Well done. I'd say this was an excellent overall appraisal of this lens for potential users. I had the Blackstone version of this lens, which I purchased specifically for close quarters indoor work shooting museum exhibitions, also with the K1(mkII). It had no issues whatsoever for these exacting situations. It's true that distortion control is great, but that doesn't mean you won't get the usual UWA stretching distortions as you move from the center of the lens---an unavoidable issue. For the price it just can't be beat. I did sell mine after purchasing 2 other lenses which were originally out of my price range: the DA 25 for my 645Z, and the 15-30 for my K1(mkII). I found that the 25 on my Z was really as far wide as I could go practically in my main pro use case, and that the 15-30 on the K1 gave me more flexibility if I needed to go a little wider, and that lens is unusually good for a zoom. But for folks wondering about the Irix 15, wonder no more, it's great.
That;'s a nice review, thanks! Another K-1 and Irix - sorry, [IRIX] owner. First I noticed you were at Pike's Peak, then in Golden, all familiar places. Then I saw your (?) car in that astro photo and thought, "He's got my car, too!" But the dark notch below the back window tells me it's probably a Honda Fit, not my Ford C-Max. I'm also a real estate photographer. We should get together and talk.
Dave, your review of the Irix WA is excellent. Throughout the video, you included many landscape samples showing sharp focus but I did notice these images to contain some lost hightlights in clouds. What is the workaround using this lens? Meter on the brightest part of the field of view and correct in post? I truly get the same issue when shooting with a Tokina 10-17mm f3.5-4.5 fisheye. That lens does not accept filters unless one uses a home made set up. Overall, the images you included truly represent the features and performance of what the IRIX WA can. I am looking to pick one up in the used market. Lastly, I have some questions about using CPL and a 10 stop ND filter. Would you recommend sticking with the proprietary Irix Edge filters for this lens or are there other filters that can be substituted without degrading photographs?
I think the highlight loss comes from two sources, the wide angle of view for sure and also my camera being something like six years old now. Honestly, bracketing and image stacking is going to be the way to go to obtain the best overall range. But if your camera and editing software have great shadow recovery then you can meter on the brighter portions, yes. Also this lens performs way better than this video really conveys since my shots were all 36mp downsampled to 4k for the video and then compressed by RUclips and your Internet carrier for playback. So there may well be images in here where the source file has fine highlight detail but the video version does not.
Hey David. Once again thank you for your thoroughly real world review🙏 As I will be using the lens primarily for Astrophotography🛰✨, I think sharpness wide open is important. Also, at the moment I cannot change aperture due to cannon’s firmware blockage of third party lenses on the rf-mount (something I found out after buying the lens 🤯) Anyway, do you have any experience experience with the sharpness of two following lenses wide open compared to the IRIX or any alternative lenses for Astro photography? Samyang XP 14mm F2.4 and Sigma 14mm F1.8 DG HSM | Art. From what I am reading about coma, chromatic aberration as well in those lenses are controlled very well
I haven't used either of those lenses, no. They both have good reputations. I do think the 15mm is weak wide-open. Mine also is that way. I'm kind of surprised that Canon are blocking third-party lens controls. That's unfortunate, though not shocking given that they already sued at least one third-party lens maker. They really are making the R system cameras unappealing for people who don't want to buy their lenses, and that's too bad. I was thinking of buying an R camera on the used market specifically for lens reviews.
20:11 I’m very curious, what were the lower-end lenses that they wanted you to buy? I’m interested in getting into real estate photography and found that portion of your video very helpful. Thanks in advance for your reply!
Oh gosh, there was a whole list of them from the photography companies, some Samyang/Rokinon zooms and some consumer Nikon and Canon wide angles zooms.
As a general rule, primes perform better than zooms, especially high-end primes. I haven't used any ultrawide zooms in a long time, but I will say that this is decidedly the best ultrawide lens I own, even though wide-open I think it underperforms significantly compared to some others.
@@DavidHancock Thx. I also curious what a lens being too good means? An image can be downgraded thru compression. Sounds like euphemism for "your rates will be too high" similar to "you are overqualified"
@@DixonLu I think it just means that they were looking for people with more affordable lenses because they're more common. Most of the photographers I've heard from who work for these firms just do it for fun or experience. I suspect that the companies that sell these fairly commoditized photo services have software or plugins to automatically adjust light drop off and barrel distortion so that all the photos are uniform. Obscure lenses, even if they're exceptional, would probably require custom software development that may only be used by one person. It's just not a good use of resources for firms that make their money on quick turn photos.
@@DavidHancock I work for VHT, a company that aims for the high end of the RE market. We are never discouraged from stepping up our equipment game. Some of my colleagues are using a full set of Canon T/S lenses every day. But I know what competitors like Virtuance are doing, too. I couldn't commit to shooting every hour on the hour, so...
@@wheatridger Virtuance is one of the forms I applied to that let me know they needed consumer-grade lenses. I suspect that the people or AI that runs their image correction scripts overnight have set scripts designed for specific lenses, which would explain the need for a restrictive gear list.
