Irix 15mm f/2.4

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Les Olson]

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. 

[Harald]

Looks ok:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8501/28856473206_34140655bc_o_d.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/irixlens/28856473206/in/dateposted/

[bjornthun]

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.

[Harald]

Hi Bjorn,

it is just ok. A Samyang is optical perhaps better...

Harald

[bjornthun]

Hi Bjorn,

it is just ok. A Samyang is optical perhaps better...

Harald

.. if you can get a good sample.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Yes, that is pretty obvious. As the upper left corner looks quite normal, this is a tell-tale sign of decentering.

[bjornthun]

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. 

[David H. Hartman]

This kind of quality is simply unacceptable.

Maybe the camera wasn't aligned parallel to the sky? 

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.

[Tristin]

Yeah, none of the samples are saying good things.   It is a shame the optics aren't up to par, the rest looks nice.

[pluton]

There will always be a reliable reservoir of people who accept that you can have a $2000 thing for $400.

[bjornthun]

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/. I guess that may well be the Irix 15/2.4 in another guise.

Still not tempted, despite the word "Premium".

[Jan Anne]

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)