Author Topic: Irix 15/2.4 (Read 26792 times)

bjornthun · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2016, 13:41:03 »

The front element is much smaller on the new Irix 15/2.8, and the distortion seems lower. ~~is now the simple barrel type~~. All in all this is a leap forward for super wide angles, but does the image quality stack up?

Is the filter diameter 95mm?

Erik Lund · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2016, 14:08:19 »

What I was trying to point out is that is not simple barrel type distortion,,,

bjornthun · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2016, 15:08:45 »

Aah, I may have misread the image of Sten's bookshelf. The camera appears ever so slightly tilted downwards and swung slightly to the right.

Les Olson · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2016, 18:08:17 »

The peripheral light fall-off is severe. Does anyone have images from this lens on a DX camera?

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2016, 19:21:31 »

Quote from: bjornthun on October 01, 2016, 15:08:45

Aah, I may have misread the image of Sten's bookshelf. The camera appears ever so slightly tilted downwards and swung slightly to the right.

I see it is a little downward but the distortion is pretty even barrel. Look at the top of the shelves.

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2016, 19:23:02 »

Quote from: Les Olson on October 01, 2016, 18:08:17

The peripheral light fall-off is severe. Does anyone have images from this lens on a DX camera?

I intend to get the light fall off exemplified. I will be shooting this on my D500 as well.

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2016, 19:24:48 »

A couple of shots at f/2.4. I had hoped to get me arse to the beach today but a beer took priority

Harald · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2016, 21:02:47 »

Hi,

Can you Upload both as Raw? After the Beer
..

Harald

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2016, 16:41:24 »

Hrmpf...
I thought the new kid would best the Sammy at most things. What is certainly does worse is controlling flare!
Here is an example with both lenses at full opening. I know, a bit unrealistic test but still...

Look at the series, f/2.4, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and f/16.

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2016, 16:43:18 »

Quote from: Harald on October 01, 2016, 21:02:47

Hi,

Can you Upload both as Raw? After the Beer
..

Harald

Sorry Harald, saw this request just now. I cannot upload due to the fact that the image doesn't exist anymore. I reformatted the card. Will upload a new from later tonight

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #25 on:** October 02, 2016, 16:46:37 »

For comparison, here's the Sammy at f/16.

stenrasmussen · « **Reply #26 on:** October 02, 2016, 17:01:03 »

One shot with the D500 at f/2.4.

Harald · « **Reply #27 on:** October 02, 2016, 18:25:00 »

I am not impressed about Flare Resistance. Seems as worse as my 28-45 which is 40 years Old...

Harald

Akira · « **Reply #28 on:** October 02, 2016, 19:13:15 »

I love the Lord Of The Ring effect.

But I may not buy the lens for the effect. Apparently Irix handles the flare quite nicely, unless the strong light source is in the dead center.

I wonder why the sun image is smeared upwards and downwards when the lens is not stopped far down?

jhinkey · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2016, 19:57:02 »

Wow, I was about to comment about why Nikon can't make a super-wide prime like this, but they would never let a lens design get out the door with that kind of flare problem. Also the sun stars pretty much suck, both of which would be reasons not to buy for me.

News: