NikonGear'23
Images => Life, the Universe & Everything Else => Topic started by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 01, 2017, 11:15:30
-
Some of the hidden virtues of the old Nikkors are their often surprisingly good performance for infrared (IR) photography. Most of my IR work thus is conducted with various venerable manual-focus Nikkors. Even the "dog" Nikkor, the 43-86 mm f/3.5 Zoom-Nikkor, turns in a healthy result with IR.
For true IR photography, a camera suitable for IR must of course be employed. Fortunately, many of the older or newer Nikons can do well once they have been modified for this purpose. It is a great way to "recirculate" old cameras no longer deemed useful for mainstream photography. Most of my IR cameras have had the internal filter pack (ICF) replaced by an IR long-pass filter, such as the popular R72-class with 50% transmittance at 720 nm, thus into the near IR. I have a suspicion that the CCD-typ sensor holds a slight upper edge against the current CMOs technology; however, the pixel numbers of the newer CMOS models surpass those of the CCD generation. So if sheer resolution potential is desirable, modifying a newer camera might be the preferred option in the end.
I used earlier Nikon D200 and d40X for Ir and still keep these cameras as a backup for my current IR main camera, which is a D5300. I landed on the D5300 as the first choice because it had good resolution (24 MPix), built-in GPS (very important to me), and fast-working LiveView. As virtually all of my manual-focus lenses are CPU-modified, lens compatibility was not an issue as far as camera selection was concerned.
I plan on showing results obtained in IR with old Nikkors in this thread. Contributions from other members are most welcome, but keep in mind the topic is the use of Nikkors, preferably the older ones.
Below is my current main IR camera, the D5300, with a true oldie attached to it. The lens is the Nikkor-T 105 mm f/4, a lens briefly produced in the late '60s as a spin-off from a similar design for the Nikon S rangefinders. In fact, the rangefinder 105T is identical except for the flared rear mounting part which obviously contained an S mount instead of the F mount shown here.
-
Some IR examples with D5300 and the 105/4 T Nikkor combination. All of these shot a few days ago in the Hvaler Archipelago, southeast Norway.
-
The 105T lens delivers nice and crisp IR images, despite its simple triplet optics.
Here is an example, with 100% crop presented.
-
an 8mm Fisheye-Nikkor from the past should qualify
Nikon D800E RG830,Nikkor 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye Ai-S
1/160s f/8.0 at 8.0mm iso200
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/165545442/original.jpg)
the same scene 6 years earlier. . with a Nikkor-QD.C 15mm f/5.6 modified to hold a fuji TAC filter at the rear
Nikon D300S ,Nikkor-QD.C 15mm f/5.6, IR-84 TAC Filter
1/60s f/8.0 at 15.0mm iso200
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/136486012/original.jpg)
and at 8 years earlier with a D200 UV-VIS-IR IR 920nm filter and a 20mm f/3.5 Ai-S
Nikon D200 ,Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Ai-S
1/25s f/5.6 at 20.0mm iso250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/117796154/original.jpg)
-
a Nikkor 16mm f/3.5 AI Fisheye and a Fuji TAC IR 90 at the rear
Nikon D200 UV-VIS-IR ,Nikkor 16mm f/3.5 AI Fisheye
1/30s f/8.0 at 16.0mm iso160
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/136312878/original.jpg)
and a Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto with an RG1000 filter
Nikon D200 UV-VIS-IR,Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto
1/13s f/8.0 at 20.0mm iso160
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/135452364/original.jpg)
-
if anyone is interested i did a filter comparison of similar scenes with the Nikon D200 UV-VIS-IR and Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto
found here http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/filter_comparison_mtauburn make sure you select "original" under the image for best resolution
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4200/34869062452_483de96483_o.jpg)
Ir D5300, 20mm f/3.5ud
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4220/34905917051_1328e4f349_o.jpg)
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4241/34236641443_964a651606_o.jpg)
-
Nice IR examples, Fons. Care to share the technicalities such as lens and camera?
-
Same as the first one D5300, 720nm, Nikkor-UD Auto 20mm f/3.5,
glad you like them.
-
Interesting we use the same IR camera. The 20/3.5 UD is one of my favourites for IR as well :D
-
I see i made an error the first is actually the 85mm f/1.4 ais the other two are indeed the 20mm f/3.5, excuses for that.
There is another example in the weekly blog from this month.
D5300 was converted by a shop here in NL he offers a number of different cameras and filter options.
-
You are forgiven :D Without chipped lenses, it's all too easy to forget the settings of the non-CPU menu.
I have used the 85/1.4 AIS Nikkor for IR too, and it in fact can do UV in a passable fashion as well.
