NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Tristin on September 10, 2016, 03:43:37
-
First review I have seen.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberphoto.se%2Finfo.php%3Farticle%3Dirix15blackca
-
Hi,
as i understand the Review: Optically it is not better then the Samyang. A Bit dissapointing...
Harald
-
Yes. And doesn't look very convincing, wide open. A pity there is no aperture-ring.
-
I don't understand why people are trying to design fast (and thus oversized) superwides. Given the excellent low-light performancce of current digital cameras, f3.5-4.0 should be fast enough and should make the lens much smaller.
-
Hi Akira,
the lens needs to be fast for Astrophotographhy. For "normal" landscapes stichting is an Option.
Harald
-
Hi Akira,
the lens needs to be fast for Astrophotographhy. For "normal" landscapes stichting is an Option.
Harald
Hi, Harald, that is well understandable. But it is strange that no one seems to be interested in designing superwides that are slow but offer excellent image quality. There are super wide zooms in this range but are still very big. I'm talking about the lenses of the sizes of Ais 18/3.5, Ais 20/2.8, Ai 20/3.5 and the like. Cosina 20/3.5 is discontinued.
-
Ais-nikkor 15mm f/3.5 tune-up and reissue ;)
-
The original review (in Swedish, which I read fluently) praises the lens for being sharp (they emphasise very high on-axis sharpness even wide open), well built, having low geometric distortion, and with a host of useful features such as an infinity point and the ability to lock the focus at any point. They say it is better than the usual 14-15 mm primes and compare it to the best zooms covering the range (for example, Nikkor 14-24).
It is, admittedly, rather painful to read the Google autotranslation of a language you are perfectly well able to understand yourself.
-
I guess the issue now is that lenses are judged based on specifications in the initial reaction online, and to get a favourable reaction, manufacturers have to try to beat prior specs. This is seen not only in wide angles but also in tele primes (e.g. 105/1.4 replacing 105/2).
I love fast wide angles, the 20/1.8 (which is not outrageously priced) has become my favourite due to its good image quality, reliable AF and light weight. MF is a nightmare though, which is why I also have some MF lenses for slow photography. In practice the 20/1.8 is the super wide angle lens I use a lot for indoor photography, events and astro-landscape etc. I used to have the 14-24 and while excellent, due to its weight and size I didn't use it often.
However I understand that many desire for compactness and "normal" maximum apertures in prime lenses. Perhaps later these will return to fashion.
-
i got dizzy just trying to understand the google translation but thanks for sharing, the images were VERY helpful in illustrating what this thing can do :o :o :o
I hope that they add a physical aperture ring on the Nikon version and make it Ai compatible ::)
-
First review I have read that use the language "Swenglish". None of the pictures in the review can tell me something about the performance in extreme close ups, how it behave in low light with point light sources, corner performance etc. No real life relevance, because almost all lenses behave ok in daylight.
-
However I totally understand the desire for compactness and "normal" maximum apertures in prime lenses. Perhaps later these will return to fashion.
I really hope so.
I haven't used AF-S 20/1.8, but had the same impression about AF-S 24/1.8 that I had. But when I used it for my alumni event, the large front element and big hood made some of my friends back off, even though they had been well aware that I was hobby photographer and had seen me using DLSRs.
-
Small wide angles actually are in fashion, and you can get get them for mirrorless systems, Canon DSLRs or for Leica M. For Canon DSLRs you can get modern small wide angles, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and 35/2 IS, all are introduced over the last 2-3 years and with Image Stabilizers. For Sony full frame there are Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 with a 52mm filter thread or the Sony 28/2 with a 49mm filter thread.
Oh, and there are the diminutive Voigtländers, 15/4.5, 12/5.6 and 10/5.6 in new versions, optically revised to work well both on Sony FE and Leica M full frame digital.
No shortage of modern and small wide angles! :) They're definitely in fashion.! ;)
PS! Reading Swedish-English is a bit weird, for me too. Though it's not a mother tounge for me, I have heard and read the language since my childhood. It's a very nice language, actually! :)
-
Hi,
looking at he pictures on my main display: Good to very good, but as this Irix is manufactured by Samyang and is not better then the 14mm i owned.... ;)
Harald
-
Small wide angles actually are in fashion, and you can get get them for mirrorless systems, Canon DSLRs or for Leica M. For Canon DSLRs you can get modern small wide angles, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and 35/2 IS, all are introduced over the last 2-3 years and with Image Stabilizers. For Sony full frame there are Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 with a 52mm filter thread or the Sony 28/2 with a 49mm filter thread.
