Which lenses are particularly suitable for Infrared photography (IR)

[Christoph Stephan]

I plan to convert one of my Canon SLRs to IR, with a 630nm cut-off filter. I now got the information that lenses differ significantly in their suitability to IR and that this difference is not necessarily correlated with price and performance in the visible range (1). Canon's Ef 70-200mm lenses do have an IR mark on their focus scale (2) and therefore seem to be quite suitable for IR (2). My EF-S 55-250 mm IS unfortunately has not.

Apart from this, the EF-S 17-85mm IS is my main landscape lens which I plan to use on my IR camera. I do also have the EF 100-400mm L IS, the Tamron 28-300mm VC, the Sigma 50mm Macro, the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro - are they any good for IR?

So, IR photographers - which lenses (Canon or third party with Canon-fit) do you use on you IR converted Canon SLRs, and which ones can you recommend?

--
Chris
-----
http://www.redbubble.com/people/christopher363

 

[Christoph Stephan]

I plan to convert one of my Canon SLRs to IR, with a 630nm cut-off filter. I now got the information that lenses differ significantly in their suitability to IR and that this difference is not necessarily correlated with price and performance in the visible range (1). Canon's Ef 70-200mm lenses do have an IR mark on their focus scale (2) and therefore seem to be quite suitable for IR (2). My EF-S 55-250 mm IS unfortunately has not.

Apart from this, the EF-S 17-85mm IS is my main landscape lens which I plan to use on my IR camera. I do also have the EF 100-400mm L IS, the Tamron 28-300mm VC, the Sigma 50mm Macro, the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro - are they any good for IR?

So, IR photographers - which lenses (Canon or third party with Canon-fit) do you use on you IR converted Canon SLRs, and which ones can you recommend?

 

[photonius]

I plan to convert one of my Canon SLRs to IR, with a 630nm cut-off filter. I now got the information that lenses differ significantly in their suitability to IR and that this difference is not necessarily correlated with price and performance in the visible range (1). Canon's Ef 70-200mm lenses do have an IR mark on their focus scale (2) and therefore seem to be quite suitable for IR (2). My EF-S 55-250 mm IS unfortunately has not.

Apart from this, the EF-S 17-85mm IS is my main landscape lens which I plan to use on my IR camera. I do also have the EF 100-400mm L IS, the Tamron 28-300mm VC, the Sigma 50mm Macro, the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro - are they any good for IR?

So, IR photographers - which lenses (Canon or third party with Canon-fit) do you use on you IR converted Canon SLRs, and which ones can you recommend?

 

[Mike K]

I use an IR converted 5DII, and don't have any of your lenses so can't help you there. Based upon by experience with Canon dSLR IR performance, here are a few tips:

As mentioned by the other poster, AF calibration will likely change enough that it will be inaccurate. The specific index of refraction of the lens elements is wavelength specific, throwing off AF for the IR wavelength range. Use Live View and manual focus, or recalibrate micro adjust for each lens. I use Live View 5-10X and MF. The choice of IR filter on your sensor may also impact the degree of chromatic aberation depending upon on subject, although this is more subtle than AF miscalibration. The degree of AF calibration change and CA is very lens dependent.

The internal reflections referred to by the first poster will be seen and bright circular areas in your images. This is lens specific, not always present with those lenses, and when seen may not make the images useless. Depending upon the image, it is possible to lower the luminance in the affected area. However, avoiding those lenses will save you struggling in post.

Set your histogram to display RGB, not luminance, and check it after every composition change. Notice that the IR filter will overload the red channel well before the others, assuming a normal exposure and color distribution. Don't blow your red channel!

Develop a white balance strategy: add on WB lens cap, WB card, etc. This will save time during your conversions in post, whether you convert strictly to B&W or partial color.

Mike K

 

[Mike K]

I use Live View 5-10X and MF.
Set your histogram to display RGB, not luminance, and check it after every composition change.

If you are considering converting a dSLR to IR and it has neither magnified Live View for MF nor an RGB histogram display, then don'tbother converting it! It will be a struggle to focus a variety of lenses and exposure will be a crap shoot. Find another body that does have these features for conversion.

