Is anyone using unmodified Canon pro bodies for IR imaging despite the camera's basic unsuitability? And is there any truth in the view that certain modern UD lenses are problematic in this regard? I'll be running some tests in the near future . . .

Hoya R72 filter arrived this morning . . . initial tests promising.

What becomes evident immediately is that the lens type makes a big difference. Images acquired with a typical complex zoom require more post production, and have unpleasant colour casts. Simple primes work much better, and give quite attractive results out of the box. Naturally long exposures are a must.

It's hard to believe the oft-touted line that single-coated lenses are better for IR work than modern multi-coated ones, and indeed some have found this not to be true in practice. I'll be running some IR tests for the main site, with picture examples, as I continue to play.

I used to shoot some IR with my Fuji S2 and a B+W 092 very deep red filter(so deep as to be almost black in fact). With the S2 and my Nikkor 20mm 3.5UD, I could get some pretty decent results. On my 5D, the same filter and lens gives nowhere near the same IR look(glowing white foliage and black skies). I suspect the 5D has a very strong IR blocking filter in comparison to the Fuji S2 PRO.

It can be done . . . this typical IR shot (the first snapped on my standard 5D) has all the usual features: glowing foliage, massive flare, wonky colours . . . though the simpler primes tend to work best, I shot quite a few usable IR pix on holiday with the 400D and the Tamron 17-50/2.8.