Oh, and there are the diminutive Voigtländers, 15/4.5, 12/5.6 and 10/5.6 in new versions, optically revised to work well both on Sony FE and Leica M full frame digital.
I've explained the reason why I stick to the DLSR more than enough. But using a mirrorless body with the dedicated optical viewfinder on top of it may be a good option.
-
Irix has a photostream on flickr which shows some examples of sun in the frame as well as some night shots of the Milky way.
-
I've explained the reason why I stick to the DLSR more than enough. But using a mirrorless body with the dedicated optical viewfinder on top of it may be a good option.
I mentiond no less than three DSLR wide angles lenses. The Canon 24/2.8 with a 58mm filter thread should fit the bill for "small" very well, particularly if you remove the lens hood, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). I could have mentioned Pentax, which have done very well in creating readonably sized DSLR primes, albeit for APS-C.
We're not talking about DSLR vs mirrorless here, at all. Want big mirrorless wide angles, go check out Zeiss Batis 18/2.8 (77mm filter) and 25/2 (67mm filter). We're talking about lens programmes, and everyone seem to offer both big and small modern wide angles, except maybe Nikon, at this time.
-
Irix has a photostream on flickr which shows some examples of sun in the frame as well as some night shots of the Milky way.
Thanks!
-
Not everyone can or wants to buy a camera body of an incompatible system (from what they are currently using) to be able to use a specific lens. Currently Nikon makes their compact primes with a f/1.8 maximum aperture which is a benefit compared to (say) f/2.8 but obviously it can be regarded a disadvantage as well. Personally I like Nikon's offerings but think they could add a few pancakes along the lines of the not too ancient 45/2.8 P.
-
One thing that I've found is that when using a big lens to photograph people, it helps greatly to act confidently and appear in a way that it seems like you belong there and know exactly what you're doing. When I photograph people on the street, I get all kinds of reactions from smile, a curious look, and also a "no apparent reaction". I ditch the shots where it seems the subject wouldn't have liked to be photographed and mostly keep those who take it with a sense of humor or are seemingly in their thoughts, or are interacting with others.
Small cameras and lenses are more inconspicuous, for sure. But confidence and a matter of fact approach (possibly a disarming smile) helps where a tense or nervous photographer might get an equally tense or frightened response from the subjects.
I find that practicing on the street gives me additional confidence to shoot documentary images at events.
-
Not everyone can or wants to buy a camera body of an incompatible system (from what they are currently using) to be able to use a specific lens. Currently Nikon makes their compact primes with a f/1.8 maximum aperture which is a benefit compared to (say) f/2.8 but obviously it can be regarded a disadvantage as well. Personally I like Nikon's offerings but think they could add a few pancakes along the lines of the not too ancient 45/2.8 P.
I'm very aware of thar Ilkka, and I too stick to one system. My point was also that "small and unobtrusive" is not out of fashion, hence a reference to other manufacturers.
Time to head back to the topic, the IRIX 15/2.4.
The IRIX 15/2.4 seems very reasonably priced, and hopefully it will perform. Is there any hints yet on service and support on the Irix lens(es), in case that is needed?
-
I mentiond no less than three DSLR wide angles lenses. The Canon 24/2.8 with a 58mm filter thread should fit the bill for "small" very well, particularly if you remove the lens hood, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). I could have mentioned Pentax, which have done very well in creating readonably sized DSLR primes, albeit for APS-C.
We're not talking about DSLR vs mirrorless here, at all. Want big mirrorless wide angles, go check out Zeiss Batis 18/2.8 (77mm filter) and 25/2 (67mm filter). We're talking about lens programmes, and everyone seem to offer both big and small modern wide angles, except maybe Nikon, at this time.
I don't think any of 35, 28 or 24mm are superwides, maybe 24mm could be used as sperwide under circumstances, though.
Irix 15/2.4 is designed for Canon EF, NIkon F and Pentax K mount DSLRs. It should be safe to assume that the discussion in this particular thread is based on the DSLR.
