Looked but can't find the answer....

Hi,

I have been looking in wonder at some peoples IR shots on here for a while and want to have a go myself.

I was thinking of using my Sigma 10-20 but have read about the central hotspot that some lenses get. Does anyone know whether the Sigma would suffer from this? It isn't on the list that I have seen under either good or bad.

Secondly as I am only going to be experimenting with this the prospect of £100+ for a 77mm filter for the 10-20 fills me with fear (what if I don't like it/can't do it?!). On fleabay there are Opteka ones (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk …ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcm​dZViewItem)
for half the price. Are these any good (please ignore the 'see through clothes' bit of the advert! :rolleyes? Would getting one of these and seeing the results just put me off IR when they didn't turn out very good?
Alternatively are there any other makes which are good (and cheap)?

I am using a 350D at the moment but will hopefully be getting a 20D in the near future. I have read that aside from their inbuilt IR filter meaning long exposures plenty of other people find them fine for IR pics.

My other option is to use a 50mm/1.8 for which I can get a Hoya 52mm filter for about £30. Do you think this would be a more sensible first step? I want to do landscapes/cityscapes which was why I was thinking of using the 10-20.

Okay I've probably typed enough , if anyone makes it through this far then your help or any links would be very much appreciated!

Thanks in advance,


Steve

Sorry had a completely irrelevant title before so changed it to be more descriptive. Hope someone can help!

Thanks again,


Steve

I am also very curious as I know absolutely nothing about IR photography, but I love the images I've seen on here. Do you need a special camera for those shots?

Here's the deal..
1. If you go the filter route; you will have to deal with 2 problems:
a. looong shutter speeds = blurry edges if ANYTHING is moving (people, trees clouds..etc)
b. Focusing. on most lenses note there are numbers in white and numbers in red. the red numbers are theoretically for IR wavelengths; which focus at slightly different planes than visible light. The reason I bring this up is with the Hoya R72 filter on your lens; you will see almost complete darkness as almost all visible light is being blocked. Without the filter; your focus will be off. Sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's enough to essentially ruin a picture.

2. Have your backup camera converted to IR only
a. renders the camera unusable for typical photography; BUT shutter speeds are what they should be, and AF works. You can read more about the procedure on sites like http://www.lifepixel.c​om/IR.htm

You can either borrow someone else's IR conversion to see if you like it enough to have a camera converted (The original rebel is a great prospect for this) or try the filter route.

My favorite IR photog on this board is Duder. His images are incredible, and he is very helpful.

I've only dabbled with the R72 route and decided it's not for me. I'm sticking to refining my Panorama skills and an occasional dabble in HDR. I don't think IR is for me.

-TD

Thanks for the info Tom.

I don't have a backup body so option 2 would have to wait until I could afford to get a 300D. Definitely something to consider if I decide I like it.

I was hoping to get away with using the 10-20 at 10mm, stopped right down to F16 or so and focussed to infinity? Hopefully for landscapes and not up close to stuff that would get most in focus.

I will send a PM to Duder and ask him to have a look in at this thread.

BTW panoramas with the kingpano come out excellently and not too expensive (unlike manfrotto 303).

Thanks for the help,


Steve