Lenses that work well with IR filters

[dwbrant]

I found a long thread over on DPReview.com about lenses that work with the Hoya R72 filters (don't produce hotspots in the image)... here's the list I found:

========/snip/=========

Good

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKI
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
Canon EF 75-300mm/4.0-5.6 IS
Canon EF 135mm f/2L
Canon EF 100-400mm4.0-5.6 IS L
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro


Bad

Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/2
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-80/4.0-5.6
Canon EF 50mm/f1.4
Canon EF 50mm/f2.5 Macro
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 70-300mm f3.x-xxx Macro

========/snip/==========

the above was taken from:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5460597

My question to anybody reading this message is: do you have other lenses you can add to this good/bad list?

I've been searching for a good wideangle, problem is I really can't afford the 17-40L at its "normal" $800 price, and besides I really don't like the f4 max aperture either. I've been considering the Sigma f1.8 20mm but haven't been able to find anyone who knows whether this lens works well for IR.. anybody have anything to say about that?

All help appreciated.

-- Dave

[lightandlife]

Why should one type of lens work better than another in IR photography? If performance differs among lenses, we need to find out why.

Any conjectures?

I would have thought that in IR photography, wide angle lenses would not perform as well as telephoto lenses, zoom lenses not as well as primes.

[dwbrant]

lightandlife wrote:
Why should one type of lens work better than another in IR photography? If performance differs among lenses, we need to find out why.

Any conjectures?

I would have thought that in IR photography, wide angle lenses would not perform as well as telephoto lenses, zoom lenses not as well as primes.

I think some lenses have coatings on them which prevent the transmission of certain wavelengths of infrared light. The ones listed under "Bad" all cause a hotspot in the center of the image.

Of my four lenses (Tamron 19-35mm, Tamron 28-300mm XR, Sigma 400 5.6, and Canon 50mm 1.8), the Tamron 19-35 has proven to be unusable (it causes a bright hotspot in images). The other lenses are usable, at least to a degree, with the Canon 50mm 1.8 being the best.

As I use infrared photography mostly for landscapes and other subjects needing wider-angle lenses, I have been searching for a suitable wide-angle lens. I am going to try the Sigma 15-30mm next.. I know that this lens requires some kind of adapter to allow filter usage but if it works, excellent!

[OiPaz]

I know it is not a cheap lens, but you can add the Canon EF-S 10-22mm to the list of the good ones.

[ddelallata]

I know it is not a cheap lens, but you can add the Canon EF-S 10-22mm to the list of the good ones.

Do you have any sample images of IR photos with this lens?

[OiPaz]

Not at the moment: it's night now in Italy.
But tomorrow I'll have some.

[OiPaz]

Here I am. Before posting the images I must beg your pardon for the quality: I had no time, I forgot the hood of the 10-22mm (and you can see it in the pictures!) and this is my first attempt with IR photography. I will have to improve a lot in the art of blind focusing!
Furthermore, the filter is NOT a Hoya R72: it is a really cheap filter (it costs one fifth of the Hoya!) so I am not sure if it is working well. The second picture is like it was out of the camera: are the colours correct? The ones you'd expect to obtain from a "true" IR filter?

I've also made some pictures with the other lenses in my bag: among those, it turned out that only the Canon 10-22mm and the MTO 500mm are good, showing no hot spots.
Canon 50mm f/1.4 is bad (we already knew), Canon 18-55mm kit lens is really bad (it shows a very hot spot) and Canon 70-300mm DO is bad too (it shows a slightly hot spot).

Now, let's see the pictures. The former is 10-22mm @ 10mm, f/5.6, 25 sec, ISO 100, shot with the sepia filter of the camera. The latter is 10-22mm @ 21mm, f/5.6, 20 sec, ISO 100, original colours.

[OiPaz]

Last shot: MTO 500mm, f/8, 30 sec, ISO 100, greyscale.
All the pictures were taken from my balcony, with no tripod and no hood. :-/

[OiPaz]

About the last shot, I just want to add that it is clearly out of focus: that lens is hard to focus even in normal conditions. With the blinding IR filter on, it is a nightmare. And, becoming an 800mm with the crop factor, I even completely missed the target! ;-)

[kalterkorper]

I tried the Hoya R72 with the Tamron 17-35mm and Tokina 12-24mm, they both have unacceptable hotspots...

[Raymate]

How do you guys get you Cameras to work with the IR filter, I have a HOYA R72 which I used with my very old Olympus 2MP camera, see the two images, the tower was with my five year old Olympus and the red thing that you cant see is with my 350D.

What am i doing wrong, tried useing a very high ISO which makes it brighter but nothing like my very old camera, I thought most cameras have blocking filter in them nowdays.

How have you done it, I would love to use my new camera for IR.

R :)

[OiPaz]

You are right: even with my old Olympus Camedia C-2000Z I can see through the IR filter in the LCD screen and shot pictures with normal shutter speed!
On the other hand, our Canon 350D has a built-it IR filter in front of the CMOS sensor, so if you want to take a IR shot you must be prepared to let the shutter open 30 seconds or similar. Maybe the purple coloration is due to the combined action of the IR camera filter and the long exposure.

