Help to choose Telephoto for IR

[mrbtzrg]

I have been looking for a telephoto lens for my IR converted Canon 5Dmk2, and found the following lenses with good IR performance rating (naturfotograf.com)

85 mm f1.4 Nikkor AIS
105mm f2.5 Nikkor-P.C
135 mm f/3.5 Nikkor-Q [non-AI]

At the moment I don’t know from which to start, so I would like to hear opinions from those who have used these lenses for IR.

The 85mm f1.4 has a great reputation, and there are many available in great condition.
The 105mm f2.5 has many variations such as Single Coated-P versus Multi Coated-P.C. I don’t know if the extra coating makes difference in IR.
My need is inclined towards the 105 or 135mm. However, if the image quality is considerable, I could go with 85mm as well. Please share your opinions.

[benveniste]

Any particular reason you want to use Nikon glass?  I recommend the following site as a reference:
https://kolarivision.com/articles/lens-hotspot-list/

The lenses I've used the most often for IR are an 18-70mm DX and a 80-200mm f/4 AI-s.

[mrbtzrg]

I have 24-105L and 70-200L listed as good performers in this list. They do exhibit a lot of fringing at the corners and have muddy tone. I want to use Nikon lenses because they are reported as good performers from experts in IR. 

[Øivind Tøien]

One really need to try for oneself as there is some synergism between camera body and lens into play. For instance the Nikon 12-24mm which is listed to be hot spotting is my most used IR lens - no problems as long as a filter is not attached under extreme side lighting (and then there is rather a ring artifact instead of a hot spot). This is on my D40x IR-720nm (Lifepixel internal filter). If my memory is correct, Bjørn also found that this lens performed well on D40x, while his early review of the lens indicated a hot spot on D200.

Here is my personal experiences summarised in a post in the old forum:
"So far I have tested the following on the D40x:
AF 10.5mm f/2.8 D fisheye ; OK
AFS 12-24mm f/4 G: OK as long as filter is removed in strong side lighting (No practical focus shift vs Lifepixel standard calibration).
AFS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G II: OK (the lack of any distance markings and the loose manual focus makes it tricky to find correct focus).
AF 20mm f/2.8 OK in limited testing
AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D OK (heavy veiling flare when pointed towards light source, only moderate focus shift vs Lifepixel standard calibration at 105mm)
28mm f/2.8 AIS : OK
AFS 50mm f/1.8 G: Always large center hotspot at f/16 (aperture/flare like, color shift), even larger and very weak at f/11, OK at f/8 and wider.
50mm f/2 AI modified: OK
55mm f/3.5 micro AI (latest series): OK (except when aimed at an even white surface/backlight where a weak small aperture/flare like hotspot show at f/8 and narrower apertures.)
AF 60mm f/2,8 micro: OK (except backlight that may give a flare/hotspot at f/16).
105mm f/2.5 AIS OK
105mm f/4 micro AIS: OK
75-150mm f/3.5 E OK in limited testing
200 mm f/4 AI-modified : OK in limited testing.
AF 300mm f/4 ED : OK
Tokina 500mm f/8 mirror lens: OK limited testing."

To this I can add:
Nikon AFS 300mm f/4 E VR PF : OK (so far only be tested wide open, performs very well then, AF worked well  with the lifepixel calibration at moderately long distances).
Nikon 135mm f/2.8 AIS : OK

To conclude, almost all my lenses that I have for visible spectrum use can also be used for IR. The lenses used most are the ones I use most for the visible spectrum: Nikon 12-24mm and 105mm f/2.5 AIS.
 

[richardHaw]

waiting for mr. Rorslett's list.

Spring is here in Japan so I am itching to shoot IR 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

---  I recommend the following site as a reference:
https://kolarivision.com/articles/lens-hotspot-list/
----

That list has a number of strange entries. Classic super IR performers such as the 43-86 mm f/3.5 Nikkor is classified as "poor"; many of the wider lenses listed as "Good" might be questionable for IR, and so on.  Compilations such as this need very careful moderation to eliminate the more glaring errors, but still issues might go unnoticed.

There are just so many combinations of lens, filter, filter position (on lens, either in front or rear, or inside the camera), filter type, IR light conditions, and the camera itself that testing all entries in that multidimensional matrix is impossible. Only practical field testing of the actual combination will deliver the required answer.

If an NG member is interested in a certain lens/camera/(filter) combination, my advice is to ask the community for their experience or perhaps a field test. Remember that virtually all lenses on a digital camera might produce an IR hotspot, the relevant issue is how pronounced said hotspot is. The good performers have the hotspots so well under control that only the most savage massaging of the image data may disclose their presence.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

IR works pretty well with the 300PF as long as it is shot wide open. However, the Fresnel principle makes this lens unusually vulnerable to flare and ghosting outside the visible spectral range as the coatings are highly ineffective in this case. A typical example is shown below (with my IR-modified Nikon D5300).

The so-called 'onion ring' pattern is very visible in the flare and ghost area.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

For IR shooting in the daytime, the 300 PF is not bad, but watch out for flare as advised before. In this panorama stitching of the Seven Sisters Waterfalls on Geirangerfjord, Western Norway, I had to discard a lot of the original frames due to problems caused by directional light grazing the steep mountain sides. Thus the final outcome was but a tiny section of the view compared to what I tried to achieve. One is not always aware of these troubles during the actual shoot as flare can be nasty yet only occur on small parts of the frame. However the problems certainly emerge once you run the NEFs through a batch processing !

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Another example of the delicate rendering achieved with the 300 PF for IR (D5300 again).

The highlight flares may be quite useful on occasion, but their appearance is somewhat unpredictable when strong point light sources exist within the captured angle of view.

[Øivind Tøien]

Another IR example from the 300mm  f/4 PF (wide open on D40x IR-720nm), with shiny objects in the frame :

[Bjørn Rørslett]

For the maximum versatility for IR captures, nothing can beat good zoom lenses.

Two of the better alternatives are the 28-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor AFS and the 200-400 mm f/4 Zoom-Nikkor ED AIS. The latter is scarce and tends to be expensive, but if you can locate a specimen and afford its purchase, really is an amazing lens well worth the price.

I use the 200-400 mainly for landscapes and often as "false-colour emulated Infrared Ektachrome", but it does equally well with other IR expressions. This zoom lens uses rear filtration by means of gel filters (39mm size).

First is 28-300 (D5300 IR), next 200-400 (D600 broad-spectrum). The same mountain range doubles as test subject, but vantage points differ.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A really low-cost alternative is the 35-135 mm f/3.5-4.5 Zoom-Nikkor. There are two versions, one AIS (manual), the other AFD (AF by screwdriver). Either version can be had for a song and the AIS is usually the cheapest. I've seen the latter for less than USD 40.

Interestingly, the optical designs are different between the pair yet both do the job well in IR. Their visible-light performance is rather bland and that likely contributes to their low standing in the Nikon community. Put them to use for IR and the image - literally - changes. I tend to prefer the AIS for its handling, but on my Fuji S5Pro the AFD does work with useful accuracy in IR. Thus the choice is more a matter of taste and convenience. Both take 62 mm front filters.

[Roland Vink]

Correction: Both take 52 mm front filters...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Correction: Both take 52 mm front filters...

Correction to correction: they do indeed use 62 mm filters ... I have both in front of me, there is not a shade of doubt here. 35-135/3.5-4.5 => 62 mm.

You likely had the 35-105 Nikkors in mind and yes, they use 52 mm filters. But in particular the AIS is highly questionable for IR.

[Roland Vink]

 You are right of course, I misread ...