Just tested the M4/3 Panasonic 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 and it seems like an excellent lens. No hotspots visible on either end of the focal range up to f20. Tested on a 680nm Panasonic G2.

i have the 8-18 Panaleica and it’s the best ultra-wide zoom for m4/3 i can find so far. although, there is a huge mild warm spot you’d only notice if you do faux color processing. i have been fixing it in photoshop and it’s less noticeable if you use a 590 or 665nm filter (instead of a 720).

No dis-respect, but take this list with the proverbial grain of salt. Listed above as a “Poor performer” is the Nikkor 24mm F2.8. However, I get excellent results from my Nikkor 24mm, F2.8 on my converted D7000. Now I have the narrow filter, and shoot only in the deep 850 nm range.

I have tested the Sony 35mm f/1.8 on a full frame Sony (A7 & A7III) @ 850nm and it was really bad. Unusable throughout the range: kolarivision.com//kolarivision.com//www.edwardnoble.com/sony-35-18 There could be a difference on APS-C (I have seen that before), but for me this lens is worse than the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 which is already notoriously bad.

Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR: An excellent performer, I’ve never encountered hot spots under normal shooting conditions. This is my default lens for most IR situations.

Up to f 13/14 nothing then it starts with a very soft hot spot by the 680 and 720 nm filter I could not detect any hotspot up to f 22 with 850 nm The hot spots can be corrected in post

I rented two Sony lenses last week to use with a newly converted Sony AR7III Camera I had issues with a 24-240 lens before I had consulted your data base.

Tried a few lenses on an APS-C Sony body converted for 720nm. Keep in mind that all but one of these lenses is for full frame, and I’m accounting for that. Results:

On or Sony A7S the 24-240 lens produces hot spots most of the time. They can be corrected in Lightroom and Photshop, but it is annoying. Sony lenses generally has this problem.

Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Lens is pretty much garbage, you can use it wide open but it still has a hot spot at f/1.4

Infrared lensfilter

Now that Kolari Vision is offering AR coating for the sensors the Hoot Spot list will most likely need to be revised for people who get the AR coating.

I just got testing a Sigma 35mm Art lens on my Kolarivision converted 60D and experience a hot spot at all apertures smaller than F2.8. The intensity increases as the aperture size decreases and is really intolerable at F6.7 or smaller. At apertures wider than F2.8 you really have to look for it.

Fuji 35/2 very good at all apertures. Database re: Fujifilm lenses agrees w/ my Pro & Con experience. Thanks for publishing the database

I did not include the Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-3.5 D ED nor the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR in the below results but both showed no hotspots across the ranges. The 70-200mm f/4 VR was also great but did show hotspots with higher apertures (f/16) once above 630nm.

4. Simpler design seems to make for less hot spots. Though that is not always the case. The ƒ1.8-ƒ2 lenses seem at worst to have more of a smudging issue or than the cheap Minolta 50mm ƒ2.

Infrared lensglasses

Hello all, Just a note to all of you about lenses. Lens manufacturers attempt to make the same designated lens consistent over time, with the transmission of visible light. The lens manufacturers have to buy glass, grind the glass and in most cases coat the glass with various coatings. Glass produced by different glass companies can vary in composition, current production and over time. The lens makers work with various coating materials that can change over time. Then the lens makers tweak lens elements, such as using optical plastics in newer versions of any designated lens. On top of all that change, manufacturing tools, jigs, and testing equipment wears in use. A lens made and tested on new equipment can be slightly different to the lens made on the older equipment. What that means is each of the lenses will be within designed tolerances, but different nevertheless. Cheaper lenses can be as sharp and as good a performers as expensive professional lenses. But they also wear out faster. The various gears, cams, aperture controls, etc.,in any lens wears over time. These components can be metal in an older lens, and plastic or engineered polymers in newer lenses.Plastic doesn’t necessarily equate to bad. And then then we have the greases used in the lenses. Grease thickens or hardens over time. For instance Nikon greases stand up over time and Leica grease has to be dug out and replaced every 20 years or so. There are optical companies that make lenses for a large number of different camera makers and lens re-sellers. So the same lens can be sold under different brand names. On top of all that, the lens makers are trying to eliminate the transmission of UV and IR light and improving the transmission of visible light. So you are trying to make a lens do something that it is designed to NOT do. Taking into account all the variables involved, of course some lenses show “inconsistent” results in IR and UV testing. What that all means is that any copy of any lens can vary in almost any test or application.

Will do more tests, but until now I won’t use the 28-200mm at 28mm anymore. terrible AC and almost no Corner Sharpness from F4-F11. But no Hotspots, great IR Performance!

1. The Konica 57mm ƒ1.4 is the only ƒ1.4 that I have tested that has no hot spot at all. Combine that with it’s color performance and despite my best efforts to replace it, I still find it to be a winner.

i bought and tried the Konica 57mm f1.4. correct, absolutely no hot spots any any setting. i also needed some wide angle so i also used my zeiss zf-ir 24mm f/2.8 lens and wow, there’s a big noticeable difference in contrast and sharpness without having to pixel peep. not bad, but i want something a little better so you’ll see one for sale on ebay soon.

I am overall pleased with the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 I notice some magenta in the vignette corners when using with 590nm and 720nm. On the 850nm the issue is not present or I haven’t noticed.

I looked at the Nikon list, and I found some funny lenses: Nikon 70-80 mm f/4.5-5.6 ED AF-D VR Micro NON EXISTENT! Even if ve corrected the focal length to 70-180 mm, there would still be an extra VR (70-180mm Micro-Nikkor has never been produced in the VR version)

Panasonic 14mm 2.5 Everybody mentions this lens, but I was underwhelmed, and prefer the Oly 17mm 1.8. I didn’t find the sharpness to be on par with the 25mm or 42.5mm lenses, the edges are soft, and colors took more work. But I have read results vary copy to copy. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52702455382/in/album-72177720306182137/

Luckily, we offer AR-coated conversion filters that reduce hotspots, improving the performance of the lenses on this list. You can generally expect that with the AR coating, you will get several additional hotspot-free apertures, making some of the poor performers usable.

Then, you have a triple listing of the 85mm PC Micro Nikon 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro Nikon 85mm f/2.8 PC-E Micro Nikon 85mm f/2.8 D PC-E Micro

I tested the IRIX 15mm f / 2.4 lens on a nikon D610 FS and there is an important hotspot in the center whatever the setting f/

Nikkor S 24-70/2.8: acceptably mediocre at 2.8 with diffuse, mild hotspot. Unuseable beyond f/4. Focal length is irrelevant.

Thank you. Appreciate the reply. I ended up getting a Zeiss Sonnar® T* FE 55 mm F1.8 ZA lens which is great for IR. Still looking for a nice wide angle that is just as great.