-
Here is D200 IR with the 20/3.5 UD Nikkor. I like the different impression it makes for IR work, but of course the graininess can be a bit on the strong side sometimes.
Close Encounter I-III
-
Here was my lens of choice today, on a Sony A6000 converted to broadband:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4226/34239420564_d025802771_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UaBYRj)S 105 2.5 PC (https://flic.kr/p/UaBYRj) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
It's the S-mount 10.5cm f/2.5 P.C. This is a Sonnar lens that was reissued in F mount later, before being superceded by the double Gauss 105mm f/2.5 lens that's more familiar to Nikon users. According to Roland's site, the S-mount version started production in 1953, the F-mount version started in 1959, and the optics changed in 1971.
I used a B + W 093 filter to get a fairly monochrome IR look which I then desaturated.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4268/34918975792_0ec985f248_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VcESWL)IR Dead Pine (https://flic.kr/p/VcESWL) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4208/34239712994_4cc818762b_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UaDtMd)IR Sycamore v2 (https://flic.kr/p/UaDtMd) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
The second photo is not a negative despite its appearance. I did darken the sky to black to increase visual contrast.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4195/34918975162_a0d1ea6c60_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VcESKU)IT Thistles (https://flic.kr/p/VcESKU) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4274/34239418564_e5f8af6c79_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UaBYfQ)IR Blue Gum (https://flic.kr/p/UaBYfQ) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
-
Nice old-timer IR, Bill. I haven't used the 10.5 cm f/2.5 S for IR yet, only the slightly modified 105/2.5 F "Sonnar" version. However, all of the 105/2.5 versions apparently are performing well in IR.
-
Examples of 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor (AI) for IR. The Dutch mills with D5300, the soaring seagull with D200.
-
Another favourite with IR is the 16/2.8 Fisheye-Nikkor. The f/3.5 version is a tad sharper, but doesn't allow as close focus (Erik modified my 16/2.8 to give extra close near limit).
On the DX cameras, the fisheye geometry becomes less overwhelming as well.
-
The 16/2.8 Fisheye-Nikkor is also perfect if one wants to shoot flying bananas in IR.
-
Examples of 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor (AI) for IR. The Dutch mills with D5300, the soaring seagull with D200.
Your IR photos are always huge treat, Bjørn. What nm filter was used in this modified D200?
-
720 nm class filters on all of them.
-
Thanks, Bjørn. I really enjoyed working with this lens. One thing to watch out for is that changing the aperture tends to inadvertently change the focus. Also, the lens is vulnerable to flare; I should have looked for a hood to fit onto the 52mm filter threads. The biggest problem I ran into is the usual one with using a manual-focus lens handheld on a mirrorless camera - focus peaking only provides approximate focus accuracy. The lens is plenty sharp when it's actually in focus.
-
Nikon D200 RG665,Nikkor 16mm f/3.5 AI Fisheye
1/640s f/5.6 at 16.0mm iso160
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/131978778/original.jpg)
-
Nikon D200 UV-VIS-IR and UG-1,Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto
1/40s f/5.6 at 20.0mm iso16
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/134545440/original.jpg)
Nikon D200 UV-VIS-IR RG1000,Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto
1/40s f/5.6 at 20.0mm iso160
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/134545436/original.jpg)
-
IR-84 TAC Filter
Nikon D300S UV-VIS-IR,Nikkor-QD.C 15mm f/5.6
1/80s f/8.0 at 15.0mm iso200
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/136620449/original.jpg)
-
Next lens: Nikon PC-Nikkor 35mm f/3.5, old version with chrome knob, on a Metabones Speed Booster Ultra (because I couldn't find my F- to E-mount adapter) and Sony A6000. The lens was not shifted for any photos.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4209/34941201502_69f288b570_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VeCMSE)Nikon PC-Nikkor 35mm f/3.5 (https://flic.kr/p/VeCMSE) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
I also couldn't find my 720nm IR filter, so here are more with the B + W 093:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4214/34941204792_b04a636233_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VeCNRo)Sunstar in Park (https://flic.kr/p/VeCNRo) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4243/34941203152_cfd06bc1f3_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VeCNn7)IR Tree Trunks (https://flic.kr/p/VeCNn7) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
-
Enjoying the thread very much!
-
not without colours
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4223/34869063032_53a4cb15e1_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4200/34873730172_19bc0a9dcf_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4198/34873730692_cfaa77aae7_o.jpg)
D5300 720nm, Ud-nikkor 20mm f/3.5
-
I took my 28mm 2.8 (min focus 0.3 m) for a spin today with the ir D80. Metering was a wild guess. Most images are around f/8 and 1/320 s at base iso. Here you have some distant, medium and close range. The images came out full of detail.
