Fuji Infrared Lens Tests

Infrared performance of Fujifilm X Mount Lenses

These test images were taken on a modified infrared only Fujifilm X-E1 with a Schott Glass internal 830nm infrared pass filter.  They show how well each lens works in the infrared only spectrum where problems often occur with hot-spots - bright areas in the centre of the frame.

Hot-spots have several causes.  Some are caused by internal reflections inside the lens elements or between the infrared pass filter and the rear element of the lens.  In visible light these internal reflections are reduced by 1/4 wave multi coatings on the elements but these coatings are ineffective at wavelengths beyond 800nm and can sometimes cause increased internal reflections at infrared wavelengths.  Others can be caused by internal reflections off the aperture blades of internal lens mechanisms - again the anti reflection coatings may not be fully effective at IR wavelengths.  A third type is caused by the lens multi coating transmitting variable amounts of IR depending on the angle of incidence - these most often effect very wide angle lenses.

Generally hot-spots are worst at smaller apertures (larger f numbers).  However softness caused by diffraction in infrared generally means that the optimum balance between depth of field and sharpness is between f/8 and f/11 for and infrared only camera and between f/5.6 and f/8 for a false colour infrared camera.

Whilst these tests do not guarantee the lens performance on a false colour infrared camera with a lower pass filter of 740nm, in my experience lenses that perform well in pure infrared generally perform well in false colour.  However they do not necessarily show how well the lens will perform on an unmodified camera with an infrared filter mounted externally as the external filter can also be the cause of hotspots.

Please note that the conclusions are my own subjective opinion of how well each lens performs in infrared and should only be used for guidance.  All images were shot as RAW files and converted into  JPGs using Adobe Lightroom 5.4 using the Adobe Standard profile.  The test images are intended to show the presence or absence of hot-spots rather than overall sharpness and are all scaled to 1000px wide to save bandwidth.

For those who want the quick answer my favourite lenses for IR shooting are the XF14mm and XF35mm primes and the XF18-135 WR Zoom - both fantastic performers in infrared!

Fujinon XF Prime Lenses

XF 14mm f/2.8 R  Excellent IR performance at all apertures

The 14mm prime is a superb performer in IR at all apertures and never exhibits hot-spots.  As expected it shows some edge softness at f/11 and above but is extremely sharp wide open.

14mm at f/2.8
14mm at f/11

XF 18mm f/2 R  Not suitable for IR

The older 18mm prime does not perform well in infrared.  It is very soft at f/2 and has increasingly bad hot-spots at all other apertures.

18mm at f/2
18mm at f/4
18mm at f/8
18mm at f/16

XF 23mm f/1.4 R  Excellent IR performance at all apertures

Like the 14mm, the 23mm prime is very well behaved in IR showing no hot-spots at any aperture.  It is sharpest at around f/5.6 with diffraction well controlled at f/16

23mm at f/1.4
23mm at f/5.6
23mm at f/8
23mm at f/16

XF 27mm f/2.8 - Only usable at f/2.8 in IR

This ultra-compact pancake lens is one of my favourites for street shooting however in infrared it exhibits a sharply defined hotspot dead centre at all apertures other than wide open at f/2.8
(images to follow)

XF 35mm f/1.4 R - Good IR performance at f/11 and below

The older 35mm prime is another good infrared performer.  It has a very slight hot-spot at f16 but at all wider apertures it shows no hot-spot and excellent sharpness even at f/1.4

35mm at f/1.4
35mm at f/2.8
35mm at f/8
35mm at f/16

XF 56mm f/1.2 R - Only usable at f/2.8 in IR

Sadly the 56mm prime, a stunning lens in visible light, does not fare so well in IR.  Wide open it is quite soft, sharpening up nicely at f/2.8 with no hot-spot.  However by f/4 a hot-spot is clearly visible which worsens as you stop down.  The APD version of this lens has also been tested by Bertrand T and has the same IR performance as the standard version.
56mm at f/1.2
56mm at f/2.8
56mm at f/5.6
56mm at f/16

XF 60mm f/2.4 R Macro - Only usable wide open in IR

The macro 60mm is sharp wide open and shows no hot-spot.  However as soon as you stop down the hot-spot starts to appear rendering it unusable at f/5.6 and above.
60mm at f/2.4
60mm at f/4
60mm at f/8
60mm at f/22

Fujinon XF Zoom Lenses

XF 10-24mm f/4-5.6 R OIS - Not suitable for IR

The 10-24mm wide-angle zoom is another excellent visible light lens that doesn't work so well in infrared.  Between 10mm and 20mm it shows a soft but visible hot-spot at all apertures, only giving useable results wide open at 24mm, with the hot-spot returning as soon as you stop down.