Dave - no offense But the images that I am viewing that they are Soft, and not Sharp, as I am using my 20" iMac full Screen OK, and I rather use my 18mm Tokina, and my 20mm 3.5 UD Nikkor lens... Sorry
It's worth noting that the original images are downsampled from 8K to 4K for this video. That and RUclips's image compression, even at full 4K resolution, will make them look soft. Comparing my source file 4K MOV to the original 36-MP files from my K-1, the original files are much sharper than the original MOV, especially in this lens' peak range. The aforementioned compression will further affect that.
@@DavidHancock The downside is that it can only use rear gel filters (and IRIX do not make a gel version of their light pollution filter). The upsides are both the insanely wide field of view and the nice predictability of the 11mm being almost exactly double a 20mm.
Hey David. I just bought A second hand 15 mm 2,4 blackstone from MPB. It is Canon ef-mount and I use it on my canon R7 with the Canon EF to RF-adapter. I find the pictures not to be very sharp. I am wondering if this is simply due to a faulty lens. You need to take into consideration that I have only been shooting it wide open. Change of aperture is not possible in the current situation as Canon has blocked third party lenses on the new RF-mount. I have contacted Irix technical support about the issue and they have offered me software upgrade of the lens if I ship it to Poland. Anyway, by turning the lens ever so slightly so there is no communication between lens and camera, I have to been able to take photos wide open. Back to my concern about image quality. The lens appears to be in mint condition. I have been shooting at 1/200 sek using a tripod, image stabilizer disabled, focusing with 10x magnification on lcd from a distance of 3 m. In Lightroom I have added global sharpening of 60% to the raw file before exporting as a JPEG without output sharpening. I have compared with a shot with my decentered Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (dropped it 🫣) which is a zoom and not a particularly sharp lens. Nevertheless this looks better at least in the center www.flickr.com/gp/76274337@N05/82520T8394 Appreciate any help I can get 🤞 Regards Lars
Hey, Lars, I won't be able to check DropBox and I'll have to remove this comment, too. There are too many malware scams that target RUclips channels for me to leave a download link live. So if you can post the images to something like an Imgur album and re-comment with that link, that I can check. Wide-open, though, my 15mm is also SHOCKINGLY soft.
@@DavidHancock totally understandable. I will have a look on Imgur to see if I can figure out to upload my pictures and post a new comment. By looking at other reviews, I was by the impression that it is fairly sharp lens. Maybe there is a greater variability in the lens manufacturing process than with bigger companies like Canon ?
@@DavidHancock do you ascribe your lens being “shockingly soft” wide open to a matter of fluctuating manufacturing quality or a general trait of this lens ? The reason I am asking this is that I found several reviews stating otherwise good sharpness wide open, e.g “Center-sharpness is exceptional, even when shooting wide-open at f/2.4, but more average towards the edges and corners of the image frame”. Digital camera world
@@postabsorptivOne year late…Wondering if you wear glasses? I have found sometimes that what seems sharp wearing glasses and looking through the EVF, is not as sharp as I thought once on my computer. I have to remove my glasses and adjust the diopter on the EVF to be able to get super sharp photos. Regarding the lens, I just purchased it (hasn’t arrived) and selling my Samyang 24mm f/1.4 due to the same issue. Thought I shot at 2.0 and 2.8 instead of wide open, it was not very sharp in the foreground. I had to stack images one for the foreground and one for background to get the entire image in focus. I’m hoping an UWA lens with correct that.
Well done. I'd say this was an excellent overall appraisal of this lens for potential users. I had the Blackstone version of this lens, which I purchased specifically for close quarters indoor work shooting museum exhibitions, also with the K1(mkII). It had no issues whatsoever for these exacting situations. It's true that distortion control is great, but that doesn't mean you won't get the usual UWA stretching distortions as you move from the center of the lens---an unavoidable issue. For the price it just can't be beat. I did sell mine after purchasing 2 other lenses which were originally out of my price range: the DA 25 for my 645Z, and the 15-30 for my K1(mkII). I found that the 25 on my Z was really as far wide as I could go practically in my main pro use case, and that the 15-30 on the K1 gave me more flexibility if I needed to go a little wider, and that lens is unusually good for a zoom. But for folks wondering about the Irix 15, wonder no more, it's great.
Thank you! I do really like this lens and what it does well it does spectacularly.
Extremely helpful review! Thanks so much for putting it out there in a thoughtful, detailed, real world use way.
Thank you!
Very good review and helpful. David is always substantial in his reviews! Have a listen.
Thank you very much, Jack!
That;'s a nice review, thanks! Another K-1 and Irix - sorry, [IRIX] owner. First I noticed you were at Pike's Peak, then in Golden, all familiar places. Then I saw your (?) car in that astro photo and thought, "He's got my car, too!" But the dark notch below the back window tells me it's probably a Honda Fit, not my Ford C-Max. I'm also a real estate photographer. We should get together and talk.
