found this on their website:
"Note: The Sony A7S II, A7R II, A7R III and A9 use an IR LED as part of their electronic shutter monitor. Once these models are converted to IR, the internal IR LED will contaminate all images shot at exposures greater than 1 second."
Looks like the A7RII is not a good candidate if shooting longer than 1 second could be problematic. I may get a cheaper body for conversion to try out. What I am afraid of is that I will try a couple dozens shots and will never touch it again. I know everyone has different interest, just wondering those who have converted infrared cameras, was it a fad for you or you use it a fair amount?...Show more →
Picked up a 58mm Hoya 720nm(?) filter used from KEH for about $50. However the 77mm were expensive so I got one from China on ebay for a little more than $20. Let a little more red in, but I thought it was fine.
Apparently they filter out the IR to get better iq on regular photos so it was like 4sec or more on the 40D at f/ 5.6 or 8 or so, ISO 800 IIRC. 30D may have been 8 sec. But cool for blurring stuff
p.5 #11 · Is Infrared Photography a Fad (for you)?
AmbientMike wrote:
Picked up a 58mm Hoya 720nm(?) filter used from KEH for about $50. However the 77mm were expensive so I got one from China on ebay for a little more than $20. Let a little more red in, but I thought it was fine.
Apparently they filter out the IR to get better iq on regular photos so it was like 4sec or more on the 40D at f/ 5.6 or 8 or so, ISO 800 IIRC. 30D may have been 8 sec. But cool for blurring stuff
Thanks for the info. I did look at the option of trying a filter first, but at the end I saw a Sony A6000 with conversion on sale on Kolari Vision, so I dived head in and ordered one, should receive it in about a week. If my current lenses have too much of the hot spot issue, I may buy a used Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f4, I read that one is pretty decent for IR. Will have to wait until spring to really try it out.
p.5 #12 · Is Infrared Photography a Fad (for you)?
Got my Sony A6000 yesterday, 850 nm conversion. Took it out for a quick spin today, not much green foliage in the midst of winter of course. Shot with the Sony 16-35 GM lens. I forgot how loud the A6000's shutter is, after using the newer generation of the Sony full frame bodies for so long.
p.5 #14 · Is Infrared Photography a Fad (for you)?
I’ve had infrared cameras several times in my career and I think everyone should try it at least once. It’s fun for sure and images can be quite compelling. Great learning tool but like a fisheye it can get mundane too. So if you have maybe a older body might be fun to convert it
Nice Album, Ron! With your converted A7RIII, you haven't noticed the so called "IR LED" issues? I will play with the A6000 that I just got for a while but eventually if I like IR enough, I may get an A7III or A7RIII to convert. The A7RIII is only $300 more than the A7III in the used market. But I read about the potential IR LED issue with the A7II, A7RII, A7RIII and the A9, probably only happens at very high ISO and very long shutter speed. Do you encounter any hot spot issues with the lenses you use on the A7RIII?
p.5 #18 · Is Infrared Photography a Fad (for you)?
Douglas Liu wrote:
Nice Album, Ron! With your converted A7RIII, you haven't noticed the so called "IR LED" issues? I will play with the A6000 that I just got for a while but eventually if I like IR enough, I may get an A7III or A7RIII to convert. The A7RIII is only $300 more than the A7III in the used market. But I read about the potential IR LED issue with the A7II, A7RII, A7RIII and the A9, probably only happens at very high ISO and very long shutter speed. Do you encounter any hot spot issues with the lenses you use on the A7RIII?...Show more →
Thanks Douglas!
My a7RIII is NOT converted - I tried it with some Kolari filters and got terrible results.
My X-E1 is almost 8 years old and I've been thinking about getting a somewhat newer Fuji to replace it.
I'm still using a X-Pro2 and might pick up another to have converted.