Mike K

 

[peterharvey]

Would you know which is better, especially image quality wise?

1) An old 2003 Canon EOS 300D with a stock EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 USM converted to an infra-red camera?

2) Or purchasing a Flir e40 @ 160x120 pixels for USD 3995, or a Flir e60 @ 320x240 pixels for USD 7995?



[ATTACH alt="Flir e60 320x240 pixel infra-red camera with a 3.5" touch screen, built-in LED light, built-in laser pointer, SD card still and movie recording, and built-in wireless transmission, all for $7,995."]560584[/ATTACH]
Flir e60 320x240 pixel infra-red camera with a 3.5" touch screen, built-in LED light, built-in laser pointer, SD card still and movie recording, and built-in wireless transmission, all for $7,995.

 

[Mike K]

I plan to convert one of my Canon SLRs to IR, with a 630nm cut-off filter. I now got the information that lenses differ significantly in their suitability to IR and that this difference is not necessarily correlated with price and performance in the visible range (1). Canon's Ef 70-200mm lenses do have an IR mark on their focus scale (2) and therefore seem to be quite suitable for IR (2). My EF-S 55-250 mm IS unfortunately has not.

Additional response to your questions:

The red mark on the focal distance scale is a left over from film IR use. You will notice that all of these lenses are older and that they vary quite a bit as to their offset from the infinity mark. This is the focus offset as mentioned earlier in this thread. For zooms it can vary with zoom position as well. Of course before digital there were no sensor reflections to deal with and the glaring spot syndrome was not an issue, but focus calibration was, since one was focusing with visible light, but the image was captured with IR light.

EF-S lens mount was developed for the crop size digital sensor, and IR cameras were all of full frame sized film (or larger format). Thus you will never see red IR focus marks on an EF-S lens. However it does not mean that EF-S bodies will not work for IR modified sensor cameras.

Mike K

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Dear Mark, my very greatest thanks for your helpful suggestions. One main thing I got from them is that it is basically essential to have lifeview on the IR camera, to correct focus.

This turns my choices for the IR conversion into two

1. EOS 40D at Company A (DSLR Astrotec, cheaper): As this company would adjust the AF only for one lens (my EF-S17-85mm IS) it would be essential to have life view with all other lenses.

2. EOS 20D at Company B (Optik Makario, more expensive): This company promises to adjust AF for all zooms in the range 10-200mm. They use a 18-200mm for adjustment, and I would have to send in my EF-S 10-22mm so that they cover this range as well. If this works, the need for manual focus with lifeview would go away, thus conversion of the 20D becomes feasible. This company is more expensive, and only conversion of the 20D lies in the desired price range; conversion of the EOS 40D by them would be prohibitively expensive.

I tend to favour solution 2 in the moment, as I am no great fan of live view and solution 2 were I could use the optical finder only (and AF in all situations) would be far more convenient. However, I have heard that the focus difference between IR and visible light is different for each lens. With this in mind, does company B (Optik Makario) promise too much?

On an additional side note, my old Photoshops versions reads only Raws from the 20D, not 40D. Any freeware suggestions?

A lot of thanks for your answers.

--
Chris
-----
http://www.redbubble.com/people/christopher363

 

[Mike K]

Dear Mark, my very greatest thanks for your helpful suggestions. One main thing I got from them is that it is basically essential to have lifeview on the IR camera, to correct focus.

This turns my choices for the IR conversion into two

1. EOS 40D at Company A (DSLR Astrotec, cheaper): As this company would adjust the AF only for one lens (my EF-S17-85mm IS) it would be essential to have life view with all other lenses.

2. EOS 20D at Company B (Optik Makario, more expensive): This company promises to adjust AF for all zooms in the range 10-200mm. They use a 18-200mm for adjustment, and I would have to send in my EF-S 10-22mm so that they cover this range as well. If this works, the need for manual focus with lifeview would go away, thus conversion of the 20D becomes feasible. This company is more expensive, and only conversion of the 20D lies in the desired price range; conversion of the EOS 40D by them would be prohibitively expensive.