-
Bjørn, in your old site you gave a poor rate to this lens and no reference as to how it performs in IR. I do not know how to proper test it but images came out good, focus shift was minimal -at f8- and I didn´t see any hot spots... What do you think?
-
I always pointed out that the entire combination of lens, camera, and filter kind and position in the optical path had to be considered.
That being said, I cannot find observations of successful IR captures with the 28/2.8 AIS and any of my IR cameras. Always issues with hot spots. The f/3.5 versions came though with flying colours though although the last AI might be a little less perfect.
However, never ignore the importance of the processing during the entire work flow. If there is a tendency for a hot spot, careful processing can often mitigate the issue, or you might not stop the lens too far down to avoid bringing out the worst of the spots.
-
I always pointed out that the entire combination of lens, camera, and filter kind and position in the optical path had to be considered.
And here I thought it was going to be easy... ;D
That being said, I cannot find observations of successful IR captures with the 28/2.8 AIS and any of my IR cameras. Always issues with hot spots. The f/3.5 versions came though with flying colours though although the last AI might be a little less perfect.
Thank you for the information. I guess I´m lucky at least in the hot spot department? I´ll keep trying.
-
I always pointed out that the entire combination of lens, camera, and filter kind and position in the optical path had to be considered.
That being said, I cannot find observations of successful IR captures with the 28/2.8 AIS and any of my IR cameras. Always issues with hot spots.
... snip
I see no problems with IR hotspot nor performance with the 28mm f/2.8 AIS on the D40x IR-720 , usually used around f/8 for landscapes . Here is an example:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v66/p2362583889.jpg)
NIKON D40x IR-720nm, f/9 @ 28 mm, 1/80, ISO 100 (EXIF is incorrect as this is before I re-chipped the 28mm)
However golunvolo's version of the lens differ.
-
Some lenses behave erratic meaning they may or may not make IR hot spots. It all depends on lens/camera combination, aperture setting, whether the filter is internal (in camera, over sensor), rear- or front-mounted over the lens; the filter type, and the general conditions under which IR shooting takes place. Plus of course the kind of post processing conducted on the RAW files later. Some zoom lenses, such as AFS 17-35/2.8, AFS 24-79/2.8, or AFS 17-55 (DX) are typical examples. Amongst the older Nikkors, the 25-50/4 or 28-45/4.5 comes to mind.
One simply has to try and make the best of the situation. Not stopping down too far often helps. Some lenses can cope with f/8, are doubtful at f/11, and hotspots badly at f/16 and beyond.
-
Two examples with D40X IR and D200 IR using the 25-50 f/4 Nikkor. One with and one without hot spot.
Looking quickly through my files, the combination with said lens and D40X apparently shows hot spots more frequently than do the D200. Both cameras use the 720 nm filter of same origin.
Even though a hot spot might occur, this doesn't imply the image is unusable :D
-
Repetition of the same variable hot spotting behaviour, now with D200 IR and the 28-45/4.5 Zoom-Nikkor.
Again, I utilised the hot spot for what it was worth in the pictorial representation.
These images were obtained less than 100 m apart on the same day, using unaltered camera settings.
-
Shot today with a D800 w/RG1000 filter
Nikon D800 RG1000 ,Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto
1/40s f/8.0 at 20.0mm iso50
(http://www.pbase.com/image/165611318/original.jpg)
-
Bjørn, using the hot spot like that is just brilliant
-
I don´t know the dates to be considered an "old nikkor" and probably not enough for this one...but it is IR mania for sure. 80-200mm 2.8 ED two ring version. It worked very good on the d80, no hot spots, nails focus most of the time.
-
Thanks for the heads-up, Paco. I see no IR evil her, indeed.
Must check whether I have used this lens for IR (better to do an archive search these days instead of relying on one's memory :D )
The database answers: you have used every 80-200 for IR, even the f/2.8 AF and AFS, except the f/2.8 ED. I must rectify the situation at my earliest opportunity !!
-
One of the unpretentious yet perfectly IR-capable older Nikkor is the 35-135/3.5-4.5 Zoom-Nikkor. They come in AIS (manual focus) and AF versions. Both lenses are cheap to be had on the second-hand market as their reputation for ordinary photography evidently isn't that remarkable, combined with the fact these items were made in large numbers.
However, although the optics of the AF vs MF lens are not the same, they both do excellent service for IR. With my D5300, the older screwdriver-type AF doesn't function, so which lens to use is a matter of taste or more often, whatever version is closer at hand when I collect the gear kit for a trip. The Fuji S5Pro, used for IR or multispectral work by me, does AF with the AF model though. The AIS handles better, plus has a CPU, thus in the end there is a tie between them.