10-24 at 10mm f/4
10-24 at 10mm f/11
10-24 at 18mm f/5.6
10-24 at 18mm f/11
10-24 at 24mm f/5.6
10-24 at 24mm f/11

XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS - Not suitable for IR

Like the 10-24mm, the 18-55mm standard range zoom is not a lens to use in infrared. At 18mm a hot-spot is visible at all apertures.  At 35mm it is just about usable wide open but the hot-spot appears as soon as you stop down.  At 55mm it is again fine at f/4 but exhibits a hot-spot at all other apertures.

18-55 at 18mm f/2.8
18-55 at 18mm f/11
18-55 at 35mm f/3.6
18-55 at 35mm f/11
18-55 at 55mm f/4
18-55 at 55mm f/16

XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 LM OIS - Usable below f/8 at all focal lengths

After disappointing results from the 10-24mm and 18-55mm zooms this lens was a real surprise.  At all focal lengths it is free of hot-spots wide open and generally useable up to f/8.  Beyond f/8 a gentle soft-spot appears in the 55mm to 100mm range, but this is markedly reduced at longer focal lengths and by 200mm the lens performs well at all apertures.

55-200 at 55mm f/3.5
55-200 at 55mm f/8
55-200 at 100mm f/4
55-200 at 100mm f/8
55-200 at 200mm f/4.8
55-200 at 200mm f/11

XF 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR - Excellent performer at all focal lengths

After preliminary testings with a prototype 18-135 I have now been able to shoot extensively with a production version of this lens and can confirm that it is a superb all round performer in Infrared with practically no evidence of hot-spots at any focal length or aperture below f/11 and only the slightest hot-spot appearing at f/22 @ 135mm.  Sample images coming soon.

XF16-55/2.8 R LM WR  - Mixed reports from users - caution advised...

XF 50-140/2.8 R LM OIS WR - Excellent performer at all focal lengths

Tested by Bertrand T - Fine across the range at all apertures

Fujinon XC Zoom Lenses

XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS - Mixed reports from users - caution advised...

I have not yet had a chance to test this lens myself but I have had varying reports from users. Some say that it performs much the same as the XF 55-200 zoom and is useable below f/8 at all focal lengths but Vic C tells me "Forget the 16-50 mm XC it doesn't focus Ir and it has a hotspot at all apertures all FLs..."

XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS - Not yet tested


Zeiss Touit X-mount Lenses

Touit 1.8/32 - Not yet tested

Touit 2.8/12 - Not yet tested

Touit 50/2.8 Macro - Usable below f/8 at all focal lengths

Tested by Bertrand T - Perfectly fine until f/5.6, barely visible hot-spot at f/8 (still very usable aperture) and then severe worsening.

Samyang X-mount Lenses

Samyang 8/2.8 fisheye:   - Mixed reports from users - caution advised...

Tested by Bertrand T - Fine at all apertures...
Also tested by Gary - only really usable wide open...

59 comments:

  1. Totally agree with your assessment of the 10-24, 14, 18--55 and 55-200.

    I have added the 16-50 for IR which behaves similarly to the 55-200...ok to f8

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome, thank you for your work

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zeiss Touit 50/2.8 Macro: Perfectly fine until f/5.6, barely visible hot-spot at f/8 (still very usable aperture) and then severe worsening.

    Samyang 8/2.8 fisheye: Fine at all apertures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fujinon XF 50-140/2.8 R OIS: Fine across the range at all apertures.

    Fujinon 56/1.2 R APD: Unsurprisingly similar to the regular version, with a hot-spot from f/4 onwards (although, in my opinion, the hot-spot is still quite discrete at f/4 and this aperture could be used with caution).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for this! Might try a 16-50 ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Forget the 16-50 mm XC it doesn't focus Ir and it has a hotspot at all apertures all FLs. Fact is you get better than the Fuji 14mm f2.8 and Fuji 35mm f1.4. I can also add that the new 16mm f1.4 has hotspots - just about fixable at faster than f2.8.
    Vic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I have yet to check this lens for a second time I should say that my above comment was based on using it with an R72 lens filter and unconverted body. I've since bought and had an XE1 converted to 590nm IR and I now find that lenses which performed well at (say) up to f8 now perform well up to f11/f16. Other comments here with a converted camera indicate the 16-50 XC is a good performer so my advice now is - no good with lens filter only but apparently worth checking out if used on a converted camera.