Viltrox AF 16mm f/1.8 FE Tested on my Full-spectrum Nikon Z5 (with AR coating) and a Kolari 720nm clip-in filter. My conclusion: this lens is not ideal for IR, but it’s pretty usable. At certain angles, or when shooting certain subjects, there is a diffuse bright area in the middle of the frame–very faint at f/1.8, increasing in intensity as you stop down. I mostly shoot at f/5, and it’s quite mild at that aperture. Even at f/16, it’s still less of a “spot” than a hazy light patch–nothing a little burning and dodging in post can’t fix. It may be more of a problem if that bright patch happens to fall in an empty part of the image (like a cloudless sky). I only shoot in black and white–color shooters: be advised that the bright patch has a different color (bluish purple) than the rest of the image (which looks magenta in the RAW files) so the artifact will likely be more pronounced in 720nm color. Finally, this lens is prone to some pretty ugly flare–I don’t always mind flare (it can sometimes add something to an image) but the shapes and patterns this particular lens creates are pretty distracting, so make sure to shield the lens when shooting contre-jour.

Konica AR 57mm ƒ1.4 – fantastic lens both color and IR. Konica AR 50mm ƒ1.4 – well defined hot spot from ƒ4 Konica AR 50mm ƒ1.7 – clean lens, great performer Konica AR 50mm ƒ1.8 – hot spot looks like smudges in the imager after ƒ11, also Ninja Star Mamiya Sekor 55mm ƒ1.8 SX – clean lens that has smudge Hot Spot after ƒ11 Mamiya Sekor 55mm ƒ1.8 – clean great performer Olympus 50mm ƒ1.4 Zuiko – Ninja Star, and bad hot spot, really bad Olympus 50mm ƒ3.5 Macro Zuiko – lovely performer, sharp and no hot spot Canon FD 50 ƒ1.8 – clean great performer Canon FD 50mm ƒ1.4 – one of the worst from ƒ4 on Minolta MD 50mm ƒ2 – visible hot spot starting at ƒ8 Minolta 50mm ƒ1.7 Rokkor – clean nice lens Minolta MD 50mm ƒ1.7 Rokkor-X – clean great performer Minolta MD 50mm ƒ1.4 Rokkor-PG – terrible hot spot one of the worst starting at ƒ5.6 Minolta 50mm ƒ1.7 AF – clean but the lack of live preview of aperture is a no-go Yashica 50mm ƒ1.5 Yashinon DS-M – Bad, really bad, one of the worst Nikon 50mm ƒ2 Nikkor pre-AI – clean sharp and no hot spot Nikon 50mm ƒ1.4 Nikkor pre-AI – not terrible just unusable after ƒ8 Nikon GN 45mm ƒ2.8 Nikkor – crazy sharp and no hot spot. Fuji 55mm ƒ1.8 Fujinon – Ninja Star, nice lens otherwise with slight smudging at tine apertures Pentax 50mm ƒ1.8 Takumar – No hot spot, but not as sharp or interesting as the Konica/Mamiya/Minolta lenses.

Sigma 10-20mm f / 3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD (flares, but ok with hotspots) to is the IR range? What it is? Does the lens work or not?

Tamron 24-70 is awesome btw. I did not see it listed. Of all the lenses that I own, the 24-70 is the only one that works best for Ir. No hot spots even stopped down, and no issues to report whatsoever.

630nm Filter 1. Nikon z 14-30 f/4 – stay below f/11 2. Nikon z 20 f/1.8 S – stay below f/8 3. Nikon 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G – no hotspots 4. Nikon z 50 f/1. 8 S – stay below f/16 5. Nikon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 D – no hotspots 6. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED – no hotspots

IR 720nm filter converted Nikon D7000. I have tested 6 lenses, all of these are hotspot free up to f/8 (no reason to test smaller apertures on crop sensor, f/8 provides huge DoF, everything is in focus for most IR shots). The biggest difference between lenses is sharpness and color. – Sigma 50 Art, the best lens I have tried. No hotspots and very very sharp. Wickedly sharp. – Sigma 105 OS Macro, no hotspots and very sharp. – Sigma 18-35, no hotspots and very sharp. Corners are slightly soft at 18mm, but slightly zoomed in, the lens is sharp corner to corner. – Tamron 10-24 VC, very soft corners at wider angles, from 16-24mm corners are very good with very little softness. Center is very sharp throughout the zoom range. My favorite lens for IR. – Nikkor 18-55 VR1, no hotspots but very soft corners and widest setting, gets better when zoomed in, but overall sharpness is not as good as Tamron 10-24 or Sigma 18-35. – Nikkor 50 f/1,8 AI, no hotspots but soft corners and not as sharp as Sigma 50 Art. – Sigma 10-20 f/4-5,6, no hotspots, soft and as with other lenses, corners are sharper when zoomed in. At first I made custom WB using Tamron 10-24 VC, but when I use Sigma lenses with that WB preset there is slight orange tint, I don’t know how else to explain this, pictures are slightly more flat in contrast compared to those made with Tamron 10-24. When I made custom WB preset for Sigma lenses it was much much better, but Tamron is better again when using the same WB preset, it’s like IR response is much better with that lens. Nikkor 18-55 and 50 AI are as good as Tamron, good IR response and great contrast. Basically if lens 1 is better then lens 2, this behavior translates to IR as well, at least when it comes to sharpness. I was astound when I realized just how sharp Sigma 50 Art is in IR.

I have used the Olmpus OM 55mm f1.2 with B+W 092 with good results even at f/1.2 also, the Arstat 20mm f2.8 with B+W 092 with good results

I converted a Sony NEX 5N with SEL1855 that I got on Ebay. Full spectrum conversion and mostly I use IR720 and IR680 filters. At first I thought SEL1855 was performing, then over time I realize it is one giant hot spot at F 3.5 in most cases. You can dial the hot spot from giant covering 2/3 screen from center down to a bright pinpoint at F22. Most daylight shots are highly problematic. You won’t notice sometimes then you look when you get back to the computer and you realize there is a huge brightened circle of light distorting the image. You can avoid the hot spot and make it work on some angles, but when it gets in the way during daylight photos you will have very difficult time. I would suggest a follow up and review this lens again because I have had to look for alternatives and have many many photos with the large glow of the hot spot which is more like a giant hot circle.

On a Canon 40D with 590nM conversion, I can confirm the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM DC* hotspots that start to appear at f/13 and is visible at f/22. I’d say it’s mild from examples I’ve seen posted by others from other lenses.

720nm Filter 1. Nikon z 14-30 f/4 – stay below f/8 2. Nikon z 20 f/1.8 S – do not use 3. Nikon 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G – no hotspots 4. Nikon z 50 f/1. 8 S – stay below f/8 5. Nikon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 D – stay below f/16 6. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED – no hotspots

2. The color and bokeh of the ƒ1.4 lenses all made me happy with the exception of the Ninja Star issue on the Oly. If I was not shooting IR there is not a loser among the rest.

