Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-15-2017, 05:40 PM   #1
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,286
The DA 16-85 and Infrared hotspots ?

I have been using a K-01 that I had converted (by Isaac Szabo) for IR use (at 720nm), and I've used it with the DA 15/4 Ltd with some success (and, in fact, my 15/4 lives on the IR K-01). However, I'd also like to try a relatively compact ultra-wide-angle-to-tele zoom on the IR-equipped K-01 (and I don't yet own such a zoom).

I see that the great-for-a-lot-of-other-uses DA 18-135 may invoke IR hotspots (according to the Kolari Vision web site, although there is no specific info there on guilty wavelengths or apertures or focal lengths, or even whether the report(s) of hotspots have been from using lens IR filters or body sensor IR filters). However, I haven't been able to find any reports (positive or negative) about just how the DA 16-85 (which certainly does otherwise seem like a very attractive lens for regular visible light shooting) would work for an IR lens.

So, does anyone have any info regarding using the DA 16-85 as an IR lens that they've gleaned (either personally or second-hand)? Thanks for listening.

DA 15/4 on K-01 --



Last edited by fwcetus; 10-15-2017 at 05:47 PM.
10-16-2017, 02:40 AM   #2
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 119
I prefer to use a standard 18-55 kit lens on my converted K-01, but I also get good results with the 10-17 fisheye. I have used the 16-85 and 18-135 but I think the lenses that give me the results I like are the 18-55 and 10-17. But of course YMMV.
10-16-2017, 06:03 AM   #3
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,286
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by spinno Quote
I prefer to use a standard 18-55 kit lens on my converted K-01, but I also get good results with the 10-17 fisheye. I have used the 16-85 and 18-135 but I think the lenses that give me the results I like are the 18-55 and 10-17. But of course YMMV.

Hi. You said you "have used the 16-85", but did you mean with IR? If so, did you experience any hotspots with it? Thanks.

Last edited by fwcetus; 10-16-2017 at 07:32 AM.
10-16-2017, 10:20 AM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 119
Sorry meant to say no hotspots with either 16-85 or 18-135. I suspect using a filter in front of the lens is possibly problematic as the exposures are much longer giving the light passing through more opportunity to "misbehave" by bouncing around - with a conversion exposure times are of course more normal.

10-16-2017, 01:04 PM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,286
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by spinno Quote
Sorry meant to say no hotspots with either 16-85 or 18-135. I suspect using a filter in front of the lens is possibly problematic as the exposures are much longer giving the light passing through more opportunity to "misbehave" by bouncing around - with a conversion exposure times are of course more normal.

Ah, thanks for that clarification.

I am pleased to read your 16-85 report.

I was also pleased but a little surprised about your 18-135 report -- the Kolari Vision site, at Lens Hotspot Database - Kolari Vision (which seems to be the most extensive listing of good and bad IR lenses), lists the 18-135 as having "poor" hotspot performance, but unfortunately the listing is not annotated with any specific information as to why or under what conditions the lenses that were named as "poor" IR lenses actually earned their demerit(s).

Thanks again for providing your feedback.

Last edited by fwcetus; 10-16-2017 at 01:16 PM.
10-16-2017, 03:01 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 119
I understand that far more Canon and Nikon cameras have been converted than Pentax cameras, and so more of their lenses would be used and have a better sample confidence than say one mediocre report on a Pentax lens.
We Pentax owners don't like to boast do we....
I always smile when reviewers bemoan the fact that Pentax lenses don't have shake reduction....well is it always a necessity when SR is in the body. If we all believed the hype how many of us could afford only "the best" (most expensive) cameras.

Last edited by spinno; 10-16-2017 at 03:02 PM. Reason: Missing word
10-16-2017, 04:35 PM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,286
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by spinno Quote
I understand that far more Canon and Nikon cameras have been converted than Pentax cameras, and so more of their lenses would be used and have a better sample confidence than say one mediocre report on a Pentax lens.
We Pentax owners don't like to boast do we....
I always smile when reviewers bemoan the fact that Pentax lenses don't have shake reduction....well is it always a necessity when SR is in the body. If we all believed the hype how many of us could afford only "the best" (most expensive) cameras.

. And, you and I both know that one of the best cam bodies for IR conversion overall (regardless of brand) is the ~PENTAX~ K-01.

But I digress... Thanks again for your input.

02-22-2022, 03:06 PM   #8
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 41
QuoteOriginally posted by fwcetus Quote
. And, you and I both know that one of the best cam bodies for IR conversion overall (regardless of brand) is the ~PENTAX~ K-01.

But I digress... Thanks again for your input.
Have you tested 16-85 with IR (fullspectrum K-01)?

I'm thinking of buying one + dedicated IR Chrome filter.
02-22-2022, 03:30 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2013
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 845
Kolari indicates that the old Pentax kit lenses are good performers (18-55 and 50-200). The 18-55 is always on my IR converted Pentax but I haven't tried the 50-200. If interested you should be able to buy both e.g. on eBay for under $100.