-
I don't think any of 35, 28 or 24mm are superwides, maybe 24mm could be used as sperwide under circumstances, though.
Irix 15/2.4 is designed for Canon EF, NIkon F and Pentax K mount DSLRs. It should be safe to assume that the discussion in this particular thread is based on the DSLR.
No, that is not safe to assume. The lens speed of f/2.4 alone makes the Irix 15/2.4 a prime candidate for adaption to Sony mirrorless, e.g. for night photography and video. This will be particularly true if Irix can deliver cosistent quality, as opposed to Samyang.
-
Please, continue discussion with focus (sic!) on the lens itself, not the platform to which it is attached.
-
Hi,
Irix IS Samyang. ;) So i am hoping for a better quality Control. ;)
Harald
Harald
-
Hi,
Irix IS Samyang. ;) So i am hoping for a better quality Control. ;)
Harald
Harald
Has that been confirmed? Samyang lenses wih proper quality control?
-
Harald, you stated that already once before in this thread with no details. Could you provide a source for this information? Thanks.
-
Hi,
they are Made in Korea and both founders of Irix are the distributors for Walimex aka Samyang Poland and switzerland. It is hard to guess where it is produced. ;)
Harald
-
Hi,
they are Made in Korea and both founders of Irix are the distributors for Walimex aka Samyang Poland and switzerland. It is hard to guess where it is produced. ;)
Harald
you are so smart! you can be a detective :o :o :o
looks like irix is the new vivitar ::)
if this is indeed confirmed then i hope that their QC is helluva lot better this time.
-
Hi,
i will Buy the 15mm because i know about the quality. I Love my 85mm 1.5 and had the 35 1.5. The Second One is very boring because it is nearly perfect. I sold it. ;)
I had a 14mm and it was Optically good, but focussing was a Nightmare. No Infinity stop and the Ring was not calibrated. So you had to guess... :( The Irix has a Gard Infinity stop and you can calibrate it by yourself. Waiting for Amazon to deliver.... ;) I also Hope for better quality Control: Half of the 14mm are crap and you can not repair them...
Harald
-
Sorry, German autocorrection...
Harald
-
Being able to calibrate the infinity stop is very good news, since I would be using the lens with an adapter to Sony E mount. Now I wonder, if the lens uses floating elements, since that will require in theory a calibration of the adapter. This since a floating element construction relies on a properly calibrated flange.
-
I really like some of the design detils such as the engraved and fluorescent markings, hopefully the lens is serviceable.
-
Hi Bjorn,
the adapter needs to be able to control the electronic aperture!
Harald
-
Hi Bjorn,
the adapter needs to be able to control the electronic aperture!
Harald
Yes, for the Canon EF version. I assume that the Nikon version is Ai-S or Ai-P, in which case a mechanical adapter will do, but EXIF and full exposure automation of the Canon version is nice. There are many Canon EF to Sony E adapters to choose from.
I will wait for further tests.
Note that Cyberphoto.se is a Swedish internet shop, when you read their test.
-
I am very keen to learn more about the Irix. Currently on my 2nd copy og the latest generation Sammy Fourteen and the problem with decentering and focus seem persistent. Will give it one more go before I order the Irix...I think.
-
The price in was just under 7000 SEK, so still quite favourably priced.
I wonder if an f/2.4 lens stopped down to f/2.8 will vignette less than a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8 at f/2.8. Any thoughts on this, regarding Sammy/Irix 14mm?
-
I wonder if an f/2.4 lens stopped down to f/2.8 will vignette less than a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8 at f/2.8.
Entirely dependent on the lens.
-
With many (most) lenses, closing down half a stop from wide open makes no difference to the corners - the corners are already stopped well down due to mechanical vignetting. The aperture blades don't start to intrude into the corners until stopping further, and then they only do so by trimming the extreme points of the "cats eyes". At these settings the aperture blades tend to stop down the central region only, so that it starts to "catch up" with the corners, resulting in more even illumination, and vignetting is reduced. Most lenses require stopping down at least 2 stops before the aperture blades are the only thing affecting the aperture (mechanical vignetting is eliminated), and some zooms and extreme fast lenses may need 3 stops or more.
This is also why the corners of many lenses do not improve until the lens is stopped well down.
