Print Page | Close Window

Lenses and unmodified cameras for Infrared (IR)

Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Equipment forums
Forum Name: A-mount lenses
Forum Description: For A-mount lens discussions
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50589
Printed Date: 27 November 2021 at 23:33


Topic: Lenses and unmodified cameras for Infrared (IR)
Posted By: groovyone
Subject: Lenses and unmodified cameras for Infrared (IR)
Date Posted: 13 August 2009 at 16:01
Which lenses have you found work well for Infrared on modified or unmodified cameras? Which cameras have you found to work well unmodified?

My list so far: UPDATED 7/16/2013

Good:
24-70Z - great color with custom IR, but occasional hotspots
Minolta 24mm f/2.8RS - No hotspots, beautiful results - PERSONAL FAV
Minolta 28mm f/2 - No hotspots, different WB than Zeiss but good results
135Z - Weird color shifts, but no hotspots yet. Color easily edited with CWB.
Sony 16-105 - So far so good. Maybe very mild hotspots, maybe.
Sony 18-55 SAM - No hotspotting, looks good (Thanks sdm9465)
Sony 35G - Excellent for IR. Great color, no hotspots.
Minolta 35-70 (thanks Twah)
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 (thanks Twah)
Tamron 200-500 (thanks Twah)
Minolta 28-85 F3.5-4.5 (thanks Edinator)
M 28-135 - some softness at the tele end, 28-80mm is wonderful (thanks 2manycamera)
M 24/2.8 O (thanks 2manycamera)
Sigma 10-20 (thanks Aldaer/Polyglot)
S/M 18-70 (thanks Aldaer)
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (thanks Twah)
Minolta 20mm f2.8 (thanks Twah)
Minolta 70-210 f/4 "beercan"(Thanks Jocelynne)
Zenitar MC 16mm F2.8 Fisheye (Thanks Micholand)
Minolta 24-105 (Thanks Micholand and sdm9465)
Tamron SP AF 90 F2.8 Di (Thanks Micholand)
*NEW*Sony Zeiss 24/2.0 (Thanks Micholand)
*NEW*Sigma 24-50mm uc - very good results so far no hotspots or hue shifts (Thanks mrggt)
*NEW*Minolta 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 - good, but colours not as punchy as the sigma (Thanks mrggt)
*NEW*Tamron 20-40 F/2.7-3.5 - Central soft hotspot, pretty easily correctable. (Thanks kerrath)
*NEW*Sigma 24mm F/2.8 - Good image quality, even when close-focusing. No hotspots. (Thanks kerrath)
*NEW*Minolta 50 F/1.7 - Just fine, even with a 0.15x fisheye adapter on it. (Thanks kerrath)
*NEW*Sigma 18mm/3,5 ZEN (Thanks jalu)
*NEW*Minolta 50/2,8 macro (Thanks jalu)

Decent:
Sony 85Z - Great color, mild hotspots so far. More testing needed
Minolta 35/2 - Slight Hotspot (thanks to Twah)
*NEW*Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - some good results below f8. af can be an issue (Thanks mrggt)
*NEW*Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 - below f8 is ok but results not as good as older lenses (Thanks mrggt)
*NEW*Tamron 11-18mm F/4.5-5.6 - Central hotspot, sharp edged, with another wider soft hotspot. (Thanks kerrath)

Bad:
16-35Z - weird color shifts in IR, horrible hotspots
16-80Z - great color but BAD hotpots on modded cameras, not as bad on unmodded cameras
17-35/2.8-4 has a strong central hotspot (Thanks to Polyglot)
M/S 11-18/4.5-5.6 has bad hotspots (thanks to boyanphotography)
M 100/2 - lots of hot spots, BF like crazy at infinity (thanks to 2manycamera)
Tamron 17-50 - strong hotspot (thanks Aldaer)
*MOVED TO BAD*Sony 50mm f/1.4 - No hotspots but definite blue shift on the color and histogram *Update: Bad hotspotting seen

*Updated 7/16/2013

NEW

My list so far for unmodified cameras: UPDATED 11/08/2010

Good: (typical unmodified shot times)
Minolta 7D (awaiting confirmation)
Minolta 5D (awaiting confirmation)
Sony A100
Sony A700
Sony A200 (thanks C-Hass)
Sony A300 (thanks Twah)

Decent:
Sony A550 (Awaiting more testing - thanks C-Hass)

Bad:
Sony A900 - IR filter is too strong for any usable results

EDINTAOR'S guide to http://www.flickr.com/photos/edinator/4528087253/ - Converting A100 for Infrared

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid



Replies:
Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 04:27
I tested the 16-80Z some more and had no hotspots, so I am confused. I also tried the Sony 50 f/1.4 and it had no hoptspots but a big blue shift.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: sitompul
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 05:09
um, perhaps it's a dumb suggestion, but did you put the VF blind on while exposing.

Lights could gou into from the VF into the sensor on long exposures, hence the shift you see.

If you already did that, then don't mind my comment.

-------------
As i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i shall fear no evil. For i have scores of emergency procedure checklists, a 1:10 glide ratio, & a 4.4G load limit. So bring it on Reaper!!


Posted By: soulfly
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 06:56
Originally posted by sitompul sitompul wrote:

um, perhaps it's a dumb suggestion, but did you put the VF blind on while exposing.

Lights could gou into from the VF into the sensor on long exposures, hence the shift you see.

If you already did that, then don't mind my comment.
he has an IR-modded A100, so i don't think long exposure is necessary

-------------
Sony A700 w/VG-C70AM
Sony 18-70mm F3.5-5.6
Minolta AF 70-210mm F4
Sony HVL-F58AM
Vivitar 285HV


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 15:02
Originally posted by soulfly soulfly wrote:

Originally posted by sitompul sitompul wrote:

um, perhaps it's a dumb suggestion, but did you put the VF blind on while exposing.

Lights could gou into from the VF into the sensor on long exposures, hence the shift you see.