Hello, what about the IR capabilities of the new Fujinon XF16-80 f/4 lens? Is that usable for infrared photography? Kind regards Michael

Cameras and lenses generally weren’t designed for infrared use. Unfortunately, as a result, many lenses suffer from an infrared hotspot. We have compiled the world’s most extensive collection of lenses and their hotspot performance. The lists below are based on our internal tests and what others have reported. Lenses noted with an asterisk (*) have had mixed reports or only have a hotspot in limited situations. Please note: even poor performers can sometimes be used. Most hotspots only occur at smaller apertures and specific shooting angles.

590nm. It was bad enough that I deleted the pictures in-camera and I won’t have the lens available for several months I’m afraid.

You have it marked as good, but I’m getting large but faint hot spots from a Tamron 15-30 at mid-apertures on a converted D3300.

Thank you for your input. According to this review, Sigma 18-35 is great for infrared. I wouldn’t discredit all Sigma lenses just yet.

Hallo Ich weiß nicht,ob ohne “Hotspot” oder? Nur neu Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-80mm F2. 8-4.0 E ED VR 72mm??? Aber nur sehr gut frei “Hotspot” Alt nur Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm F3. 5-5.6 ED G VR 67mm!

I’ve been adapting lenses onto my Full Spectrum Canon 5D Mark II and found that the Canon 50mm F/1.8 STM has no hot spots with a 590nm lens filter but the Nikon 24mm F/2.8 Ai-S (NIKKOR AIS) appears to hot spot from wide open. I also noticed it flares when I point it towards a fireplace but the flare is gone if I cover the fireplace with the UV/IR cut filter.

I am planning to have an A7r modified. The information I find in google searches about lenses, however, is inconsistent. I have the Sony 55mm, and it seems to be generally agreed to be excellent at all apertures. I also have the Sony 16-35 (f4) and the 35mm (f 2.8), about which there are conflicting reports. I would like to have a native Sony mount lens, probably 35mm or 28mm but possibly 24mm that has no problem at any aperture. I am looking for a smaller lens (the Sony 35mm, 1.4 is a monster). Something like the Sony 35, 2.8, without the reported limitation. There is a report at Lens Rentals that says the Zeiss lenses are good, but it does not give specifics. If it is good for IR the Loxia 35 would be excellent.

After seeing the Minolta 50 f/2.8 AF Macro in the Good column, i got one. It’s sharp but when shooting landscape scenes at f/11, you can see a mild but noticeable hotspot (warmer and brighter) in the center. I’ll keep it for my other color camera (A99ii). I reconfirmed that the Minolta 50 f/1.7 has no hot spots at f/11. color and brightness are even, even when channel swapping. Although, sharpness is not as good as the 50 f/2.8.

If the MF is not tested on modified IR mirrorless camera, I believe that all MF lens will perform poorly because the IR ray __is designed__ to be focused at the different plane from visible light.

20mm f3.5 Nikon UD. (Their first 20mm) Much better than the 20mm f2.8 Ais. 28mm f3.5 Nikkor-H Pre Ai. Much better than the 28mm f2.8 Ais, an Emarit M, a Zeiss Distagon, and five others. 35mm f2.5 Canon FL. Just about perfect. Easily beat eight contenders including several listed in the “good” column. 40mm f2.8 Canon STM. Just about perfect. 50mm f1.8 Canon STM. Easily beat a whole bunch of other 50’s including several Nikkors, a Planar, and a Summicron M. 57mm f1.4 Hexanon AR. Nearly perfect. An exceptionally clean lens. 58mm f1.4 Minolta MC Rokkor-PF. Just as near perfect as the Hexanon. 85mm f1.8 Canon FD SSC. Not perfect, but very good and better than Nikon f2 Ais, and the Nikon f1.8D.

i agree with Steve on the Olympus 12-40/2.8 and will add more specifically, mild hot spots starting around f/8 at 12mm, difficult to correct by f/11. so mild that you may not notice them unless you do faux color processing.

— Nikon 300mm f/4.5 AI-s (the non-ED one): Completely useless on APS-C. Not sharp at all wide open and diffraction kicks in before it can be stopped down enough to be useful. May be useful on full frame, but I don’t have a converted full frame camera to test it with. Didn’t notice a hotspot though.

I’ve got the Fuji 16 F 1.4 – very bad at all apertures past F2.8 and not so good at 2.8 and lower. The only good thing to say about the otherwise wonderful lens is that the hot spot does not have a hard, harsh border, and is very wide – hiding the effect a bit.

Any word on newer wide angle Canon RF options? (Especially interested in the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM, Laowa 14mm f/4 FF RL)

Hello.. Please.. I can recommend zoom and fixed targets for the Sony a7r II that you have security that do not produce Hotspot…? And Tamron 28-75 mm F/2.8… What do you know?

– the Samyang/Rokinon 12 mm f/2.0 NCS CS has a pretty significant hotspot (tested at f8). It is otherwise sharp. Hyperfocal setting at f8 for infrared is to focus just left of the “0” in “0.5 m” on the focus scale.

Hi again, So I have just tested out my Hoyar72 77mm filter on the Tamron 24-70 g2 lens, (I taped it onto the 82mm lens and blocked the edges as best as possible.) Pleased to report no visible HotSpots till f22, then of course it’s quite small by then.

Do the hotspot happen only when doing IR? I have a full spectrum and I am planning on getting a hot mirror filter, but wanted to know if I would experience the hotspots when doing Visible Spectrum photography?

Also, I do have some information on the Nikkor Z 50 1.8 S lens. It followed almost exactly the same pattern as I observed with my Nikkor S 24-70/4. Hot spots stated at f/10, but was almost invisible and did not really change until f/16. And in certain angles from the sun, I saw no hotspots at all in any aperture.

Hi, has somebody experienced VILTROX 23mm f1,4? With my D800 Full Spectrum I use old Nikon lenses (Ais) 28mm shift, 35mm shift, 85mm f1,4 and 105 f 2,5 with no hot spots, expecially in wide apertures; bad use sigma 24mm 1,4, Nikon 85mm f 1,8 AF (sold!). Thanks!

Hey all, i’ve tested the Sony 90mm Macro 2.8 FE G with 550nm and 850nm filters, the hotspot appears only from 5.6 and more Cheers !

The Canon 70-200/4 L non-IS model is in the Good Performer category. I had the IS model and I would put that in the Bad Performer list.

Lee, did you get any feedback on the Nikon 28-300 VR? I seriously want to get one for my walk around IR shooting. I suspect it will be like my other better Nikon Zoom lenses… good into you stop down past f/8. I could live with that.