-
Already 3 pages and no one single image. Looks nice at least:
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Irix-15mm-f2.4-full-frame-lens3.jpg)
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Irix-15mm-f2.4-full-frame-lens6.jpg)
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Irix-15mm-f2.4-full-frame-lens1.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1696/25921410902_2c2fe368dc_k.jpg)
And a small video clip https://youtu.be/EJBu7BTeCu8
-
The rear view of the lens has me intrigued: is it showing the rear most lens element or is it showing a filter or the like that is covering the rear element? As shown, there appears to be one side slightly shaved off? Anyone know?
-
Hugh, it is a gel filter.
As for the comments on why all the fast ultra-wides, Irix has an 11mm f/4 coming.
-
The rear view of the lens has me intrigued: is it showing the rear most lens element or is it showing a filter or the like that is covering the rear element? As shown, there appears to be one side slightly shaved off? Anyone know?
Here you see the gelatin filter:
(http://www.aperturephoto.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/irix-15mm-news1.jpg)
-
A gel filter has lost much of its raison d'etre in the digital era, with an exception for IR and false-colour IR photography in which gels are an attractive alternative to huge front-mounted filters.
The official Irix 'Mountains & Milky Way' image intended to show the quality of the lens instead highlights uneven sharpness over the frame and clear signs of decentering. Image centre and upper left corner appear OK, but elsewhere there is frankly a lot of mush. Little chromatic nasties though. Thus, QC or lack thereof apparently is something these third-party products are troubled with.
-
Have a look at the street lights in the lower left section. They are elongated and become short stripes rather than point sources. The stars also show this, particularly toward the right edge. I first wondered if the exposure was too long, so it caused a beginning star trail, but the shape of the street lights have me wondering.
-
Either the optics are really bad, or they used an inferior tripod, or both factors are concurrent. Star trails cannot occur just in one side of the frame when almost the entire field of view is sky. Plus all the mush seen in 3 out of 4 corners.
Whatever the explanation, where is the perception of Quality Control? Such an image, and the fact it was published as advertising for a 'superior' lens, does not bode well for the upcoming product. Sorry but that is the inevitable conclusion based on available information at present.
-
Either the optics are really bad, or they used an inferior tripod, or both factors are concurrent. Star trails cannot occur just in one side of the frame when almost the entire field of view is sky. Plus all the mush seen in 3 out of 4 corners.
Whatever the explanation, where is the perception of Quality Control? Such an image, and the fact it was published as advertising for a 'superior' lens, does not bode well for the upcoming product. Sorry but that is the inevitable conclusion based on available information at present.
Isn't it just coma? It is inevitable with a large aperture asymmetrical wide angle - if the image shown was at maximum aperture I have seen worse.
-
Looks ok:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8501/28856473206_34140655bc_o_d.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/28856473206/in/dateposted/
-
Looks ok:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8501/28856473206_34140655bc_o_d.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/28856473206/in/dateposted/
There is visible coma, the brighter stars look like butterflies. Check the off-center areas.
-
Hi Bjorn,
it is just ok. ;) A Samyang is optical perhaps better...
Harald
-
Hi Bjorn,
it is just ok. ;) A Samyang is optical perhaps better...
Harald
.. if you can get a good sample.
-
Probably different samples of the Irix lens have been used. The Milky Way & House image (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8501/28856473206_34140655bc_o_d.jpg) is much better than the Mountain & Milky Way and indeed show some coma towards the corners, but nothing exceptionally bad (except for the noise behaviour of the camera used). However, the first image I referred to really is bad in terms of uneven sharpness, and one should really download the file and have a closer look to verify how pitiful the lens has functioned..
All the above point to QC being questionable. There obviously are 'good' and [very] 'bad' samples of the Irix products. They do need to clean up their act if this lens range is going to be successful.
The 'bad' sample image is here. Do give it a closer examination. This kind of quality is simply unacceptable. Have a look at the upper right corner, and follow the rapid decline into mushiness along the lower edge of the frame, in particular the lower right corner is way out of focus. Then, contrast this with the upper left corner that is acceptable sharp. All are signs of bad decentering.
-
To me, the right hand side of the "Milky Way and the Mountain" image is more smeared than on the left hand side, especially the mountain in the lower right corner.