If you already did that, then don't mind my comment.
he has an IR-modded A100, so i don't think long exposure is necessary


Like Soulfly said, these trial runs have been on a modified camera. When I shot the long exposures on my A700 I did use the VF cover.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: sdm9465
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 15:23
The camera I had been playing around with for infrared photography (a Minolta DiMage 7) died recently when a water bottle in my backpack opened and flooded it. I'm now thinking of getting an A2xx/A3xx converted to IR and am wondering how the new 18-55mm kit lens would perform. Any one have any experience with that for infrared? I don't have any other lenses that are an ideal range on APS-C and would rather not have to share lenses with my A900.

-------------
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/smeredith" rel="nofollow - www.pbase.com/smeredith


Posted By: 2manycamera
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 16:04
I continue to try many lenses on my modified 7D/IR. Because I had mine calibrated for a 24/2.8, I've has BF issues on a number of lenses. I can have it re-calibrated to another lens by Precision and thinking it will be either the 16-105 Sony or 28-135 Minolta.

Having said all that, these are my favorites, even with the BF issues.

24-70Z, like groovyone, there are occasional hot spots but overall great lens for IR.
28-135, some softness at the tele end, 28-approx 80mm is wonderful.
58/1.2 Rokkor-X: most fun lens, gives a real feel of of Kodak HIE, still using the M to A converter, haven't decided if the slight softness added by this converter helps or detracts from the look.
24/2.8, original lens sent for calibration, still gives the best results at all apetures and I prefer the 36mm
slightly wider view as all purpose.
16-105 Sony, Best available range, but will need to be calibrated to serve as all purpose lens.
Lensbaby composer: My newest toy! I'm learning how to focus (tripod mounted, multiple shots) but once I feel confident, it will be a regular part of the kit.
100/2, lots of hot spots, BF like crazy at infinity but worth the work to get it right.

Still others to try...


-------------
7D a68 a99 a6600 a7Rii 16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 35/2 50/1.4 100/2 200/2.8 24-70CZ 1.8/135 80-200/2.8 24-105 28-135 300/4 16-50DT 70-300G Tam 90/2.8, E55-210 E2/12 Sig E1.4/16,30 & 56, FE15/4.5V


Posted By: Aldaer
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 16:37
Sigma 10-20 good, tested on KM 5D and Sony a700
Kitlens 18-70 very good, tested on Sony a700
Tamron 17-50/2,8 - very strong hot spot, definetely not recomended

All tested on unmodified cameras

-------------
http://www.projekt52.cz - http://www.projekt52.cz

Sony a77;Sigma 10-20/4-5.6; Sony 16-50/2.8 SSM; Minolta 100/2.8 Macro D; Sigma 100-300/4 DG; Nex-3N + 16-50 PZ


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 00:59
Good to know on th e17-50 Tamron, since that was going to be my next attempt.

Round 2 of the 16-80 went better, but still not convincing. I just got a 24mm f/2.8 RS to try, so I am glad to see 2many's statements. I also have a 28 f/2 to test out on it.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: polyglot
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 03:20
Haven't done this in a while (the A100 was OK for it, the A700 has a too-strong highpass filter in it), but:

- 17-35/2.8-4 has a strong central hotspot
- 10-20 works well


-------------
C&C always welcome
ex- http://www.brodie-tyrrell.org/pad/ - Pic-A-Day
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24125157@N00/ - on flickr


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 31 August 2009 at 18:35
Added Min 24/2.8 and 28/2

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 21 September 2009 at 05:26
Finally got some editing time and moved the 135Z to good.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: sdm9465
Date Posted: 03 May 2010 at 17:55
I got an A200 modified and have so far only tried two lenses:

135/1.8: I had the same experience as groovyone.
18-55 SAM: Works great with no hot spots. (I bought this lens specifically to live on the A200 so I'm glad there are no issues.)

Of my remaining lenses, I doubt I'll ever use most of them for IR. I'll probably try out the Minolta 24-105 and 100-300 APO as that would cover quite a range in a light and compact kit. I'll post results if and when I test them.

-------------
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/smeredith" rel="nofollow - www.pbase.com/smeredith


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 03 May 2010 at 18:29
Forgot all about this thread.

I can add to it.

Good:
Sony 16-105 - looks surprisingly good so far
Minolta 24/2.8 RS - still looks great!

16-105 @ f/3.5, ISO 200


24mm @ f/5, ISO 200



24mm @ f/6.3, ISO 200



-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 03 May 2010 at 18:47
Updated the first post

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: twm47099
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 04:44
I have a modified A100. When I bought my A700, I got "stuck" having to buy the kit with the 18-70DT lens. When I spoke to Mark Soares about the conversion, he suggested getting the camera calibrated with the 18-70. He felt it would be a good choice for IR because it is a relatively simple lens. So I did.

It is the lens that stays on my A100-IR. I've taken a good number of shots with it and have only seen a hue-shift bright spot on a couple of occasions. I haven't seen it enough to have a clear indication of when it occurs. Also it doesn't cause me any problems with B&W conversion, only if I try to use the shot in color.

I did run some tests with the 18-70 and my Minolta 35 f/2 shooting a sunlit white wall. Focus distance was very close (5 feet). Both showed a spot which became more prominent as I stopped down. I haven't tried the 35mm on real subjects, but as I mentioned I don't see a hot spot in most of my shots with the 18-70.

tom


Posted By: Edinator
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 19:08
The Sony 18-70 lense is pretty good. There is a very faint and large hot spot in the centre of the image as you stopped down.

My current IR lense is the Minolta 28-85 F3.5-4.5. There are no hot spots and focusing is nice and fast. There is some flare at certain angles with the sun but it is the same as any other lense on a normal camera. The lense is free of hot spots even when stopped down to F10 (that's as far as I've tested).



