# Infra red filter - question



## mirekti (May 18, 2013)

I saw some nice infra red photos and I wondered are there two types of filters?
Namely, I thought that UV/IR filter is used to cut of those rays. So what filter should one use for IR photography? Are these different filters or I missed something?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2013)

If using a dSLR, it needs to be modified for IR imaging. There's an IR cut filter on top of the sensor, there are outfits that remove them for you. Then you need a filter on your lens to block the visible wavelengths.


----------



## mirekti (May 18, 2013)

Thanks, but I read that sensors don't fully block IR, so one can kind of do IR photos with longer exposures.
I found a good link to start off with. Got it now. Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2013)

Something like the B+W IR Black (093) filter, or some other brand on IR Pass filter.


----------



## shutterwideshut (May 18, 2013)

mirekti said:


> I saw some nice infra red photos and I wondered are there two types of filters?
> Namely, I thought that UV/IR filter is used to cut of those rays. So what filter should one use for IR photography? Are these different filters or I missed something?



The cheapest way to do IR photography is by using a Hoya R72 screw-in filter which has a 720-nm cut-off. The most obvious disadvantage though is you have to shoot ultra long exposure and that means approximately 15~16 stops. Here's one of my shots using that method:

*Déjà vu*
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon EF17-40mm f/4L USM ı Hoya R72 IR Filter ı 17mm ı 239s ı f/8 ı ISO 100



Déjà vu by shutterwideshut on Flickr

The other more expensive choice is to convert your old DSLR to IR. There are lots of filter cut-offs but I find the most flexible one to post-process is the 590 nm. Life Pixel converts cameras for IR photography. You can check it out here: http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials.

Here are some shots I did with an IR modified 20D:

*Final Fantasy*
IR Modified Canon EOS 20D ı Canon EF-S10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ı 10 mm ı 1/250s ı f/8 ı ISO 200



Final Fantasy by shutterwideshut on Flickr

*Ethereal Garden*
IR Modified Canon EOS 20D ı Canon EF17-40mm f/4L USM ı 17mm ı 1/250s ı f/9 ı ISO 200


Ethereal Garden by shutterwideshut on Flickr


----------



## serendipidy (May 18, 2013)

shutterwideshut

I really like the look of your last 2 shots. I have been thinking of converting my XSi to do IR photography.


----------



## shutterwideshut (May 18, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> shutterwideshut
> 
> I really like the look of your last 2 shots. I have been thinking of converting my XSi to do IR photography.



Thanks. If you are in the US, the best way to convert it is to have it shipped to Life Pixel. The good thing about IR photography is the optimum timing to shoot IR is during high noon or harsh sunlight. So this means you can maximize your time shooting landscapes in the golden and blue hours and shoot IR at high noon.  Though the learning curve is steep but once you start to like it, well, you will really like it. An accomplished IR film photographer once said: "...people either love IR photography or just don't get it but the ones who love it really love it. "


----------



## fugu82 (May 18, 2013)

I had my 40D converted by LifePixel - they are great! One thing I ran up against pretty quickly, tho, is that a lot of lenses, in particular the 16-35 I was hoping to use for landscapes, have a nasty PITA "hot spot" of reduced exposure in the center of every shot [due to the way IR reflects inside the optics]. I'm currently looking at the Sigma 15mm to use on WA shots, since it is reportedly better. It would pay to research your current lenses before you commit to IR.


----------



## shutterwideshut (May 18, 2013)

fugu82 said:


> I had my 40D converted by LifePixel - they are great! One thing I ran up against pretty quickly, tho, is that a lot of lenses, in particular the 16-35 I was hoping to use for landscapes, have a nasty PITA "hot spot" of reduced exposure in the center of every shot [due to the way IR reflects inside the optics]. I'm currently looking at the Sigma 15mm to use on WA shots, since it is reportedly better. It would pay to research your current lenses before you commit to IR.



The 16-35mm is indeed not recommended for IR work. Here's a link on which lenses are suitable or not for IR photography: http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_infra_red_IR.html

Cheers.


----------



## serendipidy (May 18, 2013)

Thanks shutterwideshut. I wasn't aware of this problem. I have a number of lenses on the good list. Great resource.


----------



## shutterwideshut (May 18, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> Thanks shutterwideshut. I wasn't aware of this problem. I have a number of lenses on the good list. Great resource.



You're welcome, serendipidy. I have a superb copy of the 17-40mm which is also suitable for IR and this is always my lens of choice for IR work. Cheers.

Rik


----------



## candyman (May 18, 2013)

shutterwideshut said:


> fugu82 said:
> 
> 
> > I had my 40D converted by LifePixel - they are great! One thing I ran up against pretty quickly, tho, is that a lot of lenses, in particular the 16-35 I was hoping to use for landscapes, have a nasty PITA "hot spot" of reduced exposure in the center of every shot [due to the way IR reflects inside the optics]. I'm currently looking at the Sigma 15mm to use on WA shots, since it is reportedly better. It would pay to research your current lenses before you commit to IR.
> ...




It seems to be a rather "old" list.
In the list the Canon 16-35mm is mentioned but not the MKII. Does it mean that the MKII does not have the hotspot problem?
I also do not see the Canon 24-105.
Are there any updated resources of what lens to use and what not?