-
Yes, that is pretty obvious. As the upper left corner looks quite normal, this is a tell-tale sign of decentering.
-
This lens is no longer on my list, neither is Samyang. No desire to take part in a lottery. :(
Thanks to everyone for weighting in. :)
-
This kind of quality is simply unacceptable.
Maybe the camera wasn't aligned parallel to the sky? :D
So we have a company that is so stupid it can't cherry pick a good lens and post only photos that show better image quality that many unlucky customers will get. Maybe this company will get it's act together in the future but it seems for now buying from them is a waste of time at best. Don't they have one sample of this lens that doesn't show gross faults.
Dave
I'll stick with my 15/5.6 AI Nikkor and wave to passers by when the sun would grace the bulbous front element of my lens.
-
Yeah, none of the samples are saying good things. It is a shame the optics aren't up to par, the rest looks nice.
-
There will always be a reliable reservoir of people who accept that you can have a $2000 thing for $400.
-
Samsung has today announced a new "Premium" range of lenses. The two first ones to appear is an 85/1.2 and curiously a 14/2.4. Here is a link, from sonyalpharumors, http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/amazing-samyang-announces-two-new-premium-fe-lenses-85mm-f1-2-14mm-f2-4/ (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/amazing-samyang-announces-two-new-premium-fe-lenses-85mm-f1-2-14mm-f2-4/). I guess that may well be the Irix 15/2.4 in another guise.
Still not tempted, despite the word "Premium".
-
Always been happy with the Samyang 14/2.8 even though it was a bit de-centered, but for that kind of money I'm not gonna complain. Plus the effects where minimal on normal viewing sizes (1440 at the moment) and I don't do a lot of pixel peeping (more concerned with capturing the moment instead of how the pixels look).
But with the arrival of the new Voigtlander 15/4.5 E I've made my choice, perfect balance between size, optical performance, metal built quality and features like an aperture ring, CPU, hard infinity stop and the option for a filter.
Downside is that they don't come in a Nikon mount, maybe Nikon will surprise us at the Photokina with a FX mirrorless camera :)
Voigtlander 15/4.5 LTM, Voigtlander 15/4.5 E and Samyang 14/2.8 AE (with adapter rings so bare lens is smaller when used on Nikon F)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1711/26616822692_244f5bfc00_o.jpg)
-
Very strange and obnoxious blur in that milkyway+mountain image's lower right corner. OTOH, the other samples look mostly fine, I would say they superficially look almost as good as any other lens in that focal length. We don't know what caused the bad performance in that case (warped mount, decentered lens, field curvature). Certainly a try-before-buy lens. I'm waiting for some retailer in Switzerland to have the lens available to try it out.
There has to be an optical edge over the Samyang lens for this lens to sell at all.
-
When three out of four corners are bad and the last one just fine, plus all parts of the scene effectively at infinity, one cannot have field curvature ...
Actually the zone of sharpness in that bad image goes along the diagonal, from top left corner about 2/3 down to the right. This is decentering.
Why such a picture was posted in the first place still escapes my imagination. Unless they consider any PR is good and push forth a really poor image to make people discuss the product ?? Apparently the PR side of this has succeeded on NG, but it remains to be seen whether our members are tempted to line up as customers. Probably not.
-
We'll have a closer look at Photokina ;D
Also very curious about their new 11mm lens compared to the Voigtlander 10mm and 12mm offerings.
-
When three out of four corners are bad and the last one just fine, plus all parts of the scene effectively at infinity, one cannot have field curvature ...
Actually the zone of sharpness in that bad image goes along the diagonal, from top left corner about 2/3 down to the right. This is decentering.
Why such a picture was posted in the first place still escapes my imagination. Unless they consider any PR is good and push forth a really poor image to make people discuss the product ?? Apparently the PR side of this has succeeded on NG, but it remains to be seen whether our members are tempted to line up as customers. Probably not.
I think your explanation is very plausible, but I cannot exclude that there is a different explanation that escapes my imagination.
I agree that the picture should have been caught as unsuitable for publication and triggered an internal quality control investigation since it presumably has been shot well before the first shipments.