-
105mm 2.5 Gauss type. After trying the 80-200 yesterday this is limiting in comparison. I already miss a lot of shots with manual focus in visible light so imagine in IR ::)
With this I´m done with my "old nikkors". I have a couple of El-Nikkors and of course the Rodenstock that I haven´t try yet. Will see.
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4249/35179362476_64682aa1f1_o.jpg)
pink roses
IR-D5300, ud-nikkor 20mm f/3.5
-
Funky flare 36-72mm at f11 D200IR
-
Some lenses behave erratic meaning they may or may not make IR hot spots. It all depends on lens/camera combination, aperture setting, whether the filter is internal (in camera, over sensor), rear- or front-mounted over the lens; the filter type, and the general conditions under which IR shooting takes place. Plus of course the kind of post processing conducted on the RAW files later. Some zoom lenses, such as AFS 17-35/2.8, AFS 24-79/2.8, or AFS 17-55 (DX) are typical examples. Amongst the older Nikkors, the 25-50/4 or 28-45/4.5 comes to mind.
One simply has to try and make the best of the situation. Not stopping down too far often helps. Some lenses can cope with f/8, are doubtful at f/11, and hotspots badly at f/16 and beyond.
I did some more testing of the 28mm f/2.8 AIS on my D40x IR-720nm and found only one situation that could trigger a hotspot: Shooting into deep shadows from bright sunlit surroundings stopped down to f/22. At f/14 there was barely any effect. Shooting against the sun at f/22 induced no hotspot, but of course some nice aperture ghosts, especially since I had an NC filter attached and forgot to take it off.
-
Nikon D800 RG1000,Nikkor 28mm f/2 Ai-S
1/50s f/5.6 at 28.0mm iso500
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/165710304/original.jpg)
Nikon D800 RG1000,Nikkor 28mm f/2 Ai-S
1/60s f/5.6 at 28.0mm iso500
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/165710310/original.jpg)
-
Nikon 28mm f/2. Even if sometimes gives a subtle hotspot is mostly visible with certain post processing. Other times it shows as a "color vingeting" in the coners, I don´t know how to better express it. It works very well for me. Had to use it at f/8 most of the time for focusing issues, meaning I miss focus most of the time in IR. I
-
It is not easy to see in the web but the image is full of fine detail, from the wire to the shells.
This is also the first time I spend a long time with the file in photoshop: swaping channels, color bath in alien skin aperture, some masking, clonnig for defects in the sensor filter, etc...
-
Excellent framing in the first place!
-
It is not easy to see in the web but the image is full of fine detail, from the wire to the shells.
This is also the first time I spend a long time with the file in photoshop: swaping channels, color bath in alien skin aperture, some masking, clonnig for defects in the sensor filter, etc...
A fine image. Your time in the craftsmanship phase has rewarded us with a simple palette. You could give this JPEG more pixels if you wanted to.
-
35mm f2 ai. One processed two straight out of the camera. All images at f8 with d200 IR 750nm.
I only have had one image with a slightly of center hotspot out of 75. Was shot at minimum focus distance if that has any impact?
-
The wind turbines, through the fence, lovely!
Clash of old and modern times!
-
Thank you Jakov.
That was the d80 with custom cut filter (dremel ;D) aks "Lola"
-
I´ve got a 35mm 2.8 ai from Peter this weekend (thank very very much). Erik pointed out it will be good for IR. I gave it a try with the d5300 with 830nm filter. It didn´t disappoint ! Lots of detail and no hot spots.
-
Not really old...today I tried the 35-70mm 3.3-4.5 with the d200. Autofocus was way off but one adjusted manually, it gave very sharp images and and nothing nasty that I can see. Will have to go out and try better subjects. From my window:
-
That "kit" zoom lens was very modestly specified even at its time, leading to a general low reputation. However optically speaking it is still able to deliver good results, also in IR. Which you so nicely demonstrated.
-
I've forgot about this thread.
Recently, I tried IR with the unmodified Sigma fp. These were posted elsewhere previously, but I thought they fit here as well. The filter used was Fujifilm TAC IR90 filters. Both seem to be resistant to hotspot.
1. shot with Ai Nikkor 200/4.0 wide open.
2. shot with the single-coated Nikkor-H 50mm f2.0@f8.0.
-
Today I tried the 105mm f4 micro ai thinking about this thread. Paired with the d5300 ir 830nm filter. The images are not very sharp but not hotspot either. Manual focusing, even with liveview at f8, was difficult: very little margin for error. Last image was included in the september thread
-
Your IR trees (olives?) are very nice and IR-whitish as well.
-
Thank you Birna, pretty sure they are olive trees, yes. The post may have potentiated the glow somehow... :)