----------



## shutterwideshut (May 18, 2013)

candyman said:


> It seems to be a rather "old" list.
> In the list the Canon 16-35mm is mentioned but not the MKII. Does it mean that the MKII does not have the hotspot problem?
> I also do not see the Canon 24-105.
> Are there any updated resources of what lens to use and what not?



Well, it is quite challenging to find an updated list wherein the 16-35mm II is included in the list. However, I joined a Canon sponsored IR Photography Masterclass not so long time ago wherein the insructor has both the 16-35mm II and 17-40mm but stays away from using the 16-35mm II for IR work due to hotspot issues. It may be a case to case basis though.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 18, 2013)

shutterwideshut said:


> The 16-35mm is indeed not recommended for IR work. Here's a link on which lenses are suitable or not for IR photography: http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_infra_red_IR.html
> 
> Cheers.


Thanks for sharing this useful info.


----------



## lol (May 18, 2013)

If you have an unmodified body, the Hoya R72 filter is the standard way of doing it, requiring long exposures. You can find unbranded filters off ebay at much lower cost too, but their responses are a bit hit and miss. Key to success is cutting out enough visible red leaving the IR intact. One IR filter I bought off ebay passed too much red so you just ended up with a red image on an unmodified body. With a modified one, the IR response was again enough to swamp the visible red and you still had IR effect.

An even lower cost option is to use lighting gels. Stack some layers of primary red and congo blue. The red and blue will block visible, but both are designed to pass IR so lights don't overheat. About two or 3 layers of each gives a similar effect to R72.

What I did before was to get an 300D which is dirt cheap now, and an unbranded filter from ebay. Using a glass cutter I could cut the filter into the right size to fit over the sensor. Instructions on how to take apart a 300D are on lifepixel. A bit of improvisation was needed to remove and swap the filter with my home cut one (yes, I used tape, see attached image). Put it back and by chance AF was "close enough" for slower lenses to still use. Exposure was wildly different from normal though so that required manual setting, but thankfully doesn't change too much when outdoors. Big drawback was dust gets everywhere and if it's between filter and sensor, you're not going to get it out short of taking it apart again.

Attached example was taken using the modified 300D, Samyang 8mm fisheye.


----------



## g2 (May 18, 2013)

candyman said:


> Are there any updated resources of what lens to use and what not?



There ya go 
http://kolarivision.com/lenshotspot.html

I have no affiliation with them, had done a lot or research before getting my camera converted and the link was in my bookmarks. I got a 600D converted to full spectrum by lifepixel, very happy with their service.

Cheers,
g2

p.s. Not sure how accurate their list is but it is elaborate.


----------



## g2 (May 18, 2013)

Full spectrum is another option if you are considering a conversion. It allows you to shoot UV, IR or visible light via the use of external filters. I took this route.

Just to show an example. same scene in Visible light and IR 600nm.

Visible light (UV/IR cut filter)







IR 600nm (Tiffen red filter IIRC)





g2


----------



## candyman (May 18, 2013)

g2 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any updated resources of what lens to use and what not?
> ...




Thanks for that!


----------



## g2 (May 20, 2013)

candyman said:


> g2 said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



No worries


----------



## gferdinandsen (May 20, 2013)

shutterwideshut said:


> fugu82 said:
> 
> 
> > I had my 40D converted by LifePixel - they are great! One thing I ran up against pretty quickly, tho, is that a lot of lenses, in particular the 16-35 I was hoping to use for landscapes, have a nasty PITA "hot spot" of reduced exposure in the center of every shot [due to the way IR reflects inside the optics]. I'm currently looking at the Sigma 15mm to use on WA shots, since it is reportedly better. It would pay to research your current lenses before you commit to IR.
> ...


----------



## gferdinandsen (May 20, 2013)

Another option to having an older DSLR converted by Lifepixel. Is to check eBay for Lifepixel converted P&S. Before I had D40 converted to 590nm, I bought a G9 conveted to the same cut-off for about $300 off ebay. Once I was happy with the choice of wavelength cut-off, I just relisted the P&S back on EBay.


----------



## ahab1372 (May 20, 2013)

just came across another resource at lens rentals.com:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/cameras/infrared

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/cameras/infrared/canon-5d-mark-ii-ir-modified-715nm has a list of recommended lenses


----------



## wickidwombat (May 21, 2013)

candyman said:


> shutterwideshut said:
> 
> 
> > fugu82 said:
> ...



the mk2 does have the problem as i've tried it  its not good


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2013)

These lenses do not have hotspot's in my experiences.

24L
50L
135L
24-105L


----------



## wickidwombat (May 21, 2013)

the 50 f1.4 is just as bad as the 16-35 mk2 aswell


----------



## shutterwideshut (Jun 4, 2013)

candyman said:


> It seems to be a rather "old" list.
> In the list the Canon 16-35mm is mentioned but not the MKII. Does it mean that the MKII does not have the hotspot problem?
> I also do not see the Canon 24-105.
> Are there any updated resources of what lens to use and what not?



Here's one updated link from Life Pixel I stumbled today that proves that the 16-35mm II has hot spots, indeed. This also includes the superb 24-70mm II.  http://www.lifepixel.com/lens-considerations

Cheers.


----------



## candyman (Jun 4, 2013)

shutterwideshut said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to be a rather "old" list.
> ...



Thanks. Wow, even the 24-70 MKII.
What about the Tamron 24-70 VC ? I googled but could not find info yet.


----------