      Delete
    2. Below is a link to some of my IR images taken with 590nm converted Fuji XE1. Most colour and black and white are taken with a Hoya R72 (720) filter on the lens in addition. Those with very strong blues and yellows are with no added filter. Lens used is about 90% Fuji 14mm and 10% Fuji 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4 and 55-200mm (deer and swan shots). I also use Oly Zuiko 50mm f1.4 and 28mm f3.5, 24mm f2.8 Minolta and occasionally Minolta Rokkor 135mm f2.8 for IR. I could easily manage with just the 14mm f2.8 set to f5.6/f8 and hyperfocal as mine are shot. Equally, one should check for manual focus legacy lenses since IR is not for the fast shooter and there are many fine MF lenses to be had for good prices and old film glass will have distance and depth of field markings to make shooting at hyperfocal settings a lot easier.
      https://goo.gl/photos/UGkenCK8MV9qL1XF9

      Delete
  7. Edit should read "can't get better than 14, 35mm."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Vic and others - your comments have been added into the mix - keep them coming !

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow, great research. Thanks for saving me some money - I was getting ready to get the 10-24mm, now after reading your article I'll be getting the 14mm. I searched out your article on google after shooting test images with my 18mm f/2 and seeing the crazy hotspot. My buddy has all three Zeiss Touit lenses and I'm going to test the 12mm and 32mm when he gets back in town... the used Touit 12mm is only a bit more than a used 14mm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Britt - glad it was useful. Would be really interested to see how you get on with the Zeiss lenses in IR - it would be great to add some info for the 12mm and the 32mm in my roundup...

      Delete
    2. Will be interested to see how you like the Touit 12mm, looking around I have seen some IR shots on Flickr from a photographer "Cruiser223" who uses it on an X-E1 and X-Pro1 and it doesn't appear to have hot spots.

      Delete
  10. Very useful info, thank you. Any data about the new XF 90mm f/2 ?

    I can report that for the X100T, both bare and with the 35mm "tele" conversion lens, a hot spot and a halo begin to appear around f/5.6. Below that I find the camera very usable for IR (using an R72 filter).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh and the XC 16-50 is just terrible. Stay clear.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Correction on the X100T: should have said "to appear around f/4".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thnx for all the useful info!

    I'm using a full manual 28mm f2.8 nikon AI lens on a fuji XE-2 , wich seems to do the job great.. although I haven't done an all aperture test.

    Do you know anything about focus shifting, cause the nikon has a red dot for IR on it but do you need to adjust the focus on a x-trans sensor?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Pascal
    The red dot on your Nikon AI lens shows you the shift between the plane of focus in visible light vs infrared light. This was necessary when shooting with an SLR and IR film because you viewed and focused visible light through the optical viewfinder and then had to adjust by the focus shift before exposing the film.

    On the XE2 the viewfinder image is from the sensor itself so what you see is what you get in IR and the focus shift is no longer necessary - this is one of the huge advantages of shooting IR with mirrorless cameras. It also means that if you use an autofocus Fujinon lens the AF will work perfectly in IR without adjustment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you Simon for these very useful resources. I have the XF 16-55 and I try it with my new IR72 filter (16mm @ f/8). And I experienced a big red circle at the middle of the picture that now I know it's a hotspot (link to the images here post-processed with LR and PS with swap channels: http://adobe.ly/1RlTVW1)

    Sorry, It's not the best shot neither the best test (I'm completely new to the IR photography). It's only one shot, with a classic X-T1 and a filter. Anyway, I will wait until you have the possibility to test properly this lens :-)

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  16. I just tried out some 720nm colour IR shots with the 18-135, at f8, and was disappointed to see that I was getting a "hot spot" with a marked colour shift, that rendered the raws unusable for colour processing, while still being fine for mono. Somewhat disappointing; shall experiment further with a 590nm filter (once I have one; I've come to prefer it for colour IR - but don't have one the right size), and wider apertures.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Tom - I have used the 18-135 extensively with my modified X-E1IR without any hotspot problems. I know that using an external filter can give rise to hotspots on any lens, but one thought: did you remove any protective filter you have on the lens as this may be the culprit?

