In praise of the 50mm Mk I for infrared

This is probably of most interest to those who like to shoot infrared images who don't want or can't afford a fully-converted infrared camera. I've been shooting infrared with varying degrees of success using a 77mm 720nm filter with my EF-S 10-22 and EF 28-135 IS lenses (the latter with a step-up adapter) on my unmodified XTi. Neither of those are fast lenses, with shutter speeds generally falling into the 10-20 second range, and I've wanted to start shooting some portraiture--my limited experiments with long exposures using my current lenses yielded unsatisfactory results.

So a couple of weeks back I acquired one of the original EF 50mm f/1.8 mark I Canon lenses, the one with a metal mount, distance scale and IR focal mark and true manual focus ring. Yesterday, my 52mm Hoya R72 filter arrived for it. The weather was heavily overcast, and my first thought was that I'd have to wait a few days to try out the combo. But then I had second thoughts, and figured I'd see what a "fast" lens could do in crummy conditions.

Despite the marginal lighting, I was getting good histograms with 4 second exposures at 400 ISO. This floored me--I was hoping for viable exposures in the 3-4 second range with bright daylight, and I was getting those shutter speeds on an overcast evening! Granted, I was shooting wide open, but it's my understanding that stopping down has less impact on image sharpness with infrared. I doubt I'll ever shoot with an aperture smaller than 2.8. I'm really, really keen to see how fast I can push it now under bright conditions--dare I dream of 1 second exposures? I hope to do some infrared wedding portraiture to supplement my wife's photography business, and this is very, very encouraging.

I have to say very nice things about the Mark I lens as well. If you've used the Nifty Fifty (and I've got one) you can appreciate the good images it produces, but everything else about it leaves a lot to be desired. In comparison, the Mk II is a joy to use. The IR focal mark makes a big difference (how I wish the 10-22 had one!). The manual focus ring has some play, but not enough to be bothersome. Really, I have no complaints about this lens (particularly in light of the fact that my copy is 22 years old!)--if you're shooting with an unmodded Canon, it's pretty much the perfect fast lens for IR work. You'll really appreciate the difference between 15 second exposures and 4 second ones.

At least, until a converted camera comes along...

Can we see some examples of your shots?

Sure thing. Here's a pair of passion flowers. Keep in mind it was exceptionally windy, hence the ghosting. I also added heavy vignetting and converted to B&W.

Thanks for sharing.
However, your message kinda implies an actual IR mark is needed in order to shoot IR

Rodinal wrote in post #7833932
However, your message kinda implies an actual IR mark is needed in order to shoot IR

I didn't mean to imply that. It does take some of the guesswork out, however. When shooting with a non-modified camera, where you have to compose, focus, thread in the filter and then shoot, having that little mark shaves valuable time from the process and greatly increases the number of keepers--particularly if you're shooting at a wide aperture. With the 10-22, I'm normally shooting at f/8 or f/11. I like having the option of bokeh with the mk I.

jblaschke wrote in post #7833980
I didn't mean to imply that. It does take some of the guesswork out, however. When shooting with a non-modified camera, where you have to compose, focus, thread in the filter and then shoot, having that little mark shaves valuable time from the process and greatly increases the number of keepers--particularly if you're shooting at a wide aperture. With the 10-22, I'm normally shooting at f/8 or f/11. I like having the option of bokeh with the mk I.

Do you have any "sharp enough" IR photo from canon 10-22, I have tested two of them and (350D+10-22+Hoya 72 from f/3.5 to f/16) and in any condition it gave same kind of abberation in out of focus area - chromatic abbration (propably) was so big to give double image of far objects, center of the picture is "quite good" but in off-center areas abberation are huge. 10-22 is my primary lens I'm using it in propaby 80% of shoot. Lens (10-22) is reported as good for IR photograhy. I have no problem in IR with canon 17-85.

I need to look into this. I can imagine a lot of fun with this.

jan_ wrote in post #7837243
Do you have any "sharp enough" IR photo from canon 10-22

Jan_, yes, I've actually found myself using the EF-S 10-22 as my preferred IR lens. Most of the time it gives fantastic results. Focus can be a little wonky on it, so I normally shoot stopped down and guesstimate a lot. Occasionally I'll get significant CA, such as on this abandoned space needle image, but the CA isn't consistent and I've yet to figure out what conditions cause it. For the most part, I get shots like these (and yes, I know the bottom one's overexposed):

1.