I tend to favour solution 2 in the moment, as I am no great fan of live view and solution 2 were I could use the optical finder only (and AF in all situations) would be far more convenient. However, I have heard that the focus difference between IR and visible light is different for each lens. With this in mind, does company B (Optik Makario) promise too much?

On an additional side note, my old Photoshops versions reads only Raws from the 20D, not 40D. Any freeware suggestions?

The 40D was among Canon's first Live View cameras, also I see that it has separate R,G,B histogram during image review in addition to luminance. I consider these essential features for IR photography. (from many years of frustration not having these features in an IR body). I strongly recommend not IR modifying the 20D. My extreme frustration with not having Live View and RGB histograms comes from using an IR modified D60 (not 60D), very similar in vintage to the 20D. an IR 20D will certainly yield frustration in out of focus images that are over exposed. That being said, I notice that the 40D has an older LCD with only 230k dot resolution, whereas modern Canon dSLRs (even entry level) have 1.0m dot LCDs. This lower resolution screen may often be insufficient for accurate manual focus adjustment.

All zoom lenses will change their IR focus calibration upon zooming, so you can only AF calibrate one lens at one zoom position. Calibration at other zoom positions is a guess. Remember the red infinity IR focus marks vary lens to lens and with zoom position? On my older Canon 24-70 f2.8L this IR calibration changes markedly from 24-70mm at infinity distance. So even with the 40D and your calibrated 17-85, AF may be off depending upon zoom position and subject/camera distance. If you are really not interested in Live View/tripod for manual focusing, then bracket at -2.0 EV and focus bracket as well. Also use for f11 and smaller apertures will help to minimize AF calibration errors, but not the over exposure of the red channel. Thus you will shoot 9-12 shots to get one to take home (maybe).

Remember that phase detect AF uses visible wavelengths to AF, and will inherently be off for IR modified sensors. For recent cameras with a Live View you can use Live View "Live" AF, which is contrast detect AF. This will work as the sensor itself is used for AF. Sadly the 40D predates this contrast detect AF feature and it is only available on the more recent bodies.

Needless to say Company B is unrealistic, as the camera body can only be AF calibrated to one lens at one subject distance, unless you get a model with micro adjust. Micro adjust can help to calibrate AF from lense to lens with a given body. Even then those are small AF adjustments, and IR focus calibration may exceed this MA adjustment range. Manual focus with a high resolution Live View is the only guaranteed accurate universal focus for IR.

As for RAW conversions, don't you have DPP that came with the camera?

Just to show you it can be done with my older D60. As I recall this was hand held as I was standing on a log sitting in this large puddle.

http://www.fototime.com/C03ACD0A9DE2086/large.jpg

shot with IR modified D60. Many shots were taken to get one good one. However its much more productive to use the right tools.

http://www.fototime.com/0EB3CE9D5C33618/large.jpg

Paper Crane Tribute to Manzanar

IR Modified 5DII with 24 TSE II lens. RAW converted 3 times and various conversion areas blended. Used magnified Live View with external monitor to fine adjust both tilt and focus. I am happy with the 5DII feature set for IR.

Mike K

 

[photonius]

Would you know which is better, especially image quality wise?

1) An old 2003 Canon EOS 300D with a stock EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 USM converted to an infra-red camera?

2) Or purchasing a Flir e40 @ 160x120 pixels for USD 3995, or a Flir e60 @ 320x240 pixels for USD 7995?



[ATTACH alt="Flir e60 320x240 pixel infra-red camera with a 3.5" touch screen, built-in LED light, built-in laser pointer, SD card still and movie recording, and built-in wireless transmission, all for $7,995."]560584[/ATTACH]
Flir e60 320x240 pixel infra-red camera with a 3.5" touch screen, built-in LED light, built-in laser pointer, SD card still and movie recording, and built-in wireless transmission, all for $7,995.











these two products are NOT comparable. IR photography is NOT thermal sensitive like the cameras used to detect heat leaks, it just extends into the infrared. The wavelengths used for thermal cameras are much longer.

--
*** Life is short, time to zoom in *** ©

 

[photonius]

Dear Mark, my very greatest thanks for your helpful suggestions. One main thing I got from them is that it is basically essential to have lifeview on the IR camera, to correct focus.