    Cheers - Simon

    ReplyDelete
  18. A wealth of information here for the aspiring IR photographer.
    To add to my recommendations above, Minolta 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f2 all gave me excellent results with no hotspots and of course, being old 135 film lenses they all have distance scales and depth of field scales which are very useful for IR. I've kept them even though I have most covered in native Fuji lenses now because they are much lighter and more compact when I want to travel light - they are also more easily covered by a single filter and step-up rings.
    I'm currently waiting for an XE1 to return from 590nm IR conversion in USA chosen because of good feedback and prices that are less than half of other conversion companies even after 2 way postage. You'll find him on ebay with a link to his business if you prefer to save even more. The name is Isaac Szabo but just search for XE1 Infrared conversions - he does all makes and models. I'll monitor replies in case anyone wants more details.

    ReplyDelete
  19. FUJIFILM recently announced the launched of two Zoom Lenses: FUJINON UA13 x 4.5 wide angle Ultra HD (UHD) lens and UA80 x 9 1.2 EXT high magnification zoom lens fujifilm zoom lens

    ReplyDelete
  20. I can now add Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 to the list of good IR performers at all apertures, also surprisingly good is the Oly Zuiko 70-140mm f4, not that I personally use long Fls for IR. BTW, the Fuji 90mm f2 is a good'un for IR.
    I have had my Fuji X-E1 back from conversion to 590nm for a couple of weeks and I'm really enjoying the freedom of working without a tripod. I use it at 590nm and also with a screw-in Hoya R72 and a cheapie Neewer 850nm filter for BW IR. Shutter speed is unaffected with the R72 and only loses about 1.5 stops with the 850nm - so still easily handholdable. This of course is because all of the IR light can now reach the sensor plus some visible light while the 850 blocks virtually all visible light but remains handholdable at medium apertures by doubling ISO.
    I briefly tried some night time "Dark light" shooting with a very cheap, old, small and low powered Sunpac flash circa 1980s. Even in the open space of my back garden (so no reflecting of light) it stretched beyond the 70 ft of my boundary with the R72 over the flash. With the 850nm covering the flash a little less light passed through. Electronic flash seems to emit more IR light then visible light thus increasing the flash range. While the R72 allowed a little glow of flash light to show through the filter I held in front of the flash, light through the 850nm was hardly visible. I'd hoped to rig the camera to take time lapse of what animals cross my garden at night but sadly the X-E1 doesn't have a time lapse facility but anyone with a suitable converted camera could have fun with a similar setup. Anyway it's worth remembering you can use dark light for IR at night if you get bored with conventional Daytime IR. I also took a few pictures without flash of my garden at night (dark but reflected light pollution from overcast sky - S.London suburbs) and there was a surprising amount of IR and a little visible light recorded.
    I read Simon Weir's post with interest since I've found fewer and weaker hotspots using a converted camera so it's just possible that some lenses listed as having a hotspot at (say) f5.6 might stretch to f8 on a converted camera compared to an on lens filter.
    Certainly the converted camera gives more regular and predictable results "out of the box". Perhaps to extent that some fun is lost in processing but I'm now concentrating on weakening the IR effects to get a more ethereal feel. I have 2 IR galleries: This is my IR with lens filter gallery: https://goo.gl/photos/wQ27DAeQcsy8CVQ79 and this more recent with 590nm conversion: https://goo.gl/photos/UGkenCK8MV9qL1XF9

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I've tested the Zeiss Touit 32mm/1.8 and had hotspots at all apertures above f/2.8 on a converted (665nm) XE2. Same with the Fujinon 90mm/2. I had great success with a Nikon 28mm/2 AI-S

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have a IR Fuji X-A2, and I use the XC 16-50, and I made some tests with it.
    There are some hotspots at f11 and up. Superbly sharp af f8 and below.
    See results at the bottom of this page:
    http://www.ericconstantineau.com/photo/review_fujixa2_en.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have converted a X-E1 to 820nm and on the basis of above reviews bought a Samyang 8mm fisheye. Unfortunately it is unusable at and above f8. Larger aperture OK. Maybe better with other cameras.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Late with this reply but anyway, the 8mm on XE1 focused at about 4ft needs to be open no more than f4/f5,6 for sharpness from 2ft to inf.

      Delete
  25. Hi Gary - you will find most lenses begin to show hot spots at f/8 and over but more importantly they will also very quickly become soft because of increased diffraction at IR wavelengths - I almost never shoot stopped down beyond f/8 even on known good lenses for this reason. I know a couple of people using the 8mm Samyang lens and have seen decent results so suggest you persevere !!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for the follow up Simon. My post was to advise that my experience was not what was said on your post; "Excellent IR performance at all apertures".

