Clip on Filters (Infrared)

[ynot]

Has anyone ever used one of these filters....https://stcoptics.com/en/clip_filter/

It looks like they are doing all sorts of filters but I'm looking at the IR filters. I was looking to get a camera converted to infrared but a full spectrum conversion and one of these filters may be cheaper and more versatile.

 

[Harlequin565]

Looks neat. I'm not sure how it's cheaper though if you're going to get a full spectrum conversion anyway. Unless full spectrum is cheaper than IR?

Unless I'm missing something all this does is move the filter from the front element to behind the lens. It's a nice idea, but I don't see the benefit.

Edit to add - the prices! $100 for an 850nm pass filter... Yikes.

 

[Canon Bob]

Unless I'm missing something all this does is move the filter from the front element to behind the lens. It's a nice idea, but I don't see the benefit.

I suspect that the upside is the ability to use lenses that may exhibit a hotspot when the filter is front mounted. The downside (when compared to a conversion) is the increase in exposure times.

Bob

 

[ynot]

The FS conversion is cheaper than the IR conversion. Not a huge amount in it once you have bought the filter but then the filter can be changed to different strengths.

I belive it is the same as having a lens mounted filter, yet theres no messing about adding filters as the clip on filter can just stay there.

Ive been told with the FS conversion the exposure times will be the same as it would be with a converted IR camera.

 

[nandbytes]

Ive been told with the FS conversion the exposure times will be the same as it would be with a converted IR camera.

That's right

p.s. selling a FS A7 in sales forum

Unless I'm missing something all this does is move the filter from the front element to behind the lens. It's a nice idea, but I don't see the benefit.

One of problems in IR is flare because of the filters in front of the lens. Since most IR photography happens in daylight this is a issue. So one of the main benefits is you can shoot lenses sometimes even pointing at the sun with a filter behind the lens.

Also since the filter goes behind the lens you don't need to buy multiple filter ring size for various lenses, which is can quickly become expensive. A hoya R72 is ~£30-50 depending on size. Buy a couple for a 49mm and a 72mm (my use case) and you basically can afford the clip on filter for same price.

Of course one can make do with set-up rings and what not, but its too fiddly sometimes and takes time when changing lenses. You are also obviously paying for convenience

It could possibly mitigate hotspots like mentioned above but not sure how successfully...

 

[Harlequin565]

It could possibly mitigate hotspots like mentioned above but not sure how successfully...

I'm also not sure about the hotspot thing. I have a fully converted X-T1 and still get bad hotspots on some lenses.

You are also obviously paying for convenience

If the OP was using this on a normal camera I'd agree, but getting it converted to full spectrum then adding this just seems to be adding more cost. Of course it's difficult to comment on not knowing which camera is being converted and how many lenses the OP is planning to use. Those Hoya filters at £30-50 are at one end of the scale. I have a set of Neweer filters at higher wavelengths to supplement my 590nm conversion and they were cheap as chips (and they're optically pretty good)

Too many variables for there to be a "right" answer here I suspect.

 

[Canon Bob]

I'm also not sure about the hotspot thing. I have a fully converted X-T1 and still get bad hotspots on some lenses.

To be clear, some lenses will exhibit hotspots on a converted body and there's little one can do about it. Other lenses work adequately with a converted body but show hotspots when used with a filter (on an uncobverted body) due to the reflection off the back of the front mounted filter.

Bob

 

[nandbytes]

I'm also not sure about the hotspot thing. I have a fully converted X-T1 and still get bad hotspots on some lenses.



If the OP was using this on a normal camera I'd agree, but getting it converted to full spectrum then adding this just seems to be adding more cost. Of course it's difficult to comment on not knowing which camera is being converted and how many lenses the OP is planning to use. Those Hoya filters at £30-50 are at one end of the scale. I have a set of Neweer filters at higher wavelengths to supplement my 590nm conversion and they were cheap as chips (and they're optically pretty good)

Too many variables for there to be a "right" answer here I suspect.

as mentioned about it mitigates reflections from mounted filter in some case.

Neewer filters are kinda fine but lack coating and flares very badly especially with UWA lenses. Hoya also has this problem but to a lesses extent.

 

[ynot]

Front filters are not an option for me.
I was just going to get a IR conversion but the cost has gone up and I'm reluctant to be paying it if I'm honest. The FS conversion is cheaper, having the clip on filter installed and left there it will be the same as having an IR converted camera. But will it be as good as having a IR converted camera.

 

[nandbytes]

Front filters are not an option for me.
I was just going to get a IR conversion but the cost has gone up and I'm reluctant to be paying it if I'm honest. The FS conversion is cheaper, having the clip on filter installed and left there it will be the same as having an IR converted camera. But will it be as good as having a IR converted camera.

i'd say both would be about equal or very close that it won't be worth obsessing over it.
But I am only making some "educated" guesses based on previous experience of using filters behind the lens and have never actually tried clip on filters. Also sigma bodies provided a similar solution out of the box by default which makes me think its a pretty decent solution in general