In Search of Older Glass for IR

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I'm hoping @480sparky will chime in here, but I'm looking for some recommendations on older glass. But wait!!! Please don't answer until you've read why.

My D800 was recently converted to 720nm infrared by KolariVision, so it's fair to say I've gone at IR photography full bore. I've been shooting with it for a month and I'm noticing that the modern lenses really don't work well for IR. My brother's been doing it for almost 10 years on Canon equipment and I spent some time last week shooting with him and talking about it. He's got a converter that will let him use Nikon lenses on his 5D, and when he borrowed my 70-200mm for one shot he said, "See how much warmer this lens is? It cuts out all the blues. All the new glass does this." The conversation went on and the gist of it is, in his experience, that most of the new lenses are low dispersion glass (the "ED" designation on your Nikkor), which "minimizes the effects of the secondary spectrum", in Nikon's own words. But filtering goes back to even before the ED lenses were introduced, so simply looking for a non-ED lens isn't enough. As an example, my 28-80mm f3.3-5.5G plastic lens produces better color than the 24-120mm f4, though it lacks something in the sharpness category on that camera. And an old Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 that I used with my FM produces great color, but I'm totally on my own with focus and metering.

OK, so what I'm asking you all for are recommendations on old lenses that will still allow me to meter and hopefully focus on the D800. I'd love to not have to focus manually with my aging eyes, but if I need to learn patience and use a tripod so I can focus in Live View then for the right piece of AI glass I will.

I'm not looking to recreate a kit. I'm looking for some really solid lenses that I can get for not too much money, test out and turn without worrying about losing too much. Sharpness is key here, particularly if it's not AF. I'm hunting down places that I can rent some of those that might be worth it but will cost a little more money before buying.

And if anyone knows of a real repository of Nikkor lens reviews with respect to how they work for IR please point me to them. The ones on Kolari and LifePixel are cursory at best.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Kolari or LifePixel has a page on their site that listed lenses known to work well with IR conversions. Not sure if I can find it, though, as I'm on my mobile right now.
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
Go to youtube angry photographer (not suitable for work) and look up his IR videos and just ask him in the comments which lens to pick up on ebay. He actually speaks a lot about problems (depth distortion) with new glass for regular photos and he does shoot IR.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Kolari or LifePixel has a page on their site that listed lenses known to work well with IR conversions. Not sure if I can find it, though, as I'm on my mobile right now.

Thanks, but the list is worthless, IMO. It's really a hot-spot index and says nothing about how well they actually transmit IR light. And I've been able to convince the folks at Kolari that even the ones they list as "Good" have serious issues under the right circumstances. I'm working with my brother to devise a proper hot spot test for lenses and we can hopefully put together a proper database for it - but that's gonna take some time.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Go to youtube angry photographer (not suitable for work) and look up his IR videos and just ask him in the comments which lens to pick up on ebay. He actually speaks a lot about problems (depth distortion) with new glass for regular photos and he does shoot IR.

Thanks. I've seen his stuff and I'm not a fan, but I didn't realize he did IR. I'll sit through him if I have to since he seems to have a LOT of old glass.
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
I believe he gives out the specific thing (lens treatments and such) to avoid so you can figure it out for yourself. There is probably new glass that is ok and old glass that is not. My understanding of the differences between old and new lens is that new ones have more coatings, more elements, and are manufactured to hit price points (built cheaply). The IR problems probably come from a coating that is present on old and new lens.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
Just a single data point.... I've been chasing a 55mm F1.2 lens... Non-AI versions sell for $240ish, and AI versions sell for $400ish.... There's a guy in MI that gleefully converts non-AI to AI for $33 including shipping...
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The four main things to evaluate with various lenses and IR are...

1. Hot Spots - do they appear, and if so when (focal length & aperture)
2. Vignetting - how well does the IR light transmit to the complete frame (the anti-hot spot)
3. Sharpness - duh, but this also could mean how well/if you can achieve an AF with your camera since IR light focuses at a slightly different point
4. Light Transmission - how much IR light is filtered by the elements

Most IR ratings only concern themselves with the first two, and then they'll pay some attention to #3. Very few speak to the last, and that's what I'm looking for. I need to get out midday one of these days into a place that has a nice, balanced range of IR lighting and just shoot with all the lenses I have - same scene, same spot. That's the only way to truly see the difference.

As for my current lenses, I find the 24-120mm f4, 16-35mm f4 and Sigma 15mm fisheye to be stellar performers in terms of 1-3 above. The 24-70mm Sigma and Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G are some of the worst I've seen for hotspots. Primes tend to be better, but I tend not to carry them when I'm carrying two cameras. I need to test them, but my old 50mm f2.0 Nikkor that I got with my FM is a stellar IR lens.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Angry Photographer's gonna be useless, I fear, because he shoots IR with an unconverted camera, which means you're sticking filters on both ends of the lens - IR up front and then the hot mirror (which is still over the sensor) on the back. I've seen tests on full spectrum cameras (no filter over the sensor so you process IR, UV and visible light - whatever's not filtered on the lens) where the placement of the IR filter makes a big difference on spotting, with the filter between the rear element and the sensor often being optimal. Plus, when he mentioned that converting a camera "renders it FUBAR" I decided that my previous opinions of him hold fast. It's hard to measure what I'm looking for when you're already filtering out so much light that you need 4-8 second exposures to get something.

Thanks anyway for the tip.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
FYI, I still don't have any answers other than to say that my opinion of the Angry Photographer is forever cemented. He responds to YouTube comments almost instantaneously when you want to fluff him or agree with a rant, but ask a question and nothing - not even an "I don't know" or "I'll get back to you". Blow hard egomaniac, that guy. Another internet personality we don't need.
 
Top