-
Looks like a new contender will enter the scene:
http://photorumors.com/2016/09/12/samyang-announces-14mm-f2-4-and-samyang-85mm-f1-2-premium-manual-focus-lenses/
-
Looks like a new contender will enter the scene:
http://photorumors.com/2016/09/12/samyang-announces-14mm-f2-4-and-samyang-85mm-f1-2-premium-manual-focus-lenses/
They look like Zeiss Milvis. :D
-
The race for ever-wider, ever-faster lenses continues ...
Where are the high quality compact SLR lenses?
-
The race for ever-wider, ever-faster lenses continues ...
Where are the high quality compact SLR lenses?
I think the idea is that photographers looking for compact are going for Fuji and Pentax, while the Nikon and Canon people are looking for capability without worrying about size.
-
The race for ever-wider, ever-faster lenses continues ...
Where are the high quality compact SLR lenses?
With the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras, compact lenses with f/2 or f/2.8 max aperture would be more usable than ever before, even in poor light.
-
The recent f/1.8 Nikon series...which by all accounts are optically very good... could be substantially smaller if they weren't AF.
-
The recent f/1.8 Nikon series...which by all accounts are optically very good... could be substantially smaller if they weren't AF.
True, but we all sadly know that Nikon will release a hot dog scratch n' sniff lens before new MF lenses happens.
Another round of samples for the thread's subject. I am not at my computer, so have not really looked yet.
http://www.lenstip.com/2199-news-Irix_15_mm_f_2.4_-_sample_images.html
-
The recent f/1.8 Nikon series...which by all accounts are optically very good... could be substantially smaller if they weren't AF.
Tokina announced an all metal manual focus, manual aperture 20mm f/2 lens today for Sony full frame mirrorless with a 62mm filter thread weighing 490 grams. Compare that to around 350 grams and a 77mm front thread of the Nikon 20/1.8. So it could easily be a choice between weight or size. (The Tokina Firin 20/2 is for mirrorless only. It has got a CPU, so it's a Sony mirrorless equivalent to Nikon Ai-P, though with stopped down metering.)
Maybe a new f/2.8 line could be made as an old school MF lenses, but with a CPU. Btw. Nikon Ai lenses have nicer build than Nikon Ai-S, and may have a more generous focus throw. Zeiss does it, so maybe Nikon too?
Manual focus is by no means not out of fashion. :)
-
...
Another round of samples for the thread's subject. I am not at my computer, so have not really looked yet.
http://www.lenstip.com/2199-news-Irix_15_mm_f_2.4_-_sample_images.html
Here again the maker's photos confirm that the Irix is troubled with decentering and bad corners, in particular at the wider stops. Stopping down helps, like for any other lens. However, uneven left-right performance is seen (although much reduced in magnitude) even at f/8.
-
Tokina and Sigma announced fast cine lenses. All Tokina lenses except for the 16-28 zoom are newly designed. Sigma uses the optics from their ART line models. I wonder if 85//T1.5 is newly designed (maybe yes).
-
Tokina and Sigma announced fast cine lenses. All Tokina lenses except for the 16-28 zoom are newly designed. Sigma uses the optics from their ART line models. I wonder if 85//T1.5 is newly designed (maybe yes).
I seem to recall that the Sigma 85/1.5 Cine has a different, higher, number of lens elements than that the current DSLR version, so there might just be an Art 85mm on its' way.
-
Yeah, those samples are poor all around. This really boggles my mind. How, in the age of google and pixel peeing, can a company think they can market lenses like this? If they were marketing them as cheap alternatives, sure. That is not what Irix is doing though. How does such incompetence get into positions to be able to put products out like this? People are strange. RIP Irix, we knew thee not.
-
Lens tip image samples always look terrible up close because they have no corrections and sharpening applied. Even legendary lenses such as the Nikon 14-24mm look terrible in their samples.
http://www.lenstip.com/295.11-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_14-24_mm_f_2.8G_ED_Summary.html (http://www.lenstip.com/295.11-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_14-24_mm_f_2.8G_ED_Summary.html)
And they are from a DX camera, so not even showing the outer regions of the image circle.
The Samyang 14mm samples hardly look better. And so on.
http://www.lenstip.com/239.11-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Summary.html (http://www.lenstip.com/239.11-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Summary.html)
Can someone tell me where the milkyway&mountains image discussed earlier comes from? My suspicion is that this is not even an official sample image. :o
-
I know what a raw image from a good lens looks like and none of those images came from a good lens. I will say that the proclamations of it being poor here are a bit exaggerated as we here have higher standards. I'd call this lens pretty mediocre. Which is disappointing considering the design features are clearly aimed at knowledgeable photographers.