    I found this page by being top of the search "infrared lenses fuji" and assume others will also follow. Hopefully my post will help clarify through my experience that with a 820nm conversion to my X-E1 that this lenses is only hot-spot free when shot wide open.

    Thanks for putting the page together and allowing updates. It should be a useful resource for others.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cheers Gary - I have updated the page to "Caveat Emptor" for this lens !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Following Gary's comment, I've double checked the Samyang 8/2.8 stereographic fisheye on my converted X-E2 (820 nm) and I stand by my assesment that the lens is fine for IR work, with no hint of hotspot at any aperture.
      But this lens is very sensitive to flare, in IR as well as in visible light, from light sources within or just outside of the (obviously large) field of view. At small apertures (f/8 onwards), the flare appears as a bright sharp-edge hexagon. At wider apertures the hexagon is softer and more diffuse, so that at f/2.8 or f/4 it actually covers most or all of the image and rather appears as a general loss of contrast. This might be the reason why Gary finds the lens "unusable". But with careful framing and/or shading against sources of flares, there is no issue.

      Delete
  28. For those of you interested, I did a quick review of the Fuji XF 35mm F2 on a Fuji X-T10 Full Spectrum Camera with the Hoya r72 and the B+W 403UV filter to check for any hotspots. Basically no signs of hotspots from what I could see. I haven't tested a 830nm filter yet (because I don't have one at the moment).

    Check out my blog post here:
    https://kiwiinkyushu.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/fuji-xf-35mm-f2-ir-uv-hotspot-test/

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anyone news how is the FUJI 16-55 2.8f?

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks for your post.
    I've bought an X A-1 with the XC 16-50 kit lens and let it converted to infrared. The 16-50 is sold and I'm looking for a better standard lens from Fuji. At the moment I'm using only adapted lenses from Nikon and Beroflex.

    Up to the 16-50: One of the worst lenses I've used for infrared. A hot spot and very poor borders. I posted some example photos here:
    http://www.dslr-forum.de/showpost.php?p=14146541&postcount=189
    http://www.dslr-forum.de/showpost.php?p=14149097&postcount=193
    If you can't read German, don't worry. The photos say enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Johanna
      Several readers have reported the 16-50 kit lens as being poor in InfraRed so I am not surprised !

      If you want a zoom I suggest you try and get hold of a XF 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR as this is a fantastic IR performer.

      Happy shooting - Simon

      Delete
  32. Fujinon XF 16/1.4 R WR: Similar to the XF 14/2.8 and XF 23/1.4, the 16 mm is an excellent IR lens at all apertures.

    And, for the fisheye lovers out there, I'm happy to report that the Yashuara Madoka-180 (a circular fisheye with orthographic projection) also works fine in IR.

    As for my previous reports, the lens were used on a 820 nm-modified X-E2.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have used the 18-55 lens on my X-T10 with no sign of a hot spot, using both a IR 720 and IR 850, so not sure what is going on here as the tests above say it will not work, but it does !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bob - thanks for your comment!

      I suspect you have been lucky !! My tests with a modified IR X-E1 showed consistent hot spots at 18mm with some improvement at longer focal lengths but only when used wide open.

      The situation may be better with an external IR filter and an unmodified camera but other users have reported problems with lens as well.

      If you only shoot with the aperture wide open and tend to use 35mm or more then this lens should be OK but I cannot recommend it for general IR use.

      Best wishes - Simon

      Delete
    2. I just tried the 18-55mm on an X-T2 with IR 720. Hot spot in center of image.

      Delete
    3. Hi Jeffrey - thanks for your comment - exactly what I would expect from that lens !!!

      Delete
  34. Life Pixels will convert a camera to full spectrum. My question is if a camera is converted would using a external visible bandpass filter give you as good a picture as the original that comes with the camera? I have the Fujifilm X-T2 on order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there - interesting question... - I haven't tried this so I am using my experience (and physics degree!) to answer !

      I think it will all boil down to the quality of the filters and their coatings (if any). When you have a camera converted with an IR bandpass filter installed in front of the sensor you are replacing a very sophisticated multicoated IR blocking filter with a plan uncoated IR pass filter. As the transmitted wavelengths are all within the IR band the lack of visible light multi coatings is not an issue.