And then there’s this one: Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED For consistency with the rest of the list (all other micro Nikkors are marked as such), it should read Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED Micro

Finally I tested the lens yesterday in a shop with a Hoya R72 and my Nikon D810. With an open apperture there is a slight hot spot, but with smaller ones (I tested 8 and 11) it gets impressive. At the end I didn‘t purchase the lens.

Fuji 35mm f2 gave me some color shift in the middle at f5.6. Fuji 15-45 works ok. Start to see mild hot spot around f8. Tested on x-t10 full spectrum converted with 590nm/720nm

Infrared lensmaterial

Rokinon 24mm tilt-shift with full-frame Sony e-mount. No hotspots observed at all. Sony 70-300 G in full-frame Sony e-mount. Nasty hotspots at wide end, OK at 300 with widest aperture.

These are my results regarding hot spots for lenses not in the database using an Olympus E-M5 with an uncoated 720nm conversion. Poor performers: Olympus 8mm f1.8 fisheye Decent performers with mild hot spots: Olympus 12-40/2.8, Laowa 7.5mm f2.0, Olympus 12-50 f3.5/6.3 Excellent performers: Olympus 9mm F8 fisheye body cap (pronounced soft edges), Panasonic Leica 100-400 f4.0-6.3.

I had wanted a little longer reach so I also tried (rented) the Sony FE 24-105 G OSS Lens also This lens should be added to your poor performer list for Sony as it had the hot spots at every setting It looked to me like F4 at 105 mm was the only usable setting.

Hello, I’d keen about what’s wrong with the Canon TS-E 24mm f3.5 L II, listed in bad performers: “Canon TS-E 24 mm f3.5 L II* (see comments for details)”. Cannot find anything in the comments here. Many thanks for your help!

I wan to convert Fujifilm’s X70 Camera to 830nm. Has anyone got practical experience on this, regarding IR Hotspot by its native lens (Fujinon ASPH Super EBC 18.5mm f2.8)?

550nm Filter 1. Nikon z 14-30 f/4 – no hotspots 2. Nikon z 20 f/1.8 S – stay below f/11 3. Nikon 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G – no hotspots 4. Nikon z 50 f/1. 8 S – no hotspots 5. Nikon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 D – no hotspots 6. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED – no hotspots

– the Zonlai 22 mm f/1.8 appears to have no hotspot, at least shot at f8. Hyperfocal setting for infrared at f8 is to set the focus ring at 1 m (~3ft), and the results are then acceptably sharp to me. For landscape and general city shooting, I basically just do this and don’t even bother to check focus. Manual focus at closer distances and with wider apertures provides detailed results as well (e.g. portrait). I was planning of getting rid of this lens, but it’s now my favorite for IR. It is a bit prone to lens flare though in situations where the sun is positioned very unfavourably.

Hey. By the way – add to my regret – the bad lenses Canon Otus 28 / 1.4. Hot spot at 720 and 850 nm. For IRCrome it will do, especially if you shoot in RAW.

I went ahead and purchased this for $125 and it performs like a champ on my 850nm converted 5D Mark III. I sold my Sigma Art 50mm for a couple reasons and one of them was the terrible hot spot.

Could you recommend IR suitable lens from m42 mount? I love my Helios 44-2 58/2 but wasn’t able to find reliable feedback how this lens works with IR filer. But I’m happy to try other m42 lenses if you recommend some ?? .

There are other lenses I have tested and to be frank was not impressed. Hot spot issues were not terrible, just not what I was looking for in terms of other results: Hanimar 35/2.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Fujinon 55/1.9, Miranda 50/1.9, Pentax 35/3.5, Pentax 200/4, Minolta 35/1.8 Rokkor-X, Minolta 135/2.8 Rokkor-X, Olympus 28/3.5, Nikkor 28mm ƒ3.5 Pre-Ai.

I can’t understand the loxia 21mm score. Of course, it appears if it is F11 or higher, but it is useful until F8. Also, the resolution itself is really overwhelming.

However, the Nikkor-NC Auto, 24mm F2.8 lens, all versions, is not a great lens. IR or everyday shooting. If you use that lens on any full frame camera, and compare shots side by side, you’ll see the difference in sharpness on any photograph.

I know it’s a long shot, but I really want to know if Fuji’s 2020 updated 10-24 (the WR version) works any better with IR. The original has always been my favorite visible-light landscape lens, but the hotspot is so harsh, it’s unusable at any focal length shorter than 24mm.

– Tamron 20-40 f2.8 – Color Hotspots starting at f4 and 680nm / 17-28 has better IR Performance, sharper at 20mm f4 in the corners and a smidge more Contrast. Wanted to exchange the 17-28 – gonna sell the 20-40 again. (tested with Sony a7R III and Filters from AliExpress, Tiffen, Neewer and Urth)

I started shooting infrared a couple years ago, and wanted to share some findings for anybody that’s also using micro four thirds.

InfraredFilter forcamera

Kolari Chrome Filter 1. Nikon z 14-30 f/4 – be careful at 30mm f/16 2. Nikon z 20 f/1.8 S – stay below f/16 3. Nikon 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G – no hotspots 4. Nikon z 50 f/1. 8 S – no hotspots 5. Nikon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 D – no hotspots 6. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED – no hotspots

Olympus 17mm 1.8 Solid performer and works better at smaller apertures than most others, on the rare occasion they are necessary. Edges aren’t quite as good as the cheap Panasonic primes. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52703465878/in/album-72177720306189579/

Samyang T-S 24mm f3.5 ED AS UMC on converted to full spectrum Canon 50D. Outstanding resolution, no hot spot on every aperture. Perfect for visible and IR spectrum. Tested on visible light, 690nm and 720nm.

your post about the 24-105mm f4 G lens is a bit confusing. you say hot spots with Sony 16-35mm f2.8 G lens at above f8… does that mean hot spots also start on 24-105mm f4 G at f8? thanks in advance

Terms Of Use | Privacy Notice | Cookies | Cookie Settings | About Us | Imprint | Careers | Careers | Sitemap

I have tested the 21mm (terrible) and the 50m (not too bad). I wouldn’t recommend either however since the Sony / Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 is far better for IR than the Loxia 50mm. I’m still curious about the 85mm because I would like a native mount IR lens in the focal range that takes 49mm filters.

I just received the new Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G lens. Bought it for night photography, and checked it also on my Sony A7iii with 590nm IR. Bad hotspot clearly noticeable after f/4. Without overly processing in post, f/4 is the last useful aperture.

Tamron 28-200 with 590nm on Sony a7 RIII excellent Lense – excelense. No Hotspots no Color Spots. Tried f4 and f5.6 – will test f8 and f11 soon.