-
I just clicked through the 14-24 gallery and the Irix 15mm gallery on lenstip and I can't see those massive differences. My eyes could be worse than yours though, so I reserve my judgement until the numbers come out.
-
Judging a 14 or 15mm lens with the same scrutiny as one judges a normal or tele lens will result in a lot of disappointment ;)
These are extreme wide angle lenses to suck everything into the image, not for bleeding pixel peeping results.
-
I tracked down what seems to be the original of that milkyway image. There is no lens info, so I asked the author about the lens it was shot with. Currently waiting for the answer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/25921410902/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/25921410902/)
The shot was taken on March 18, 2016.
-
So much useless EXIF info, and no lens ID ...
I strongly disagree with the notion that superwide lenses cannot stand scrutiny. They indeed can and should. If not only to convince oneself that the concept of hyperfocal setting never was applicable. The sharper the lens, the less convincing hyperfocal focusing will be.
As to the new series of test images, do have a look at the pavement front left and right corners. The problem is very obvious. One could of course blame field curvature but that would require *both* corners to go out of focus concurrently, which they clearly do not do. Thus is is not field curvature that causes the very uneven distribution of sharpness, whether it is the Milky Way image (at infinity focus) or the architectural snapshots shown later.
When I evaluate a lens, I only rely on what I can observe myself. Plus, the observation(s) have to be repeatable.
-
Irix confirmed to me that this [EDIT: the milky way image that we were talking about] is no official sample image, all official samples are on Flickr and 500px. Thus the questions about why they posted such a horrid sample are now resolved -- they didn't.
-
The salient question is whether it was taken with the IRIX lens - or not.
-
It is worth remembering what Simone observed, the sample images are completely unsharpened. Also, they're from a Canon 5DMk-something. Plus we don't know what downsampling process was used, etc, etc.
-
I assume a Canon 5D something also is a capable camera? It certainly is popular.
-
The salient question is whether it was taken with the IRIX lens - or not.
Irix said to me in a personal message that the lens was not in production when the shot was taken, and they have nothing to do with that picture.
-
As to the new series of test images, do have a look at the pavement front left and right corners. The problem is very obvious. One could of course blame field curvature but that would require *both* corners to go out of focus concurrently, which they clearly do not do. Thus is is not field curvature that causes the very uneven distribution of sharpness, whether it is the Milky Way image (at infinity focus) or the architectural snapshots shown later.
I know that you have immensely more experience testing lenses and making judgements on image quality than I have. As such I appreciate your worries about possible issues of optical quality and quality control in the lens in question.
However, comparing to other sample images on the lenstip site, I cannot find any samples from similar lenses and conditions that would appear to be head and shoulders above the Irix 15mm. For instance the Canon 11-24mm lens appears to have very similar image quality at 16mm. If anything, the Irix lens seems sharper in the corners.
(http://pliki.optyczne.pl/can11-24/can11-24_fot36.JPG)
Unfortunately, they don't have FX images of the 14-24 or the Zeiss 15 as these would be the ones to compare against.
I did not see any obvious differences between the two corners. BTW, how do you control for different distances to the camera? The pavement seems to be slanted, so even with a level camera the distance to the ground is not the same for both corners. This may have a slight influence?
-
Another contender, if you have a Need for Speed ;) , is the newly announced Laowa 15mm f/2, yes f/2, with a 72mm filter thread for Sony full frame E mount, http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/venus-optics-unveil-worlds-fastest-15mm-lens-sony-full-frame-e-mount-camera/ (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/venus-optics-unveil-worlds-fastest-15mm-lens-sony-full-frame-e-mount-camera/). :)
-
If people don't see the problems, then as far as they are concerned there are no problems. Each to their own.
I for one lost all interest in the Irix lens.
-
Just because I'm not seeing the problem now does not mean that I won't be bothered by it later or that it is not present.