-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edinator/ - My Flickr
http://www.edtse.com/ - My Blog/Portfolio


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 16 July 2010 at 15:36
Updated the list with the 35G and 85Z.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 00:13
Please Add the Minolta 35-70mm. It works beautifully with IR. http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.pisto/InfraredPhotos?feat=directlink - I.R. with Minolta 35-70

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 00:38
Originally posted by Twah Twah wrote:

Please Add the Minolta 35-70mm. It works beautifully with IR. http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.pisto/InfraredPhotos?feat=directlink - I.R. with Minolta 35-70


Added it. Thanks for the input!

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 00:54
Just want to say thanks for creating this threat. I've been trying to find a wider lens for IR that doesn't produce hotspots. For anyone wanting a lens, I'd recommend the Minolta 35-70 because you can get it for about $25-50 (USD) on eBay. It's awesome as long as you don't want to go wider. So I'm bidding on a 18-55 sam since people said it works great so we'll see if I get it.

again, thanks for this because it's so hard trying to find lenses that don't create Hotspots.

I have a IR (715mm) converted Minolta 7D and it's great fun to play with. If anyone is using a filter, I would definitely recommend converting a camera to IR because it's basically point and shoot instead of having to truck around a tripod for long exposures.

Thanks! If I get that 18-55 and if I remember, I'll post results to my IR picasa web album for all to see.

thanks

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 00:56
Oh also Add to Decent list. Minolta 35mm F2. There is a very slight hotspot. It is hard to see but it is noticeable but it's not like the Tamron 17-50 hotspoting which it's UGLY! haha.

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: Bass
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 01:19
Firstly, a big thank you to groovyone for maintaining this thread for over a year. It is a great reference and thanks also to all those who have contributed. It's threads like these that make Dyxum a great place to hang out and find information   

I personally think this thread should be a sticky - information on IR / UV photography for the 'A' Mount is hard to find?

I am new to photography outside of the visible spectrum and am curious about IR but also UV. Is it safe to assume that lenses that work well in the IR wavelengths (hot spots, focus shifts etc) would be suitable for UV? Has anybody got any first hand experience with both?

Along with the lenses listed on the first page, is there knowledge about older MD Minolta lenses & M42 and how they perform with IR / UV?

I'm keen to gather more information before I make the commitment to mod my A100.

Thanks again.

-------------
MB


Posted By: Alex H
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 01:55
Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

Is it safe to assume that lenses that work well in the IR wavelengths (hot spots, focus shifts etc) would be suitable for UV?


No, it is not true. Most of the current lenses, that work fine for IR, will not be usable for UV, since most of the optical glass and optical cements (used to fuse lens elements in groups) will block most of the UV.

There is a number of very specialized UV lenses made of fused quartz, but they are very expensive. Anyone on the budget can look into some El-Nikkor enlarger lenses and Novoflex 35mm lens. Do not forget about filters.

Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

Has anybody got any first hand experience with both?


I have a little experience in shooting UV. In fact that is what I was doing today, testing UV response of KM5D and A700. I may post a separate thread about Sony and UV photography tomorrow.

Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

Along with the lenses listed on the first page, is there knowledge about older MD Minolta lenses & M42 and how they perform with IR / UV?


As far as I know, there is no information on the internet about MD lenses being used for UV. There are some M42 lenses suitable for UV, including Novoflex 35mm lens (that one actually comes in different mounts).

Most of the UV photography (reflected UV) is done by Nikon shooters because:
- Many older Nikon DSLRs are "very" sensitive to UV unmodified, like the famous D70.
- Nikon was manufacturing the famous UV-NIkkor 105mm lens, which was still being made until recently. All current UV-dedicated lenses are made in Nikon mount:
(1) CoastalOpt® UV-VIS-IR 60mm f4 Apochromatic Macro
(2) CoastalOpt® UV-VIS 105mm f4.5 Apochromatic Macro
(3) Tochigi-Nikon 105mm f4.5 UV Lens

If anyone is really interested in UV photography with Sony cameras, I can share my limited experience in a separate post in few days.

Alex

-------------
http://www.holovachov.com/fluorescence - Ultraviolet-induced visible fluorescence photography - A7, A77, NEX6, NEX6-FS - http://www.holovachov.com - Gallery


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 02:23
I haven't tried any MC/MD lenses. I am still debating converting a NEX-5 which would let me shoot IR with just about anything. I also still need to try my 24/2 on the A100IR. I haven't even tried it on my NEX.

My friend has the new 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 30/2.8 Macro. I'll have to see if we can test those.

The Minolta 24/2.8 RS works so well it is rarely off the A100.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Bass
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 02:27
Alex H - that is excellent, thank you!

All my searches for UV photography have brought up Nikon related material, thus far. I am aware of some of the lenses you mention - the Novoflex is of particular interest.

I am very interested in your UV photography and any information / techniques you have for 'A'mount, so I would like to see your thread! Please let me know. I also think sticky threads on IR and UV photography would benefit the Dyxum and 'A' Mount community.   

I have recently purchased a custom flashlight housing a Nichia NCSU033b LED (365nm) and want to explore photography with it, among other things. I am only at the very beginning of a journey to learn, so any information is appreciated (such as your post above - thanks again)



-------------
MB


Posted By: Alex H
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 02:35
Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

Alex H - that is excellent, thank you!

I will do what I can, but let us keep this topic "on-topic".
Alex

-------------
http://www.holovachov.com/fluorescence - Ultraviolet-induced visible fluorescence photography - A7, A77, NEX6, NEX6-FS - http://www.holovachov.com - Gallery


Posted By: Bass
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 02:37
Thanks also groovyone! Your reply came up whilst I was typing mine.

From what I haave read the Nex-5 gives surprising good results with IR after a full spectrum conversion (my understanding was that CCD was preferable to CMOS?)

I's be keen to know how you get on.

-------------
MB


Posted By: Bass
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 02:41
Apologies if I have steered the thread OT

Sorry and I will look out for your post Alex and keep this to IR!



-------------
MB


Posted By: Micholand
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 10:36
Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

I also think sticky threads on IR and UV photography would benefit the Dyxum and 'A' Mount community.   
made sticky as requested

-------------
/Michael

//www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic87334.html - DWEs don't grow on trees! | //www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting images&links FAQ


Posted By: boyanphotography
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 13:04
The 11-18 lens gives me a noticeable hotspot, Sigma 50/1.4 does do the job though.