Terms Of Use | Privacy Notice | Cookies | Cookie Settings | About Us | Careers | Careers | Sitemap

I’ve successfully tested a Zeiss 50mm Planar T* F1.7 (Contax) at all apertures with no hotspots on a Canon 60D Full Spectrum at 720nm (Same test shows significant hotspots on Canon EF 50mm F1.4 which is already in Database)

Mike, I wanted to add my observations using a Z6 and the Nikkor S 24-70/4… First signs of hotspots was at f/10 but was almost invisible and did not really change until f/16. And pointing the camera in some directions (as to where the sun was), I saw no hotspots at all even at the smallest aperture.

Well, I had one, so believe me it’s not good, this article it’s only about hotspot, probably is hotspot free, but it’s terrible otherwise…

Zeiss F-Distagon 16 mm C/Y on Canon 5DII full spectrum. Custom converted lens version with internal UV, 590, 720, and 1000 nm filters. Good performer, but with 1000 nm filter the lens does not focus to infinity. However with a bit of stopping down (f/8) the infinity focus is essentially at the hyperlocal distance, so still works. No hotspot even wide open. Extreme corners are a bit softer, as expected from a rectangular fisheye.

Just adding some additional Nikon lens hotspot summaries from my recent Nikon z6ii full conversion. I shot about 500 images across an array of lenses using Kolari Chrome, 550, 590, 630, 720 and 850nm filters. These were tested across key aperture ranges and focal lengths.

I tested it on the A7 @ 850nm. It performed better on APS-C however, perhaps because it doesn’t look like a traditional hotspot.

Results from a quick test on a Fujinon XC 15-45mm. X-E1 full spectrum and Zomei filters. x = Hotspot f.3.5 f5.6 f8 f11 f16 f22 15mm 720nm x 950nm x 45mm 720nm x x 950nm x x x

I’ve tried a few others as well, but 90% of the time I’ve got the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 on my converted em1.ii. It’s tiny and sharp and cost less than the filter attached to it. The hot spot above 5.6 doesn’t bother me because I pretty much never need smaller. People use tiny apertures too much as it is, and in infrared there are even more reasons not to.

Probably should boil down to two, at least if we give credit to Roland Vink’s Nikkor Lens Version Database Nikon 85mm f/2.8D PC Micro Nikon 85mm f/2.8D PC-E Micro Both lenses communicate the distance to the body via the contacts, the more recent one has an Electronic Aperture control.

Just looked at my set of test files again and I see no hotspots throughout the range of the 16/2.8 WR. Anecdotally, very happy in use along w/ 23/2, 35/2 & 50/2 WR on X-Pro2 converted to 665nm by Kolari. Limited use of the Laowa 9mm owned by a friend, but nothing jumped out me as an issue. HTH.

Panasonic 14-45mm 3.5-5.6 Not as sharp or contrasty as the 12-60, but still quite good for such a cheap lens. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/53354834645/in/album-72177720312926598/

Since I couldn’t find info on these I got to test two newer lenses at a store today and can report on performance (this is on a new full spectrum conversion with pro AR coating on an A7R IV). New Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG DN lens for sony (l mount is the same): Poor IR performance and noticeable hotspots above f10. It could be worse at lower apertures too I was only looking through the viewfinder outside the store so it was hard to tell, but it was clearly visible at f10 and up so probably not great below either if I had a better environment to test/review. Interestingly my sigma 14-24 DG DN is better for IR from the quick tests I’ve done, but limited to cutting gels in the back.

i’d like to add to the list: olympus 12-100 f/4 (very bad hot spots) leica 8-18 f/2.8-4 (no hot spots) leica 12mm f/1.4 (no hot spots)

Fujifilm XF 50mm f/2 R WR: The best performer WRT hot spots on X-mount in my experience. You may be able to force one artificially but I’ve tried and have failed thus far.

I have tested the TAMRON 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD with very good results I have tested 680, 720 and 850 nm From 50 – 400 mm from F 4,5 – 22 with full sunlight from the back what is for my experience the most difficult situation

I heard nothing but good things about the Minolta 57mm f/1.4 so i got one. it’s true. no hot spots and nice color, but it was not sharp at all. it’s cheaper and easier to just get a point and shoot modified camera if you want this kind of softness.

Objective lenses are roughly classified basically according to the intended purpose, microscopy method, magnification, and performance (aberration correction). Classification according to the concept of aberration correction among those items is a characteristic way of classification of microscope objectives.

Axial chromatic aberration correction is divided into three levels of achromat, semiapochromat (fluorite), and apochromat according to the degree of correction. The objective lineup is divided into the popular class to high class with a gradual difference in price. An objective lens for which axial chromatic aberration correction for two colors of C ray (red: 656,3nm) and F ray (blue: 486.1nm) has been made is known as Achromat or achromatic objective. In the case of Achromat, a ray except for the above two colors (generally violet g-ray: 435.8nm) comes into focus on a plane away from the focal plane. This g ray is called a secondary spectrum. An objective lens for which chromatic aberration up to this secondary spectrum has satisfactorily been corrected is known as Apochromat or apochromatic objective. In other words, Apochromat is an objective for which the axial chromatic aberration of three colors (C, F, and g rays) has been corrected. The following figure shows the difference in chromatic aberration correction between Achromat and Apochromat by using the wavefront aberration. This figure proves that Apochromat is corrected for chromatic aberration in wider wavelength range than Achromat is.

Meanwhile, an objective lens for which the degree of chromatic aberration correction to the secondary spectrum (g ray) is set to medium between Achromat and Apochromat is known as Semiapochromat (or Flulorite).

Today, I Tested sony a7R3 + SEL20F18G. Unfortunately, this is poor performance. Sadly, there are no alternatives, so we will use them until a replacement lens Discover.

I can add a lens to your list. The Minola MC ROKKOR-PF 58mm f1.4. I just compared it side by side to the Konica 57 f1.4. THEY ARE BOTH COMPARABLY SUPERB. If I had to choose, I’d go with the Minolta. But they’re both very close to perfect.

Recently used a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM mounted on a 590nm converted 6D. Hotpots were evident starting at f8 and clearly intensified with each stop down. Even at f/8 I had hotspots on some images where ISO and shutter were adjusted for uneven ambient lighting. Just as noted in the Kolari database, this lens is a poor performer.

Panasonic 25mm 1.7 Probably my favorite overall for 590nm. It’s sharp and produces even colors. Above 5.6 it can start to develop a hot spot, but I stick to larger apertures with IR anyway because of diffraction. Shoot mostly at f4 with it, and it’s great. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52703465063/in/album-72177720306182167/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/53354625428/in/album-72177720306182137/

Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 DI OSD at f/5.6 on Nikon D810 with 82mm HOYA R72 IR 720nm: no hot spot. Didn’t test at smaller apertures. f/2.8 @17mm and f/5.6 @35mm being the sharpest apertures for this zoom lens.