I see some blurriness in the corners that is roughly what I have seen from other ultra-wide lenses (some like the 16-35/4 sample I had were much worse than that, others are perhaps slightly better like the 20/1.8 and 18-35 but I am not sure since I'm comparing vastly different shots here). One of the two lower corners might be blurrier than the other but I can't tell because the pavement is not the same on both sides. The same is true of the Canon 11-24mm lens sample above. The right corner seems blurrier to me but the pavement is different on both sides so I'm not sure I am seeing things correctly. So is the Canon lens not decentered?
I am just not putting too much weight on these samples, I want to try the lens myself or see a lab test under controlled conditions before making any decision.
-
The samples shown aren't good enough for me to tell. And, regarding the 5D camera, I have no idea what 5D shots look like unsharpened. Others may be fortunate enough to have had experience with Canon gear.
-
Another review with a direct comparison to the Nikon 14-24
http://foto-info.si/irix-15mm-f2-4-review/ (http://foto-info.si/irix-15mm-f2-4-review/)
-
Hi,
Looks good like the other Review. Diatortion and vigbetting seems Well Controlled. Sharpness is good! Missing shots at Infinity and a Review about the Focus Lock!
Harald
Harald
-
I am now looking for some nice wide angle lense for night photography. I was amazed by this Irix lense in lot of reviews and this is actualy last forum/webpage/review/comment i read in several days and it left me in doubt.
Since there was claim, that the pictures posted here were not samples by Irix, that means anyone could make a picture, upload it and claim that those pictures are from that lense. Who will claim otherwise?
Official sample gallery is another story https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/sets/72157664815786113/with/29880254493/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/sets/72157664815786113/with/29880254493/)
Another reviews on youtube are kinda very nice about this lens, so....
Do anyone used it, tryed it? Can anyone tell me real story?
And if not, can you please point at another direction, to onether lens which I can use for nice night photography? I already read too much propably. Was thinking about
- Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (no one actualy said bad thing about it, but some reviews comparing it with Irix said it is almost equaly good)
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (widely used despite all its flaws)
Samyang 14mm f/2.4 (all praised, but no for that kind of money)
Irix 15mm f/2.4 (from here, all those posts, looks like crapy lens)
Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 (have no idea)
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 (it has huge coma and astigmatism)
-
The 14-24/2.8 is the only one on your list I have used. It's a great lens except that it often generates non-traditional ghost flare spots from bright point sources, like the sun in daytime shots. Mine did well, flare-wise, in the very limited amount of dusk/night shooting I did with it.
-
I am now looking for some nice wide angle lense for night photography. I was amazed by this Irix lense in lot of reviews and this is actualy last forum/webpage/review/comment i read in several days and it left me in doubt.
Since there was claim, that the pictures posted here were not samples by Irix, that means anyone could make a picture, upload it and claim that those pictures are from that lense. Who will claim otherwise?
Official sample gallery is another story https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/sets/72157664815786113/with/29880254493/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/sets/72157664815786113/with/29880254493/)
Another reviews on youtube are kinda very nice about this lens, so....
Do anyone used it, tryed it? Can anyone tell me real story?
And if not, can you please point at another direction, to onether lens which I can use for nice night photography? I already read too much propably. Was thinking about
- Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (no one actualy said bad thing about it, but some reviews comparing it with Irix said it is almost equaly good)
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (widely used despite all its flaws)
Samyang 14mm f/2.4 (all praised, but no for that kind of money)
Irix 15mm f/2.4 (from here, all those posts, looks like crapy lens)
Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 (have no idea)
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 (it has huge coma and astigmatism)
Here are some more options - most big and costly and 1 stop slower at f4
Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D 609g, 122 angle of view, 75 x 83mm http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/981-laowa12f28?start=2
Older Model Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM – Tested April 2007 - http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/310-sigma-af-12-24mm-f45-56-ex-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review
Sigma 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 II DG HSM Art (102.0x131.5mm, 1150g, £1400) https://www.dxomark.com/sigma-12-24mm-f-4-dg-hsm-a-nikon-lens-review/
Irix 11mm f/4 118 x 103 mm (4.49” x 4.05”) 793g Blackstone model. 126° Field of View, Min Focus 27.5cm) Internal filters
https://www.pixedolab.com/en/2017/09/07/irix-lenses-tested-famous-photographers-around-world/
http://en.irixlens.com/11mm#inside-out
I rely on my Zeiss 15mm f4 Distagon (but for landscapes mostly). Excellent lens