      In a full spectrum conversion the multicoated IR blocking filter is replaced with an optical glass flat that transmits all wavelengths but generally has no multi coatings. Its optical quality should be every bit as good as the original glass but the lack of coatings will mean there is a slightly higher risk of internal flare reducing contrast - this is however minimal as almost all modern lenses designed for digital cameras ensure that the light exits the lens perpendicular to the sensor avoiding any internal reflections.

      If you then add a visible light bandpass filter to the front of the lens you are at much greater risk of flair reducing contrast because of the lack of multicoatings on what is now the "front element" of the lens. This is just the same as putting a £2 eBay UV filter on the front of an expensive lens - we all know it is going to be the weak link in the optical chain...

      Plenty of manufacturers make normal clear or UV filters with multicoatings as sophisticated as the actual lens coatings but I am not aware of anyone making band pass filters (or IR filters for that matter) with multicoated surfaces...

      So that is the theory - what about the practice?

      Well I would suggest that under normal lighting conditions the difference will be minute but as soon as you have the potential for flare you will see the difference, especially with wide angle lenses.

      Hope this helps - would be interested to see the results.

      Best wishes and a Happy New Year - Simon

      Delete
    2. I too would be interested to hear from someone who has done this. My feeling is that jpgs won't be "Fuji jpgs" but Raw is what you make it yourself.

      Delete
    3. I have done exactly that with an X100T: full spectrum conversion, and I use a Hoya HMC UV+IR filter, which is multi-coated. It mostly works well except that occasionally I still get some flaring.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  35. Hi, I got my X-T10 converted to Full Spectrum by LifePixel and I also purchased their Visible Bandpass filter to take normal photos.

    I'm not sure if the colours are still the same 'Fuji' colours, and sometimes you have to set the wb manually as auto wb doesn't work sometimes.

    But i'm interested in shooting more Ir photos than normal photos, so i'm happy with the bandpass filter.

    In the future when I get time (and some money) i'll try renting a non modified fuji and shot the camera side by side with my full spectrum fuji with the bandpass filter and compare the photos.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Fuji XF 50mm F2 - tested for hotposts at my for those of you interested. Basically no signs of hotspots from what I could see.

    Check out my blog post here:
    https://kiwiinkyushu.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/fuji-xf-50mm-f2-ir-uv-hotspot-test/

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks for sharing this information Simon, i bought 14mm lens for replace my XC16-50 ois ii that really bad IR performer.
    14mm work very well for my XT1 converted with 720nm.
    But somehow i miss the 10mm ultra wide lens for landscape & marital Photography, anyone here have some info what manual ultra wide lens good for IR?

    ReplyDelete
  38. When processing your IR images, does anyone use SilkyPix to set the gray point? I am setting a custom white balance in camera, it was suggested to me by LifePixel, the company that converted my Fuji X-Es2 to a 720nm filter that I have to use the SilkyPix software to set the gray point before I process in LR or Photoshop. Any thoughts on this subject? I would prefer not to have to go through so many processing steps to get the results that I want to accomplish.
    Thanks in advance for your suggestions and thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Wayne.

      There shouldn't be any need to go through SilkyPix to set the white balance - Lightroom is more than capable of doing that just as well.

      The in camera white balance is crucial though (set with a patch of sunlit green grass usually instead of a grey card).

      If you are processing in B&W then my workflow is:
      Open Raw file in Lightroom using custom WB as set in camera - set black and white points to maximise dynamic range without any clipping - export as TIFF to Silver Effex Pro 2 and process to taste - enjoy !

      Cheers - Simon

      Delete
  39. Just wanted to chime in with a recent test of the 16-55 f2.8 on a 590nm converted X-T1. I am seeing significant hotspots at everything over f5 unfortunately. I'm guessing false colour filters exaggerate the hotspots?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ian

      Thanks for that addition - I have had similar problems with that lens on my 830nm camera but need to test it properly to pin it down.

      I don't think the false colour will exaggerate the hotspots per say but the post-processing may well exaggerate them as they are only present in the IR wavelengths and should not be occurring in the visible light.

      Cheers - Simon

      Delete
    2. Thanks for keeping the thread alive. Very useful resource.

      Delete
    3. XM1 (not converted) with samyang (rokinon) 12mm f2, with 720nm filter leads to hotspot, partly visible at f2, worse after.
      Unlucky....

      Delete
  40. Just managed to get hold of a reconditioned 18-135 from the Fuji refurb store. Done a series of tests at 18, 35, 70 & 135mm and at f4, 8, 11 & 22. Superb results so can concur with the tests above.

    (Also had great success with a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 M42 fit)

    ReplyDelete