Tamron 45mm SP f/1.8 Di USD – mild hot spot at f/5.6 and gets very noticeable at f/11-f/16. one of the sharpest lenses i’ve used-too bad it doesn’t work well for IR.

No Hotspots or Color Spots when the Sun is behind me. 28-75mm wins on 760nm at 28mm, and on 590nm the 17-28 wins at sharpness using F8 and F11.

Has anyone tried Kaxinda 25mm f/0.95 ? the reviews for normal use is good, and it’s quite cheap – 175$ brand new. So i wonder how is it for hotspots

Hello Denns.. I read your article and I think you can get me out of my doubts: I Wanted to buy a Sony A7R II to modify it to full spectrum but I saw in the page of Shop kolariVision… “WARNING: This camera contains an internal diagnostic IR Led. This can cause light leaks when using very long exposures and high ISOs in the H-alpha and IR enabled conversion, in the range of 30 second exposures at 6.400 ISO. Can also have fine horizontal artifacts across the frame in highlighted areas in the IR enabled conversion due to the different sensitivity of some rows of pixels. “… This same text says for the Sony A7 RIII and I would like to ask if the “fine horizontal artifacts ” are greatly appreciated and if they really affect the sharpness… Thank you

– the Sony 35 mm f/1.8 has no hotspot, is sharp and works fine. I mostly don’t use it for IR on account of it living almost full time on the regular camera.

Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 Auto-W performs well from 660nm and longer wavelengths at f11 or lower without hotspots and very little chromatic fringing at corners at f8 or higher.

Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 and 12-40mm 2.8 pros Both are sharp and contrasty but both develop hot spots as you move past f5 or so, and the edges aren’t the best especially at the wide ends. But if you like shooting at f2.8-4 or so they can get good shots, at the long ends particularly. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52702979711/in/album-72177720306182137/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52703398775/in/album-72177720306182137/

Panasonic 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 My favorite zoom I’ve tried. Pretty sharp, good for 590 and 830nm. Was great to at least f8. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/53354602113/in/dateposted-public/

ZEISS Touit 12mm f/2.8 for Fujifilm X-mount: An excellent performer that I bought to replace the XF 14mm. This is now my primary wide angle lens for IR.

I also tested the Tamron 28-200mm A071SF F/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD für Sony E-Mount It is a very good lens for IR, I could not recognize any hotspot on no focal length or aperture This in now my referred lens and replace my old Minolta 28-85 mm what is also hot spot free

Hi, I have been using the Nikon 24 – 120mm 3.5 with HOYA R72 filter and when used at f9 there is no hotspot. I bought the Nikon 20mm 1.8 specifically for my Infrared photos as I wanted a sharper lens and Im yet to find an aperture that eliminates the hotspot. Im very disappointed and will now need to sell the lens. I do however own a NIKON 14mm – 24mm 2.8 lens but because my camera is not converted to IR so I need to use the Infrared filter. I have not been able to find a filter to suit anywhere. Does anyone know a solution for this. NISI and NEEWER don’t make the infrared filter and would this work anyway? Any advice??? Mandy Mahn

Photography or image pickup with a video camera has been common in microscopy and thus a clear, sharp image over the entire field of view is increasingly required. Consequently, Plan objective lenses corrected satisfactorily for field curvature aberration are being used as the mainstream. To correct for field curvature aberration, optical design is performed so that Petzval sum becomes 0. However, this aberration correction is more difficult especially for higher-magnification objectives. (This correction is difficult to be compatible with other aberration corrections) An objective lens in which such correction is made features in general powerful concave optical components in the front-end lens group and powerful concave ones in the back-end group.

Your database shows that the OLYMPUS 12-50 has poor performance after f/9. The fact is : ALL 4/3 and micro 4/3 lens start to perform badly after f/8, from Diffraction Limit. No exception.

if anyone knows of an ultra wide zoom for m4/3 that’s relatively sharp with no need for post process fixing of hot spots at any aperture and any focal length (a lot to ask for), please let me know.

Pentax 50/1.4 7 element — Only the 2nd 1.4 that I have ever tested that matches the Konica 57mm. I have also tested two different versions of the Konica and both have same great results. Pentax 35/2 Super-Takumar — big heavy lens that delivers fantastic results. Konica AR 135/3.2 Hexanon – my favorite 135 of all time. This lens is light weight, compact, crazy sharp, and clean hotspot results. Crazy short focus distance, if you love shooting flowers this is an amazing lens. I also bought it for $5 out of a bargain bin! Konica AR 35mm ƒ2.8 – older Hexanon version and excellent results. Konica 28/3.5 Hexanon – Great results some hint of smudging past f11. Konica 200/4 — great results. I love this lens. Konica 200/3.5 — great results Vivitar 200/3.5 m42 — Fantastic lens, great Hot Spot results. Vivitar 19mm/3.5 — Not the sharpest lens in my kit, but clean IR results Canon FL 85/1.8 – a lot to love about this lens other than weight — classic all metal construction, sharp and clean IR results. Canon FD 24/2.8 — some smudging at ƒ11 Canon FD 35/2.8 – very clean results Nikkor 35/2 Pre-Ai, really nice lens with clean results. Nikkor 135/3.5 Pre-Ai, clean lens, just not as sharp as some of my other 135s Voigtlander 35mm ƒ2.5 MC LM — hot spots at ƒ8 Minox Color-Minotar 35mm ƒ2.8 — this is m39 converted from the legendary Minox cameras and it gives great results. Downsides are 4 sided bokeh, and fidgety to use thanks to a tiny aperture ring. Topcor 58mm ƒ1.8 — I have two of these and was not impressed with either. Hotspots start at around ƒ11. YUS (Yashica) 28/2.8 C/Y — this is simply an amazing lens — my hands down favorite 28 for any purpose. YUS (Yashica) 135/2.8 C/Y — next to the Konica 135/3.2 this is the best 135 I have ever tested, sharp, contrasty, and no Hot Spot issues. Yashica 50/1.8 ML C/Y — stay below ƒ11 and watch how you shoot with it.

The 7artisans 7.5mm f/2.8 fisheye works well enough in the infrared, with slight corner softness and slight color fringing in high contrast. I used f/5.6

An objective lens is the most important optical unit that determines the basic performance/function of an optical microscope To provide an optical performance/function optimal for various needs and applications (i.e. the most important performance/function for an optical microscope), a wide variety of objective lenses are available according to the purpose.