Cheers

-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/boyanslat - flickr

Sony A700+VG | F 8/3.5 | S 11-18 | ∑ 50/1.4 | ∑ 70-200/2.8 II | F58AM | 055XPRO


Posted By: Edinator
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 16:14
Minolta 28-85 F3.5-4.5. No hot spots what so ever. My IR lense for now. Images below were taken with converted A100 and Minolta 28-85.

http://www.flickr/photos/edinator/4820839491/ - 1

http://www.flickr/photos/edinator/4787337962/ - 2

I want to try out the Sony 18-250 for hotspots. That would be the perfect lense for my A100 :D

*edit can't seem to get my image to show up so edited for links

-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edinator/ - My Flickr
http://www.edtse.com/ - My Blog/Portfolio


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 16:57
Just tested two more of my lenses.

Please add to the GOOD department. I tested at different focal lengths and did not see any hotspots.

Tamron 70-200 F2.8
Tamron 200-500.

Thanks and just happy to contribute to a WELL Needed posting for any one doing IR with the Alpha's/Maxxum's.


-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: Bass
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 17:20
Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

made sticky as requested


Thank you   

-------------
MB


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 21:06
Originally posted by boyanphotography boyanphotography wrote:

The 11-18 lens gives me a noticeable hotspot, Sigma 50/1.4 does do the job though.

Cheers


Would you say the 50mm is good or decent?

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 21:12
Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

I also think sticky threads on IR and UV photography would benefit the Dyxum and 'A' Mount community.   
made sticky as requested


Thanks! It seems like IR is becoming more popular these days.

...and now it is unstickied. Weird.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 07 November 2010 at 21:15
Just to add my two cents on the Sony 50 1.4, it produces very noticeable hotspots on my A700. I have several examples and immediately dumped it from my IR lineup and got the awesome minolta 35-70 just for IR.

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: C-hass
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 02:42
I might be a bit off topic here, but did anyone test the a550 with IR?

I used to do lots of IR on my a200 and it was great, but when I went to test some on the a550, results seemed a bit weird (underexposed mostly)
I'm waiting for sunny days to test some more.


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 14:23
Originally posted by C-hass C-hass wrote:

I might be a bit off topic here, but did anyone test the a550 with IR?

I used to do lots of IR on my a200 and it was great, but when I went to test some on the a550, results seemed a bit weird (underexposed mostly)
I'm waiting for sunny days to test some more.


Could be the same issue I had with my A900. The A100 worked great unmodified, as did the A700, but the A900 was useless for unmodified IR. The newer filters were just too strong!

Camera list time? I can add it to the first post if people would like.

My list so far for unmodified cameras: UPDATED 11/08/2010

Good: (typical unmodified shot times)
Sony A100
Sony A700
Sony A200 (thanks to C-Hass)

Decent:

Bad:
Sony A900 - IR filter is too strong for any usable results

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 15:16
Hey Groovy

yeah do add the camera lists. I think it'll be useful for anyone wanting to do IR work.

I know Minolta's 5D and 7D work too (unmodified). I've read another post on dynaxdigital.com that people use 5D's and 7D's.

I had a A300 and it worked great for IR work as well then I sold it and got the A700.



-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 17:31
Hey Groovy,

here's from dynaxdigital.com forums and a member posting with the 5D and 7D


All you need to do now is buy yourself an IR filter.


http://www.dynaxdigital.com/taking-photos/a-guide-to-infrared-photography/?PHPSESSID=0f02e102ef3ebb1de49d406e1fe629b1

"From experience we as Minolta/Sony owners are lucky as our DSLR’s are suitable for taking IR photographs.
I have used the
5D
7D
A700
And successfully taken IR photographs with them, although I have not used the following camera's, I have been informed by other members that these are also suitable for IR.
A100
A300"


-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: Micholand
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 19:24
Originally posted by groovyone groovyone wrote:

Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

I also think sticky threads on IR and UV photography would benefit the Dyxum and 'A' Mount community.   
made sticky as requested


Thanks! It seems like IR is becoming more popular these days.

...and now it is unstickied. Weird.
Most likely due to the changed title, but it's sticky again

-------------
/Michael

//www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic87334.html - DWEs don't grow on trees! | //www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting images&links FAQ


Posted By: Edinator
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 19:35
If anyone is interested, I created a mini tutorial on converting an A100 to shoot infrared. I created a thread here a while back but there's no need to sticky both threads. I have the link here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edinator/4528087253/ - Converting A100 for Infrared

I don't know the internals of any other Alpha camera so It might not be as easy for other cameras. If you have an A100 as a backup camera, it would be easy to convert it to shoot IR!

If you guys want I can upload a few pictures I took during the conversion to show some of the internal details. But you can download a repair manual which shows the internals of the A100 (link provided in the link above).

-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edinator/ - My Flickr
http://www.edtse.com/ - My Blog/Portfolio


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 08 November 2010 at 20:17
Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

Originally posted by groovyone groovyone wrote:

Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

Originally posted by Bass Bass wrote:

I also think sticky threads on IR and UV photography would benefit the Dyxum and 'A' Mount community.   
made sticky as requested


Thanks! It seems like IR is becoming more popular these days.

...and now it is unstickied. Weird.
Most likely due to the changed title, but it's sticky again


It seems to unsticky it every time I edit the first post. Is there a way to insert a new #2 post that I can continue to edit without undoing the sticky?

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Micholand
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 19:09
Originally posted by groovyone groovyone wrote:

It seems to unsticky it every time I edit the first post. Is there a way to insert a new #2 post that I can continue to edit without undoing the sticky?
Unfortunately to mix new posts in-between old ones is not possible. As somekind of workaround I have created a new http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic69519_post788010.html#788010 - sticky topic linking back here.

