IR Mania with old Nikkors

[golunvolo]

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?
 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[golunvolo]

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... 

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. 

[Øivind Tøien]

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:



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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[bobfriedman]

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

[golunvolo]

Bjørn, using the hot spot like that is just brilliant

[golunvolo]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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 )

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 !!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[golunvolo]

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.

   

[Fons Baerken]

pink roses

IR-D5300, ud-nikkor 20mm f/3.5

[JJChan]

Funky flare 36-72mm at f11 D200IR