Results from a quick test on a Fujinon XC 15-45mm. X-E1 full spectrum and Zomei filters. At 15mm with 720nm and 950nm no hotspot until f22. At 45mm with 720nm hot spot starting at f16 and with 950nm starting at f11

The tamron 17-28 f2.8 for sony was excellent and no noticeable hotspots just like the tamron 28-75 I already have. This lens I will buy soon.

i bought the new Olympus 8-25 f/4 Pro for my color camera but tested it on my full spectrum w/720nm IR filter. it has hot spots, very large, even, warm, all apertures , real bad over f/7.1, mostly correctable post processing.

Excellent resource, thank you! The Tamron 24-70 versions are missing, my most used lens. How does one test this best? I could contribute my results.

My assortment of lenses falls somewhere between substantial and “all of them”. And I’m very picky about hot spots. I have rejected dozens of lenses listed in the “good” column above. Like I said, I’m picky. So far, I’ve found seven lenses that show only the faintest hot spot photographing a black subject in the middle of a bright field with the lens stopped down AS FAR AS IT WILL GO. Usually f16 or f22. Those seven are……..

hI I’ve tried the Olympus 12 40 Pro with EM1 II and Hoya 720 filter : BAD PERFORMER ( Hot spots) Panasonic Leica 8 18 : GOOD PERFORMER ( Clean picture and NO hot spots)

I can’t believe my favourite IR lens is not listed 🙂 Sony FE 28-70 f3.5-5.6 has no hotspot at all. I’ve used it on my Full Spectrum A7II and I can’t recall that I ran into hotspot like ever. Unfortunately can’t say the same from the Sony FE 24-105 F4 which is quite a bad performer :'(

Infraredeyelens

590nm Filter 1. Nikon z 14-30 f/4 – no hotspots 2. Nikon z 20 f/1.8 S – stay below f/11 3. Nikon 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G – no hotspots 4. Nikon z 50 f/1. 8 S – no hotspots 5. Nikon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 D – no hotspots 6. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED – no hotspots

Thanks for the tests. I have also gotten hot spots with the 12-40 but have not tried it at all focal lengths and apertures yet. I am awaiting filters to test the Laowa 7.5. Did you shoot all your lenses wide open or if not, at what apertures and focal lengths?

Find a tree with full canopy of leaves. Set camera up on tripod and aim center at a sky just above the foliage. I have an Oak that has a nice V shaped area I aim at. You want a cloudless sky – make sure the sun is not in or near the image area. Shade it out if needed. I start at minimum f16-f22 and then work back in full stops while looking through the lens. If you are going to have an issue it will be obvious at smaller apertures. Most lenses with issues lose their spot at around f4-8. If you read my earlier note I have done way to much testing.

I test by using a tree in my alley and centering the lens int he open sky just above the bright trees. My camera is 720nm A7II. No AR coating.

ZEISS 50mm f/2 Planar ZM T* : No problem at all Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar Leica M mount : No problem at all Just to be more precise about the FUJI XF 27mm f/2.8, it’s usable at f/4 no hot spot visible,it begins to be very faint and wide at f/5.6, very bright small hot spot at f/16. All the tests were done on FUJI X-Pro1 camera.

Does anyone has experience with the Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 Di III RXD ? In the DB earlier releases marked as bad performers.

I would like to see the newer Fuji lenses tested. In my limited trials, I find the Fuji 35mm F2.0 to be an excellent performer, but the autofocus tends to hunt. The 16mm 1.4 is terrible. Autofocus doesn’t work at all. The 90mm is good from 2.0 to 5.6.

Tried it at f8, it’s I think the worst hotspot I’ve ever seen on any lens at that aperture. This is on an APS-C A5100. Shots do seem usable in black and white, but in color it’s absolutely atrocious. After RGB-BGR channel flip there’s a massive yellow stain in the middle.

Hi, I don’t see the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR on the list, anyone used it for IR. Any hotspot problems? Thanks in advance. Lee

Has anyone tried Kaxinda 25mm f/0.95 ? the reviews for normal use is good, and it’s quite cheap – 175$ brand new. So i wonder how is it for hotspots

So i tested the 17-28, 28-75g1 and the 28-200 with 590nm and 760nm on a Sony a7 RIII Full Spectrum, all 3 at 28mm F4, F5.6, F8 and F11.

I have a Canon 5D Mark III that’s converted to Kolari 850nm monochrome and was looking for a substitute for my Sigma 50 Art. I bought the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and I haven’t had any issues with it. I also use it on my non-IR Mark IV bodies with great success. It’s surprisingly good for $125. 🙂

So I suspect the poor rep is based on the N or the NC version. This manual focus lens is still made new today. if any of you still want to dump one off cheap, just let me know. 🙂

yes, the problem too is that i doubt people are testing every focal length on zooms and every aperture and every type of IR filter (590,665,720,850nm). so you’ll only get a general idea from this list but it’s the biggest list i’ve seen. hot spots are the most frustrating part of IR phtography.

I actually bought the FE 85mm 1.8 (not quite for landscape IR purposes) and can testify it actually works pretty well. Made a session with it during sunset, and seem to be OK with very mild hotspot at f/14 and beyond. IMHO f/14 is not the most common use case. So perhaps there are different batches or something. SEL85F18 is the model I have.

The purposes of optical microscopes are broadly classified into two; "biological-use" and "industrial-use". Using this classification method, objective lenses are classified into "biological-use" objectives and "industrial-use" objectives. A common specimen in a biological use is fixed in place on the slide glass, sealing it with the cover glass from top. Since a biological-use objective lens is used for observation through this cover glass, optical design is performed in consideration of the cover glass thickness (commonly 0.17mm). Meanwhile, in an industrial use a specimen such as a metallography specimen, semiconductor wafer, and an electronic component is usually observed with nothing covered on it. An industrial-use objective lens is optically designed so as to be optimal for observation without any cover glass between the lens end and a specimen.

Panasonic 42.5mm 1.7 Probably the sharpest I’ve used, but can produce a bit of fringing with false color. Still great though. Similar hot spot issues to the 25mm, so I shoot everything f2.8-5.6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52703232044/in/album-72177720306189579/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/155370454@N08/52702456437/in/album-72177720306182167/

In the optical design of microscope objectives, commonly the larger is an N.A. and the higher is a magnification, the more difficult to correct the axial chromatic aberration of a secondary spectrum. In addition to axis chromatic aberration, various aberrations and sine condition must be sufficiently corrected and therefore the correction of the secondary spectrum is far more difficult to be implemented. As the result, a higher-magnification apochromatic objective requires more pieces of lenses for aberration correction. Some objectives consist of more than 15 pieces of lenses. To correct the secondary spectrum satisfactorily, it is effective to use "anomalous dispersion glass" with less chromatic dispersion up to the secondary spectrum for the powerful convex lens among constituting lenses. The typical material of this anomalous dispersion glass is fluorite (CaF2) and has been adopted for apochromatic objectives since a long time ago, irrespective of imperfection in workability. Recently, optical glass with a property very close to the anomalous dispersion of fluorite has been developed and is being used as the mainstream in place of fluorite.

i’d like to add that i just got an olympus 14-42 II R which shows as a good performer, but don’t agree it’s “good”. there’s a mild correctable hot spot w/720nm filter at f/8, only noticeable when doing faux color processing. you’d never know if you were doing monochrome IR processing.