This turns my choices for the IR conversion into two

1. EOS 40D at Company A (DSLR Astrotec, cheaper): As this company would adjust the AF only for one lens (my EF-S17-85mm IS) it would be essential to have life view with all other lenses.

2. EOS 20D at Company B (Optik Makario, more expensive): This company promises to adjust AF for all zooms in the range 10-200mm. They use a 18-200mm for adjustment, and I would have to send in my EF-S 10-22mm so that they cover this range as well. If this works, the need for manual focus with lifeview would go away, thus conversion of the 20D becomes feasible. This company is more expensive, and only conversion of the 20D lies in the desired price range; conversion of the EOS 40D by them would be prohibitively expensive.

I tend to favour solution 2 in the moment, as I am no great fan of live view and solution 2 were I could use the optical finder only (and AF in all situations) would be far more convenient. However, I have heard that the focus difference between IR and visible light is different for each lens. With this in mind, does company B (Optik Makario) promise too much?

the question arises how you want to have the camera modified? If internal filters are removed, that also creates a focus offset (different type of offset than that of the IR point on the lens). Will you use IR filters, or is it for astronomy with just no filter? Will you use a IR filter internally in the modified camera, or in front of the lens? If in front of the lens, you can quite forget looking through the viewfinder, it's pitch-dark.

On an additional side note, my old Photoshops versions reads only Raws from the 20D, not 40D. Any freeware suggestions?

Canon's DPP that comes with the camera.

A lot of thanks for your answers.

 

[peterharvey]

Thanks for the info, otherwise I just wouldn't have known.

I'll be getting either a Flir e40 or e60 soon...

 

[rrccad]

I plan to convert one of my Canon SLRs to IR, with a 630nm cut-off filter. I now got the information that lenses differ significantly in their suitability to IR and that this difference is not necessarily correlated with price and performance in the visible range (1). Canon's Ef 70-200mm lenses do have an IR mark on their focus scale (2) and therefore seem to be quite suitable for IR (2). My EF-S 55-250 mm IS unfortunately has not.

Apart from this, the EF-S 17-85mm IS is my main landscape lens which I plan to use on my IR camera. I do also have the EF 100-400mm L IS, the Tamron 28-300mm VC, the Sigma 50mm Macro, the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro - are they any good for IR?

So, IR photographers - which lenses (Canon or third party with Canon-fit) do you use on you IR converted Canon SLRs, and which ones can you recommend?

a standard rule of thumb, hardly any third party lenses work that well. occasionally there are surprises but not often.

google around and there's few lists and some of them are more up to date than others.

17-85 works okay with an IR converted camera - however i would use DPP and DLO (I believe it's supported) with that as your pre step, then crank the daylights out of your raws to convert.

DLO should help the 17-85 out alot.

EF-S 10-22 works as well for IR.

Not sure about the others - my guess would be no. you may get lucky with the 50mm macro.

 

[rrccad]

Dear Mark, my very greatest thanks for your helpful suggestions. One main thing I got from them is that it is basically essential to have lifeview on the IR camera, to correct focus.

This turns my choices for the IR conversion into two

1. EOS 40D at Company A (DSLR Astrotec, cheaper): As this company would adjust the AF only for one lens (my EF-S17-85mm IS) it would be essential to have life view with all other lenses.

2. EOS 20D at Company B (Optik Makario, more expensive): This company promises to adjust AF for all zooms in the range 10-200mm. They use a 18-200mm for adjustment, and I would have to send in my EF-S 10-22mm so that they cover this range as well. If this works, the need for manual focus with lifeview would go away, thus conversion of the 20D becomes feasible. This company is more expensive, and only conversion of the 20D lies in the desired price range; conversion of the EOS 40D by them would be prohibitively expensive.

honestly live view for an IR converted camera makes a world of difference. that being said, I shot 100,000 IR shots on a converted 20D

 

[Christoph Stephan]

The 40D was among Canon's first Live View cameras, also I see that it has separate R,G,B histogram during image review in addition to luminance. I consider these essential features for IR photography. (from many years of frustration not having these features in an IR body). I strongly recommend not IR modifying the 20D. My extreme frustration with not having Live View and RGB histograms comes from using an IR modified D60 (not 60D), very similar in vintage to the 20D. an IR 20D will certainly yield frustration in out of focus images that are over exposed. That being said, I notice that the 40D has an older LCD with only 230k dot resolution, whereas modern Canon dSLRs (even entry level) have 1.0m dot LCDs. This lower resolution screen may often be insufficient for accurate manual focus adjustment.