-------------
/Michael

//www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic87334.html - DWEs don't grow on trees! | //www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting images&links FAQ


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 09 November 2010 at 21:49
Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

Originally posted by groovyone groovyone wrote:

It seems to unsticky it every time I edit the first post. Is there a way to insert a new #2 post that I can continue to edit without undoing the sticky?
Unfortunately to mix new posts in-between old ones is not possible. As somekind of workaround I have created a new http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic69519_post788010.html#788010 - sticky topic linking back here.


Thanks!!

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: balacau
Date Posted: 13 November 2010 at 23:45
I haven't got the hang of IR pictures yet; it would seem the biggest problem I've been having is the post-processing of the images but I will keep at it and see what I can come up with.

Does anyone know if the following two "older style" Minolta lenses have shown any decent results using a filter instead of an IR configured camera?

Minolta 28-80mm F4-F5.6 zoom
Minolta 70-210mm F4 (Beercan) zoom

I'm very much looking forward to the spring when new growth will give that bright white appearence but I need plenty more practice in this before then!

I just wish there was a step-by-step guide for basic IR editing for GIMP 2.6. I know there are a fair amount of options and effects that can be accomplished with white balance, contrast and so on; but just the basic editing seems to be giving me problems at the moment. Of course that's probably because I was shooting in jpeg instead of raw format...

Best regards

Gavin

-------------
Understanding is a 3-edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth.


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 14 November 2010 at 22:02
Gavin,

the best advice I can give for editing is set your gray point to trees/bushes that were in direct sunlight, then adjust your black and white points on your historgram to stretch the data out over the full range. I should probably screenshot my editing process the next time I do it.

I don't think I ever tried the beercan. It is worth a shot! I can probably pop it on my modified A100 to look for hotspots, but it is overcast today.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: balacau
Date Posted: 15 November 2010 at 06:32
Cheers for that info, Groovyone.

I will look into that tonight and see what I can come up with. Things make more sense now that I have Sony's IDC program.

Re the beercan. I don't actually have one (yet) but with the number of people who seem to think so highly of them or have them in their line-up; I was wondering if they'd ever been tested for IR shooting. At present I only have a 55mm Hoya R72 IR filter, including the "new" Minolta, that fits 4 lenses; 5 if I get a beercan. I'd like to perfect shooting + editing in IR before trying other lenses which typically have 72 or 77mm filter sizes.

Thanks again

Best regards

Gavin

-------------
Understanding is a 3-edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth.


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 15 November 2010 at 14:07
Your 18-70 should be a good one for use. People have had decent results with it.

It is raining here today, so no luck on my 70-210 test.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 17 November 2010 at 23:54
In my bag now is a 24/2Z and 16mm fisheye to test, and if my friend remembers he'll bring his 35/1.8, 30/2.8 Macro and 50/1.8 tomorrow to test.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 20:56
Quick on camera assessment:

16mm fish is decent but I think hotspotting may reveal itself when I edit.
24/2 Zeiss looks better at f/2 than f/7.1
50/1.8 looks decent, although I think the 30/2.8 and 35/1.8 look better.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: balacau
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 21:00
The 16mm fisheye sure sounds an unusual choice, if nothing else it will find itself in a good/average/bad category of those lenses listed for IR use.

No good for a screw-in filter however! I don't suppose there is a fisheye for the a-mount with a filter thread? Probably not for several reasons.

Best regards

Gavin

-------------
Understanding is a 3-edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth.


Posted By: Wirralpix
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 21:14
I've got a modified A200 and use the 1680ZA exclusively and find it very good for IR. The A200 was converted to 720nm by Advanced Camera Services.

You can view my gallery using the A200 and 1680ZA at......

http://www.wirralpix.com/Art/Infrared/10815053_RpqyR - http://www.wirralpix.com/Art/Infrared/10815053_RpqyR

George



Posted By: Bass
Date Posted: 18 November 2010 at 21:34
George - fantastic images you have on your site

If you don't mind sharing - what kind of processing do you do?



-------------
MB


Posted By: Edinator
Date Posted: 19 November 2010 at 02:09
I've used the Minolta 16mm on my full spectrum converted A100. It is a fun lense because of the built in colour filters. You can get some crazy results if you mess around in photoshop.



-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edinator/ - My Flickr
http://www.edtse.com/ - My Blog/Portfolio


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 19 November 2010 at 02:48
Well, quick flip through on the computer, all three of the budget lenses look pretty darn good. The 24/2 looks like it does have a mild hotspot, and the 16 totally varied.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 22 December 2010 at 17:38
Hey

I just tested out my Tokina 11-16 on my IR converted 7D and I'm not seeing any indications of hotspotting on it! :) really happy about that! of course, it may cause hotspotting on another body but with my 7D, it's clean

mike

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 22 December 2010 at 21:06
Originally posted by Twah Twah wrote:

Hey

I just tested out my Tokina 11-16 on my IR converted 7D and I'm not seeing any indications of hotspotting on it! :) really happy about that! of course, it may cause hotspotting on another body but with my 7D, it's clean

mike


I have been interested in trying that lens! Any sample shots?

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 22 December 2010 at 23:50
Hey Groovy

Here's a link to some test pictures with IR with the Tokie 11-16. They aren't great, they are of nothing but I'm just trying to spot HotSpots and to try and figure out the focusing on this lens with IR as it seems to be weird. haha. It's better in bright daylight but it's still off slightly so time to experiment with manual focus on it. My Minolta 24mm (thanks to your recommendation and pics) works beautifully with IR and focusing so I'm guessing it's how wide this thing is that its confusing it's focal point. I know IR focuses at a slightly different point so I just have to find that point and go from there.   It's a great lens on my A700 and my friends (gasp!) Canon. I've seen him use it for 2 years on his Canon before Tokina finally decided to release this awesomeness for us Minolta/Sony people. They will sell a ton of this lens on the A mount because nothing else compares to it.


http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.pisto/Tokie1116Test?feat=directlink

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 30 December 2010 at 20:28
Glad to hear you like the 24mm. It really does live on my A100IR unless I am testing something else.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 30 December 2010 at 21:02
The 24 is perfect for an IR camera. I got it after reading you had no hotspots and it's stuck to my 7DIR now. It's been yucky out lately so I haven't been able to use it much... :( oh well, spring will be here before i know it.