Mine is great at 830 and f8 on a Nikon D700. It is my go to lens for WA. I have not tried it at 720. Some images show a very minor hotsot at f8

I find that Nikkor 17-55 has hot spots over f/5.6 or on times over 20 sec. The same with Nikkor 18-55 VR II but definitely less visible hot spots on this lens.

I should clarify my comment was about the SEL35F18 (the crop lens of 35mm/1.8), rather than the SEL35F18F (the full frame lens with the same specs).

— Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS: Hotspot is way worse at 18mm than the chart says. Hot spot starts to become visible at f/5 and is definitely visible at f/5.6. Fine at other points in the zoom range.

a few other aditional lensdata not in list, I take ir /uv photo’s since 2008 (modded Nikon D200): Good performers: Tokina ATX Macro 90mm f2.5 ; Tokina 17mm SL f3.5 ; Sigma EX 50mm DG; Sigma EX APo 100-300 f4 ; Sigma 180mm f3,5 APO Macro HSM; Sigma EX 15mm fisheye. Nikkor AIS 105mm f2.5 ; AIS 80-200 f4. E serie 35mm f2.5 also suberb in UV! AI Micro 55mm f3.5. Sigma EX 10-20 f3.5 does well. Samyang 14mm f2.8 UMC, IRIX 15mm f2.4 . Voiglander 40mm Ultron f2 (nikonversion) . BAd performers: Nikkor AIS 28mm f2.8 (with CRC) , Tokina ATX 12-24 f4 dx ,

So I have gone crazy with testing Standard/Normal old glass over the past three months. I shoot a pair of oak trees in front of my apartment building late in the afternoon. Testing season will be done soon 🙁

Please note: This list has errors, or you may find lenses listed as “poor” that you use well. That is because this is a compilation from various sources, and people have different judgements for what is acceptable. For example, a lens with a moderate hotspot at f/10—some people may use it primarily at f/6 and below and think it is a fantastic lens. In contrast, someone who uses the lens around f/11 will think it is terrible, while yet another person may use it at f/11 and think the hotspot is mild and can be worked around and still think it’s a good lens. Additionally, hotspots tend to be worse with deeper IR filters, like 850nm, than the color IR filters, like 590nm. Ideally, every lens should specify the aperture range that causes hotspots, but until we get there, please take this list with a grain of salt, and if you find any errors, please let us know and we will fix them!

Hello People! Found a new favorite and it’s working great for infrared. Tamron 35-150 2.8/4 I was able to test it finally. Happy to report that no hotpot issues encountered so far. I did some quick tests at different focal lengths and upto f8, and was not able to produce any hotspots. So yep this is my second lens that works great for infrared.

What is the best way to test lenses for hot spots, so that I may add my lenses to this database? Do you have a recommended testing routine?

I remade the fuji xe-2 into a full spectrum. I started having problems after Canon. No lenses! Almost everyone gives a hot spot. Samyang 12/2, Fuji 16-50, Fuji 18 / 2.0 can be used – up to 2.8, 18-55- always a hot spot, Fuji 55-200- ok is always. Sinma 10-20 / 4-5,6 – always a point (starting with a blurred). Canon 17-0 and 18-105 – no until 11! What is sigma 10-20 / 3,5 ????????? Tell me the 10-12-14 mm wide corner !!!!!!!!!!!!!! for fuji.   Vladimir, Russia.

A variety of microscopy methods have been developed for optical microscopes according to intended purposes. The dedicated objective lenses to each microscopy method have been developed and are classified according to such a method. For example, "reflected darkfield objective (a circular-zone light path is applied to the periphery of an inner lens)", "Differential Interference Contrast (DIC) objective (the combination of optical properties with a DIC( Nomarski）prism is optimized by reducing lens distortions)", "fluorescence objective (the transmittance in the near-ultraviolet region is improved)", "polarization objective (lens distortions are drastically reduced)", and "phase difference objective (a phase plate is built in) are available.

Hot spots noted with Sony 16-35mm f2.8 G lens at above f8; same with Sony 24-105mm f4 G lens & with Zeiss 18mm f2.8mm lens. What a dissappointment.

Infraredfilter app

I use Sony A6000, the full spectrum. Tamron 10-24 does not give Hot Spot at all. This is the most suitable lens that I came across! Recommend.

i get some hot pink in the center when doing faux color at f/11 with a Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar. i don’t notice it when doing mono IR though. that is probably why it’s in the left/good column.

I would like to add to the Fujifilm X lens list another poor performer, the ZEISS Touit 32mm f/1.8 Lens for FUJIFILM X. Sadly, hotspot on most all apertures.

I definitely need to contribute too 😉 Here are the lenses I have tested: – Nikon 85mm f/1.4G (model 2195) – Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED (model 1989) – Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR (model 2223) – Rokinon 20mm f/1.8 ED AS (model RK20MAF-N) – Samyang 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC Tilt-Shift (model SYTS24-N) – Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (model 311306) – Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM (model 240955) – Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 DI OSD (model A037N) – Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 Di USD (model F045N) – Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD (model A043N) – Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 Di VC USD G2 (model A025N) – Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Macro (model F017N) Each one combined with these IR filters: – 830nm (Deep B&W IR) – 720nm (Standard IR – Hoya R72) – 590nm (Super Color IR)

I have tried the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens and it suffers rather badly produces large hotspots. I would avoid this lens for IR.

850nm Filter 1. Nikon z 14-30 f/4 – stay below below f/6 2. Nikon z 20 f/1.8 S – do not use 2. Nikon 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G – no hotspots 3. Nikon z 50 f/1. 8 S – stay below f/6 4. Nikon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 D – no hotspots 5. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED – no hotspots

An optical microscope is used with multiple objectives attached to a part called revolving nosepiece. Commonly, multiple combined objectives with a different magnification are attached to this revolving nosepiece so as to smoothly change magnification from low to high only by revolving the nosepiece. Consequently, a common combination lineup is comprised from among objectives of low magnification (5x, 10x), intermediate magnification (20x, 50x), and high magnification (100x). To obtain a high resolving power particularly at high magnification among these objectives, an immersion objective for observation with a dedicated liquid with a high refractive index such as immersion oil or water charged between the lens end and a specimen is available. Ultra low magnification (1.25x, 2.5x) and ultra high magnification (150x) objectives are also available for the special use.