All zoom lenses will change their IR focus calibration upon zooming, so you can only AF calibrate one lens at one zoom position. Calibration at other zoom positions is a guess. Remember the red infinity IR focus marks vary lens to lens and with zoom position? On my older Canon 24-70 f2.8L this IR calibration changes markedly from 24-70mm at infinity distance. So even with the 40D and your calibrated 17-85, AF may be off depending upon zoom position and subject/camera distance. If you are really not interested in Live View/tripod for manual focusing, then bracket at -2.0 EV and focus bracket as well. Also use for f11 and smaller apertures will help to minimize AF calibration errors, but not the over exposure of the red channel. Thus you will shoot 9-12 shots to get one to take home (maybe).

Remember that phase detect AF uses visible wavelengths to AF, and will inherently be off for IR modified sensors. For recent cameras with a Live View you can use Live View "Live" AF, which is contrast detect AF. This will work as the sensor itself is used for AF. Sadly the 40D predates this contrast detect AF feature and it is only available on the more recent bodies.

Needless to say Company B is unrealistic, as the camera body can only be AF calibrated to one lens at one subject distance, unless you get a model with micro adjust. Micro adjust can help to calibrate AF from lense to lens with a given body. Even then those are small AF adjustments, and IR focus calibration may exceed this MA adjustment range. Manual focus with a high resolution Live View is the only guaranteed accurate universal focus for IR.

As for RAW conversions, don't you have DPP that came with the camera?

Just to show you it can be done with my older D60. As I recall this was hand held as I was standing on a log sitting in this large puddle.

http://www.fototime.com/C03ACD0A9DE2086/large.jpg

shot with IR modified D60. Many shots were taken to get one good one. However its much more productive to use the right tools.

http://www.fototime.com/0EB3CE9D5C33618/large.jpg

Paper Crane Tribute to Manzanar

IR Modified 5DII with 24 TSE II lens. RAW converted 3 times and various conversion areas blended. Used magnified Live View with external monitor to fine adjust both tilt and focus. I am happy with the 5DII feature set for IR.

Mike K

Your pics are really excellent, real pieces of art! I particualry liked the first one, where not only the IR, but also the reflection created a very nice dreamy, fairytale-like impression.

Thanks a lot for your detailed advice and for the effort you went through to find out all the details of these different, now ancient cameras! It appears that Lifeview is indeed indispendible.

Regarding the AF (ond focussing though the finder) unfortunetaly no good news!

Conversion of the 40D to IR is €250 for the cheaper company A (DLSR Astrotec) and €484 for the more expensive company B (Makario) who promise to adjust AF in the range 10-200mm, which, according to your experience, is impossible.

Which company did you use (and when) to have your camera IR-converted? Or did you do it yourself?

DPP might indeed be the best option then. Can you do the initial steps, but not the channel swapping in DPP? Do you do the initial steps there and save it as .tiff or in another compatible format there, and continue in Photoshop (or GIMP etc.)? How is your workflow?

Again, a lot of thanks for all your efforts.

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Dear Mark, my very greatest thanks for your helpful suggestions. One main thing I got from them is that it is basically essential to have lifeview on the IR camera, to correct focus.

This turns my choices for the IR conversion into two

1. EOS 40D at Company A (DSLR Astrotec, cheaper): As this company would adjust the AF only for one lens (my EF-S17-85mm IS) it would be essential to have life view with all other lenses.