Philip
02-23-2022, 02:00 AM   #10
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 41
QuoteOriginally posted by MrB1 Quote
Kolari indicates that the old Pentax kit lenses are good performers (18-55 and 50-200). The 18-55 is always on my IR converted Pentax but I haven't tried the 50-200. If interested you should be able to buy both e.g. on eBay for under $100.

Philip
Thanks, I have both (I've bought them as kit a decade ago).

18mm is not wide enough, 55mm is a little to short.

I do not like mine 50-200.

I have new 16-50 PLM (great lens on K3 III, but wide open on k-01 is not a good idea for landscapes).

16-85mm will be like 28-105 on my K-1 - the most used lens.
The only question is how to find out that it will work with IR without spending 700+ USD on the lens and 200+ USD (VAT, customs) on the filter for that lens.

I would like to be sure that if I spend around 1k USD I will have great lens with IR chrome filter hidden inside lens shade (protected).
05-28-2022, 11:38 AM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,277
QuoteOriginally posted by BlackTea Quote
Have you tested 16-85 with IR (fullspectrum K-01)?

I'm thinking of buying one + dedicated IR Chrome filter.
I have the 16-85 on my KP and I have an old K20D which I'm going to have modified with IRreCams in Germany. Still in doubt whether to use their standard 550 or 630nm conversion or go for the more expensive 580nm one. I find the 550 too colorful but the 630 not colorful enough so trying to get into the "goldie" zone with something in between.

I should have some experience with the 16-85 on infrared a month down the line I hope. Watch this space!
05-29-2022, 11:57 AM - 1 Like   #12
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 41
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
I have the 16-85 on my KP and I have an old K20D which I'm going to have modified with IRreCams in Germany. Still in doubt whether to use their standard 550 or 630nm conversion or go for the more expensive 580nm one. I find the 550 too colorful but the 630 not colorful enough so trying to get into the "goldie" zone with something in between.

I should have some experience with the 16-85 on infrared a month down the line I hope. Watch this space!
I've already bought my lens and I am strongly satisfied.
I didn't notice any hotspot - but I didn't look hard. I wanted to buy a dedicated IR Chrome filter, but I didn't. I tested it with magnetic mount for my 82mm lens (via filter redution) - unfortunately there was heavy vignetting at wide angle.

Interestingly, I am able to screw 82mm through the filter reduction inside the lens hood.
Cheers to the removable piece of the lens hood.

Now I'm waiting for the IR 1000nm - it will be here in a few days (I took the 77mm - because from time to time it will go with the Tamron 70-200/2.8).
06-17-2022, 10:31 AM   #13
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 2
Hello BlackTea,

QuoteQuote:
I've already bought my lens and I am strongly satisfied.
As I understand, you are glad for use 16-85 on infra-red ?

I'm going to convert KP for full spectrum and I think 16-85 will be one zoom for all.

16-85 has filter size is 72 mm and it's a the biggest circle from my lens collection - and I don't want spend money for IR filter only for test 16-85 on IR.

Could you confirm your good experience using 16-85 on IR ? I hope it will be better than 18-55.

b. regards
WO
06-22-2022, 08:10 AM   #14
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 41
QuoteOriginally posted by fotowox Quote
Hello BlackTea,



As I understand, you are glad for use 16-85 on infra-red ?
Yes.
I use it mostly for IR (Kolari Vision IR Chrome) - the colors are orange not red, but still I like the effect.


QuoteOriginally posted by fotowox Quote

I'm going to convert KP for full spectrum and I think 16-85 will be one zoom for all.

16-85 has filter size is 72 mm and it's a the biggest circle from my lens collection - and I don't want spend money for IR filter only for test 16-85 on IR.

Could you confirm your good experience using 16-85 on IR ? I hope it will be better than 18-55.

b. regards
WO
For me it is much better. And the focal range is much better.

I've just got IR1000 filter - but I have to test it. On my Tamron 70-200/2.8 it miss focus (On the other hand I remember that I had to send this lens for recalibration with my K-1).


If you can wait few days, I'll report how it works with IR Chrome, and some other IR filters.
06-26-2022, 07:53 AM   #15
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 2
QuoteOriginally posted by BlackTea Quote
If you can wait few days, I'll report how it works with IR Chrome, and some other IR filters.
Yes, thank you !
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, filters, hotspots, info, ir, k-01, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, reports, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Infrared ok lenses - ie no hotspots JayR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 10-03-2016 06:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA 12-24, DA 35 , DA 40, DA 16-45, Sigma 18-250 - Only not sold -DA 16-45 now $150 TGaa Sold Items 11 05-04-2016 04:50 PM
DA 16-85 vs. DA* 16-50; which is a better travel lens? Newtophotos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 01-08-2016 08:32 AM
Keep DA 16-45 or Go for DA 16-85? Biro Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 12-31-2015 08:44 PM
Olympic Committee Bans Wi-Fi Hotspots Reportage General Talk 8 08-03-2012 11:15 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top