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: pelt
Date Posted: 13 January 2011 at 21:49
I have used Minolta 28/2.8 with some hotspots in the centre (but it might be some light leaks from the uncovered viewfinder).


Posted By: Remko
Date Posted: 22 January 2011 at 09:06
Hi, just curious:

Anybody tried IR photography on a NEX?
perhaps with lenses of another mount?
Thanks.

-------------
Minolta / Dynax / Sony Alpha / NEX
A creative mind.


Posted By: Sanjuro
Date Posted: 10 March 2011 at 18:38
Originally posted by Twah Twah wrote:

Just want to say thanks for creating this threat. I've been trying to find a wider lens for IR that doesn't produce hotspots. For anyone wanting a lens, I'd recommend the Minolta 35-70 because you can get it for about $25-50 (USD) on eBay. It's awesome as long as you don't want to go wider. So I'm bidding on a 18-55 sam since people said it works great so we'll see if I get it.



I just bougth the hoya r72 thinking on this lens :-)

-------------
Rgds
Sanjuro

"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." --Pablo Picasso


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 10 March 2011 at 20:41
Originally posted by Remko Remko wrote:

Hi, just curious:



Anybody tried IR photography on a NEX?

perhaps with lenses of another mount?

Thanks.


You know, I have not even thought to try it yet. I still have a 77mm R72 filter and the A-E adapter. If I get a change I'll give it a shot.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 10 March 2011 at 22:40
Hey Sanjuro,

IR works well with the 35-70. The Minolta 24mm works great as well but it's definitely a lot more expensive. The 35-70 is a great lens for starting out with IR and the filter.

Good luck!

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: Pete Ganzel
Date Posted: 10 March 2011 at 23:33
Originally posted by Remko Remko wrote:

Hi, just curious:

Anybody tried IR photography on a NEX?

perhaps with lenses of another mount?

Thanks.


Remko:

Maybe a little OT because of the forum but you did ask.

The NEX is an ideal IR camera once converted. The WYSIWYG viewing is great with or without an IR filter.   The "kit" zoom works fine without hot spots. All in this gallery were shot with the zoom;

http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/sony_nex_converted_to_infrared - NEX IR

What other mount lenses do you want me to try?

Pete




Posted By: Sanjuro
Date Posted: 16 March 2011 at 13:20
It seems to be a lot of variables regarding the white balance.

Some people don't use WB at all.
Some shoots with the camera already in BW mode, so jpeg here.
Some create a custom white balance to the greens for RAW.
Some create a custom white balance to the white for RAW.

So much confusion, I got the Hoya yesterday and I will try it soon.


-------------
Rgds
Sanjuro

"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." --Pablo Picasso


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 16 March 2011 at 21:25
Sanjuro,

The nice thing about IR is there is no right or wrong. Do whatever you like best!

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Sanjuro
Date Posted: 18 March 2011 at 14:58
Ok, I put my new HoyaR72, 52mm, in the only lens I have with 52mm thread (until I get the adaptor ring).

The lens is an m42 Helios 135/2.8.
I can confirm this lens works fine, I just tested it today at the backyard, it is cloudy so I got 20 sec exposure.

There was not strange light leackage. I couldn't get the green colors to white because is nothing green here :-) so I did a BW conversion.



http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12830232 - here


I will do real tests in the WE, but this lens is woring with the hoya r72.

-------------
Rgds
Sanjuro

"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." --Pablo Picasso


Posted By: Remko
Date Posted: 18 March 2011 at 22:53
Originally posted by groovyone groovyone wrote:


You know, I have not even thought to try it yet. I still have a 77mm R72 filter and the A-E adapter. If I get a change I'll give it a shot.

Originally posted by Pete Ganzel Pete Ganzel wrote:


Remko:
Maybe a little OT because of the forum but you did ask.

The NEX is an ideal IR camera once converted. The WYSIWYG viewing is great with or without an IR filter.   The "kit" zoom works fine without hot spots. All in this gallery were shot with the zoom;
http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/sony_nex_converted_to_infrared - NEX IR
What other mount lenses do you want me to try?

Pete


Groovy & Pete, thanks for your replies

I am waiting for my MD-mount adapter to arrive so I can finally put my old MD-lenses back into use.
Pete: Without IR-conversion the NEX is (absolutely) not usable for IR-photography?
I don't know if it can be converted here, and actually I don't feel like converting it, since I also want to use the Nex as a 'second' body.
I have been able to use Nex upto ISO 6400 (together with both 16mm and 18-55mm lens).
Else I will have to try a filter using either A200 or KM-5D. From this topic I conclude that those can work with a filter and without conversion, right?

If MD-lenses would work, that would be great, but I have other AF lenses that have been reported here to work fine (Min AF 28-85/3.5-4.5 and Sony SAM 18-55), so that wouldn't be the issue.
For MD, for example 50/1.2?

Perhaps I don't understand things right at the moment, but IR-photography would that work when using a flash (or more) as well?
Never did IR-photography, and started reading about it here, so if I ask dumb questions I'm sorry.

Oh... almost forgot to ask. Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye (M42), would that be possible for IR?

-------------
Minolta / Dynax / Sony Alpha / NEX
A creative mind.


Posted By: Pete Ganzel
Date Posted: 19 March 2011 at 04:13
Originally posted by Remko Remko wrote:




Groovy & Pete, thanks for your replies

I am waiting for my MD-mount adapter to arrive so I can finally put my old MD-lenses back into use.
Pete: Without IR-conversion the NEX is (absolutely) not usable for IR-photography?
I don't know if it can be converted here, and actually I don't feel like converting it, since I also want to use the Nex as a 'second' body.
I have been able to use Nex upto ISO 6400 (together with both 16mm and 18-55mm lens).
Else I will have to try a filter using either A200 or KM-5D. From this topic I conclude that those can work with a filter and without conversion, right?