2. EOS 20D at Company B (Optik Makario, more expensive): This company promises to adjust AF for all zooms in the range 10-200mm. They use a 18-200mm for adjustment, and I would have to send in my EF-S 10-22mm so that they cover this range as well. If this works, the need for manual focus with lifeview would go away, thus conversion of the 20D becomes feasible. This company is more expensive, and only conversion of the 20D lies in the desired price range; conversion of the EOS 40D by them would be prohibitively expensive.

I tend to favour solution 2 in the moment, as I am no great fan of live view and solution 2 were I could use the optical finder only (and AF in all situations) would be far more convenient. However, I have heard that the focus difference between IR and visible light is different for each lens. With this in mind, does company B (Optik Makario) promise too much?

the question arises how you want to have the camera modified? If internal filters are removed, that also creates a focus offset (different type of offset than that of the IR point on the lens). Will you use IR filters, or is it for astronomy with just no filter? Will you use a IR filter internally in the modified camera, or in front of the lens? If in front of the lens, you can quite forget looking through the viewfinder, it's pitch-dark.

I am aware of these problems you mentioned. Therefore, I plan to have the internal filters removed and an high-pass filter (> 630nm) installed. Autofcous, if not adjusted, will inevitably become useless, due to the different wavelengths of the electromagnetic radiation utilised.

Company A (DSLR Astrotrec, substantially cheaper) will adjust the AF for one zoom lens only. I would chose the EF-17-85 mm IS as my main landscape lens.

Company B (Optik Makario, a lot more expensive) promises to adjust AF in IR for all lenses in the range of 18-200. If I send in my ultrawidea (EF-S 10-22mm) they promsie to adjust this as well, so that the AF would cover 10-200 mm. Is this possible?

Where did you have your camera converted to IR?

On an additional side note, my old Photoshops versions reads only Raws from the 20D, not 40D. Any freeware suggestions?

Canon's DPP that comes with the camera.

DPP might indeed be the best option then. Can you do the initial steps, but not the channel swapping in DPP? Do you do the initial steps there and save it as .tiff or in another compatible format there, and continue in Photoshop (or GIMP etc.)? How is your workflow?

A lot of thanks for all your efforts.

Chris
-----

christopher363 Shop | Redbubble

christopher363 is an independent artist creating amazing designs for great products such as t-shirts, stickers, posters, and phone cases.

www.redbubble.com

 

[Christoph Stephan]

a standard rule of thumb, hardly any third party lenses work that well. occasionally there are surprises but not often.

google around and there's few lists and some of them are more up to date than others.

17-85 works okay with an IR converted camera - however i would use DPP and DLO (I believe it's supported) with that as your pre step, then crank the daylights out of your raws to convert.

DLO should help the 17-85 out alot.

EF-S 10-22 works as well for IR.

Not sure about the others - my guess would be no. you may get lucky with the 50mm macro.

Thanks a lot, this is valuable information and relieving to hear - I plan to use mostly my Canon EF-S lenses on my IR converted camera.

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Thank's a lot. I sold my old Canon EOS 300D on ebay. It was quite an adventure .... but this is another story....

 

[Christoph Stephan]

A while back I tried to compile a list of good and bad lenses
http://photonius.wikispaces.com/hotspot+lenses

Thank you very much for this very valuable link. It is indeed a great relief - all of my EF-S lenses I intend to use for IR are suitable. Only my trusty Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro is not - but I can live with that. My EF-S 17-85mm IS will cover the range on IR. IS is probably more important for landscape IR than limited depth of field, I would assume.

 

[Mike K]

DPP might indeed be the best option then. Can you do the initial steps, but not the channel swapping in DPP? Do you do the initial steps there and save it as .tiff or in another compatible format there, and continue in Photoshop (or GIMP etc.)? How is your workflow?

I had the 5DII super color modification done at LifePixel

Introduction

Thank you for choosing Life Pixel as your camera conversion provider! You've DEFINITELY made the right choice. We’ve prepared this short series to explain the various camera conversion options available and to help you make an informed decision when placing your order. Please review this section...

www.lifepixel.com

There are several tutorials on that site as well as advice on using DPP for conversion. Yes, convert to TIFF and edit in PS.

lens list here, I see the 10-22 does fine, other EF-S not listed

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18698

Mike K