[Raymate]

You are right: even with my old Olympus Camedia C-2000Z I can see through the IR filter in the LCD screen and shot pictures with normal shutter speed!
On the other hand, our Canon 350D has a built-it IR filter in front of the CMOS sensor, so if you want to take a IR shot you must be prepared to let the shutter open 30 seconds or similar. Maybe the purple coloration is due to the combined action of the IR camera filter and the long exposure.


I see, all my old Olympus stuff is with a C2000Z too, looks like we have the same cameras. shall try a longer time, the shots done so far was just with auto, and I saw it didnt seem to work so give up very quickly untilk I saw this thread.

Cheers

Ray

[OiPaz]

Little big camera, that C-2000Z! :)
I've bought it in 1999 and I am still using it, sometimes, with great pleasure.

[Raymate]

Got mine in 1999 too, have had a number of cameras between then and now all Olympus my last was a E20.

Five months ago I jumped to the Canon 350, still have my C2000 just for IR work and my E20 for backup.

R :)

[OiPaz]

still have my C2000 just for IR work
Just to come back to the topic: how do you mount the IR filter on the C-2000Z? Do you have a proprietary adapter ring or were you able to find another solution? It would be fun to mount my 77mm filter on my Olympus, but I do not have any ring fitting the small screw of the camera.

[Raymate]

I had to do it in two stages, the filter I use is a 55mm HOYA R72, to get this onto my old Olympus I used the "Olympus 41-43" standard adapter then I had a custom made 43-55 adaptor, it was lucky a company about 30 miles from me sells lens rings and also makes them to order. It cost about £20 which I thought was not bad.

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/

R

[OiPaz]

I've found on eBay an Olympus 41-52mm adapter for less than 10 EUR (shipping included)! I thought it could be much more expensive but, at that price, probably I'll buy one (from 52mm to 77mm I already own an adapter).
Obviously I would prefer to use my best Canon lenses for IR photography at normal shutter speed, but I really do not want to modify my 350D!

[OiPaz]

This thread was quiet for a long time, but now I am able to add a lens to the "good" list: the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM. So, here there is the original list, brought up to date according to the previous messages in this thread:



Good

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKI
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 135mm f/2 L
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
MTO 500mm f/8
Sigma 400mm f/5.6
Tamron 28-300mm XR



Bad

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/2
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-35mm
Tamron 19-35mm
Tamron 70-300mm Macro
Tokina 12-24mm

[Headcase650]

Has anyone tried IR with either the tamron 28-75 or the sigma 10-20 ex dc?

[Lightstream]

I can add one to the Good list.. the 17-85 successfully worked with my R72 without causing any hotspots. I've given up the R72 because I find I just don't do enough IR work.

Good

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L
Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKI
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 135mm f/2 L
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
MTO 500mm f/8
Sigma 400mm f/5.6
Tamron 28-300mm XR



Bad

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/2
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-35mm
Tamron 19-35mm
Tamron 70-300mm Macro
Tokina 12-24mm

[Ciqala]

when people say that a lens is 'bad' does this mean it's totally unusable or that results are not optimum?

i have the 50mm f1.4 and would like to try my hand at a couple of IR shots but this has put me off somewhat as the only other size lens i plan on buying with the same thread size (58mm) is the 85mm f1.8 and this is also on the bad list.

if possible could someone share some examples of pictures taken with a bad lens (if its the 50 f1.4 then even better) to give a visual indication of what the problems with these lenses are.

[Jon]

The "bad" ones give a huge hot-spot in the center of your picture.

[Blue S2]

Does anyone know if the 35L 1.4 works???

[SeanH]

I like the 17-40L, or the Canon 10-22......both work great with the R72.

[OiPaz]

And what about the new 70-200/4 IS? Good like the non-IS version or bad like the f/2.8 version?

[OiPaz]

Another little update to the list. This time is the 24/3.5L TS-E that proved itself to be good.



Good

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L
Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKI
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 135mm f/2 L
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L
MTO 500mm f/8
Sigma 400mm f/5.6
Tamron 28-300mm XR



Bad

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/2
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-35mm
Tamron 19-35mm
Tamron 70-300mm Macro
Tokina 12-24mm

[kpalsson]

BAD: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 (shame, it's a lovely lens)
GOOD: Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6 (tested both 100mm and 300mm)

Side notes: the 100-300 has IR focus markings, and the camera _will_ autofocus, and you can see it adjust the focus after screwing in the filter, but it gets the focus wrong anyway. :(

[kpalsson]

Just thought I'd add, that even the "good" lenses will show hotspots if you go to too small an aperture.

however, on my 100-300mm for instance, at f40, I get a faint, but noticeable hotspot. on the 24mm f2.8, I have a _massive_ hotspot at only f8

[OiPaz]

even the "good" lenses will show hotspots if you go to too small an aperture
Yep: esposure time is an essential factor. For instance, I've obtained some not-too-bad shots with "bad" lenses but used at the maximum aperture and high ISO in order to expose for no more than 2 seconds.
And almost every lens is good if you are able to use the same speed as the one you would use in normal photography (for instance with a non-digital camera, or with a digital one without anti-IR filter on the sensor).

[Blue S2]

You can add the 35 1.4L to the list. I've been using that almost exclusively lately for IR. It worked with filter, and with an IR convert.