If MD-lenses would work, that would be great, but I have other AF lenses that have been reported here to work fine (Min AF 28-85/3.5-4.5 and Sony SAM 18-55), so that wouldn't be the issue.
For MD, for example 50/1.2?

Perhaps I don't understand things right at the moment, but IR-photography would that work when using a flash (or more) as well?
Never did IR-photography, and started reading about it here, so if I ask dumb questions I'm sorry.

Oh... almost forgot to ask. Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye (M42), would that be possible for IR?


Remko:

Like the later DSLRs, NEX cameras are profoundly blind to IR needing 10-30 seconds in full daylight with the standard cut filter. Once that is removed the camera is actually about a stop faster than an unconverted camera because of the powerful influence of IR. You don't even need an IR lens filter to get a strong "Wood effect". The bodies are cheap enough to have one converted and one unmodified.   

A lot of the "hot spot" problems with lenses are caused by the reflection off the sensor with the feeble light that makes it through the lens filter and the IR cut filter. Converted cameras have much less problems with this and the NEX is even better because there is no chance for leaks from the viewfinder.

IR works great with flash because flash tubes are broad spectrum.

All lenses I've tried work fine including MD, M42, fisheyes, f/1.2 Rokkors, etc. Though the f/1.2 Rokkor must be stopped down sometimes because the NEX has a max shutter speed of 1/4000th sec.

Pete


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 14 April 2011 at 00:21
Hey Groovy,

I just got a Minolta 20mm f2.8 and tested it on my Minolta 7D IR converted body and NO HOTSPOTS!

So you can add that to the list.

Thanks

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 14 April 2011 at 02:58
Nice!

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Jocelynne
Date Posted: 14 April 2011 at 03:48
@groovyone: I have two (2) beercans, both of which seem to be quite good IR lenses. They have IR focus indices @ 210, 100 and 70mm, as well as a popular 55mm diameter filter thread. I have obtained decent results with my beercans equipped with a Hoya R72 on an unmodified A200.

-------------
Maxxum 450si, Sony A300, A700, A900 and a cubic meter of Alpha lenses


Posted By: Kilkry
Date Posted: 08 May 2011 at 11:03
I've used a Sigma 17-70 DC (non OS) with a Hoya R72 and an unmodified A100 for some time. There's a slight big hotspot in the center of every picture (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/39677670@N06/4687793811/in/set-72157624108166375 - "There's so much forest in Sweden" for example) but in some it is hardly noticable. As it has a 72mm filter thread I'd say it's not a great choice for IR.

Was thinking of trying to modify the A100 according to Edinator's guide, sooner rather than later. It isn't going to be easy finding a clear piece of glass of approx the right dimensions, of course. Will start ringing "...and Windows" places during the week, for lack of obvious alternatives.


Posted By: Metasynthese
Date Posted: 15 May 2011 at 04:01
I have the A550 and it does not work for me with IR Filter and 18-55 Kit. Exposure times of 30s are necessary in bright sun. Results are not good.


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 15 May 2011 at 04:10
Originally posted by Metasynthese Metasynthese wrote:

I have the A550 and it does not work for me with IR Filter and 18-55 Kit. Exposure times of 30s are necessary in bright sun. Results are not good.


It seems like the models after the A700 have had really strong IR blocking filters.   

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 03:55
Has anyone tried a Sony or Minolta 24-105 yet? I really want to try one on my A100IR. I'd love the range over my typical 24mm.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: sdm9465
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 16:49
Originally posted by groovyone groovyone wrote:

Has anyone tried a Sony or Minolta 24-105 yet? I really want to try one on my A100IR. I'd love the range over my typical 24mm.

I took a couple of shots with the Minolta lens on my A200IR a few months back. Didn't see any problems but didn't spend much time looking at them either. More testing necessary but it has been raining here forever...

Edit: Reading back over this thread I see you did have a 16-105. Do you no longer have that or did you decide it wasn't so good for IR?

-------------
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/smeredith" rel="nofollow - www.pbase.com/smeredith


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 21:13
I was borrowing it. To be honest, I don't remember if it did well or not. I remember it did better than the 16-80 Zeiss for hotspots.

It was way back on page 1. I may have to keep my eyes peeled for a used one. It is even on my own table. Duh me.

I found photos from testing the 35/1.8 (maybe it is the 35G), 50/1.8, 85/1.4Z and maybe the 30 macro too.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Alex H
Date Posted: 24 July 2011 at 17:57
Keith,

I can confirm that the Sony 35mm F/1.8 SAM lens performs fine in infrared. Tested it on full-spectrum modified Sony A100 with B+W 092, B+W 093 and Hoya R-72 filters.

Alex

-------------
http://www.holovachov.com/fluorescence - Ultraviolet-induced visible fluorescence photography - A7, A77, NEX6, NEX6-FS - http://www.holovachov.com - Gallery


Posted By: sdm9465
Date Posted: 24 July 2011 at 23:15
After a bit more use I'd consider the Minolta 24-105 to be good. Haven't seen any issues with it.

I've also seen some occasional central hot spots with the CZ 135. There is often a weird color blotch in the central area that isn't an issue if you convert to black and white. Sometimes luminosity is affected in addition to the colors though. For me it rates a bit less than good now.

-------------
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/smeredith" rel="nofollow - www.pbase.com/smeredith


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 15:33
Bump. Man I have been slacking. I haven't used my IR cam much lately.

My Minolta 24RS is still my go to lens:



-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: stiuskr
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 17:47
Nice bump, thanks for that

-------------
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2


Posted By: ifreedman
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 18:04
Nice pic! Really interesting colors. A pretty unique portrait.


Posted By: Blame
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 19:15
Man. She should get out in the sun more. Or maybe not...would she burst into flames?

-------------
A900, Min 24-105, 35-105, Samyang 14/2.8, 35/1.4, Sig 70/2.8 Macro, ISCO Ultra 125/2, Tam 180/3.5 Macro, Sig 400/5.6 TeleMacro


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 19:17
Originally posted by stiuskr stiuskr wrote:

Nice bump, thanks for that


No problem.   

I nicknamed the IR cam the "Haircolor truth detector" since dyes will often reflect IR as blue.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Micholand
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 20:17
Keith, you might want to add the http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-90-F2.8-Di_lens117.html" rel="nofollow - Tamron SP AF 90 F2.8 Di to the list of good lenses.

-------------
/Michael

//www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic87334.html - DWEs don't grow on trees! | //www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting images&links FAQ


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 15:47
Originally posted by Micholand Micholand wrote:

Keith, you might want to add the http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-90-F2.8-Di_lens117.html" rel="nofollow - Tamron SP AF 90 F2.8 Di to the list of good lenses.


Good to know.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: mrggt
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 15:27
lenses ive tried so far on an Infrared modified camera

sigma 24-50mm uc. very good results so far no hotspots or hue shifts
minolta 28-85mm f3.5 4.5 good, but colours not as punchy as the sigma
tokina 11-16 f2.8. some good results below f8. af can be an issue
sony 16-50mm f2.8. below f8 is ok but results not as good as older lenses



-------------
A77,A700,50MM F1.4,,BEERCAN,TOKINA 11-16MM,TAM 90MM MACRO,TAM 70-300MM USD, SONY 16-50MM



http://www.garytelfordimages.co.uk - My Gallery


Posted By: jalu
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 16:24
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/sigma-18mm-f35-zen_topic38816_post1108173.html#1108173 - Sigma 18mm/3,5 ZEN

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/minolta-af-50-f28-macro_topic11626_post1108177.html#1108177 - minolta 50/2,8 macro

-------------
I use google English.
I use a Sony Alpha, but it's not the same thing.


Posted By: kerrath
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 18:51
On modified:

-Tamron 20-40 F2.7-3.5 (Good)
Central soft hotspot, pretty easily correctable.
-Tamron 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 (Decent)
Central hotspot, sharp edged, with another wider soft hotspot.
-Sigma 24mm F2.8 (Good)
Good image quality, even when close-focusing. No hotspots.
-Minolta 50 F1.7 (Good)
Just fine, even with a 0.15x fisheye adapter on it.

-------------
http://cpburrows.com - CPBurrows.com


Posted By: Micholand
Date Posted: 21 May 2013 at 20:17
No problems found using http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T*-24mm-F2-ZA-SSM_lens587.html - SAL24F20Z on modified cam as well as unmodified KM7D.

-------------
/Michael

//www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic87334.html - DWEs don't grow on trees! | //www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting images&links FAQ


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 21 May 2013 at 21:26
I'll update the list. I hadn't tried my 24Z yet.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Tanglefoot
Date Posted: 15 July 2013 at 04:24
Well... I was out shooting with a friend a little while ago & while waiting for him to return thought I'd have a little experiment with the a99 fully expecting it to be terrible with IR....

SOOC Jpeg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_al/9287416433/">
15sec f/7.1 22mm 1600ISO

With a little fiddling
http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_al/9290204460/">

Result - pleasantly suprised!
a99 - Conditions were far from perfect for IR & I only spent a couple of minutes so the results are far from conclusive therefore further experimenting may be called for... I usually use my a100 if I want to do IR & I have a feeling that the a99 might not be a million miles away from the results I would have got with the a100...

Minolta 17-35 Using a cokin IR filter the main downside with this combo is severe vignetting - this was shot at 22mm & is still quite severe.
Only tried a limited aperture range & found a bit of a hotspot, but nothing too unmanagable - far better than I recall the old Sony 50 1.4 at similar apertures - which brings me on to.....

Sony 50 1.4 Quite some time ago I did a test with the 50 1.4 taking about 10 tripod mounted pictures at varying apertures with the Cokin filter & the a100. Unfortunatly I cant find the pictures in the depth of my hard drives so may have to repeat the experiment....
At f/1.4 - f/2.2 it is quite usable with only minimal evidence of hotspotting. However, as you stop it down a big central hotspot becomes more & more evident, becoming smaller, more pronounced & defined the smaller the aperture.
This seems to go against the front page list so may be worthy of note...

A bit of a dig hasn't resulted in finding the test I was thinking of but these two show it well enough I think....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_al/9287621647/">
At f/1.6 no bad hotspotting too evident...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_al/9290405786/">
At f/4 hotspotting quite evident.

Hope this helps

-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_al/ - Flickr a99 | a900 | CZ 16-35 2.8 | CZ 24-70 2.8 | Min 28 2.0 | SAL 50 1.4 | Sig 70-200 2.8 HSM OS | Sammy 85 1.4 | Sig 105M | CZ 135 1.8


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 15 July 2013 at 15:54
I hadn't tested my A99 yet. I need to get my IR filters back since I loaned them out. The ones you posted look better than anything I got out of my A900.

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid


Posted By: Twah
Date Posted: 16 July 2013 at 01:17
yeah i have the sony 50 1.4 and it hotspots badly!   it helps to get old minolta lenses because they have the IR indicators and they seem to always work with IR. I have a 20, 24, 35 minolta's and they are fine with IR.    I fiddled with IR filters before finding a deal on ebay with a minolta 7D IR converted body and it just makes things so much easier. haha.

good job on capturing and inverting the colors to get that IR look.

-------------
Sony A700 w/vertical grip|Minolta 7D IR Converted|Minolta 35 F2|Sony 50 F1.4|Tamron 17-50|70-200|200-500|Kenko 1.4x|Minolta 35-70(IR)
|Sony accessories|Adorama Flashpoint F1228 Tripod|F3 Ball Head


Posted By: groovyone
Date Posted: 16 July 2013 at 15:34
I moved the Sony 50mm f/1.4 to BAD

-------------
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|Maxxum 7|Maxxum 5|Polaroid



Print Page | Close Window