Dave, your review of the Irix WA is excellent. Throughout the video, you included many landscape samples showing sharp focus but I did notice these images to contain some lost hightlights in clouds. What is the workaround using this lens? Meter on the brightest part of the field of view and correct in post? I truly get the same issue when shooting with a Tokina 10-17mm f3.5-4.5 fisheye. That lens does not accept filters unless one uses a home made set up. Overall, the images you included truly represent the features and performance of what the IRIX WA can. I am looking to pick one up in the used market. Lastly, I have some questions about using CPL and a 10 stop ND filter. Would you recommend sticking with the proprietary Irix Edge filters for this lens or are there other filters that can be substituted without degrading photographs?
I think the highlight loss comes from two sources, the wide angle of view for sure and also my camera being something like six years old now. Honestly, bracketing and image stacking is going to be the way to go to obtain the best overall range. But if your camera and editing software have great shadow recovery then you can meter on the brighter portions, yes.
Also this lens performs way better than this video really conveys since my shots were all 36mp downsampled to 4k for the video and then compressed by RUclips and your Internet carrier for playback. So there may well be images in here where the source file has fine highlight detail but the video version does not.
Hey David. Once again thank you for your thoroughly real world review🙏
As I will be using the lens primarily for Astrophotography🛰✨, I think sharpness wide open is important. Also, at the moment I cannot change aperture due to cannon’s firmware blockage of third party lenses on the rf-mount (something I found out after buying the lens 🤯)
Anyway, do you have any experience experience with the sharpness of two following lenses wide open compared to the IRIX or any alternative lenses for Astro photography?
Samyang XP 14mm F2.4 and Sigma 14mm F1.8 DG HSM | Art.
From what I am reading about coma, chromatic aberration as well in those lenses are controlled very well
I haven't used either of those lenses, no. They both have good reputations. I do think the 15mm is weak wide-open. Mine also is that way.
I'm kind of surprised that Canon are blocking third-party lens controls. That's unfortunate, though not shocking given that they already sued at least one third-party lens maker. They really are making the R system cameras unappealing for people who don't want to buy their lenses, and that's too bad. I was thinking of buying an R camera on the used market specifically for lens reviews.
20:11 I’m very curious, what were the lower-end lenses that they wanted you to buy? I’m interested in getting into real estate photography and found that portion of your video very helpful. Thanks in advance for your reply!
Oh gosh, there was a whole list of them from the photography companies, some Samyang/Rokinon zooms and some consumer Nikon and Canon wide angles zooms.
Is the reason to use this lens vs a e.g., 14-24 2.8, mainly because of weight? Cannot tell its rendering 'coz of YT compression.
As a general rule, primes perform better than zooms, especially high-end primes. I haven't used any ultrawide zooms in a long time, but I will say that this is decidedly the best ultrawide lens I own, even though wide-open I think it underperforms significantly compared to some others.
@@DavidHancock Thx. I also curious what a lens being too good means? An image can be downgraded thru compression. Sounds like euphemism for "your rates will be too high" similar to "you are overqualified"
@@DixonLu I think it just means that they were looking for people with more affordable lenses because they're more common. Most of the photographers I've heard from who work for these firms just do it for fun or experience. I suspect that the companies that sell these fairly commoditized photo services have software or plugins to automatically adjust light drop off and barrel distortion so that all the photos are uniform. Obscure lenses, even if they're exceptional, would probably require custom software development that may only be used by one person. It's just not a good use of resources for firms that make their money on quick turn photos.
@@DavidHancock I work for VHT, a company that aims for the high end of the RE market. We are never discouraged from stepping up our equipment game. Some of my colleagues are using a full set of Canon T/S lenses every day. But I know what competitors like Virtuance are doing, too. I couldn't commit to shooting every hour on the hour, so...
@@wheatridger Virtuance is one of the forms I applied to that let me know they needed consumer-grade lenses. I suspect that the people or AI that runs their image correction scripts overnight have set scripts designed for specific lenses, which would explain the need for a restrictive gear list.
Dave - no offense But the images that I am viewing that they are Soft, and not Sharp, as I am using my 20" iMac full Screen OK, and I rather use my 18mm Tokina, and my 20mm 3.5 UD Nikkor lens... Sorry
It's worth noting that the original images are downsampled from 8K to 4K for this video. That and RUclips's image compression, even at full 4K resolution, will make them look soft. Comparing my source file 4K MOV to the original 36-MP files from my K-1, the original files are much sharper than the original MOV, especially in this lens' peak range. The aforementioned compression will further affect that.
Suspect SMC Pentax 15mm offers warmer look.
Not sure. I've tried to get one of those with no success.
And this isn't the widest IRIX lens. They also make a breathtaking 11mm rectilinear ultra wide.
😀 It looks like a great lens. It's on my radar for when I finish my current crop of ultra wide lens reviews.
@@DavidHancock The downside is that it can only use rear gel filters (and IRIX do not make a gel version of their light pollution filter).
The upsides are both the insanely wide field of view and the nice predictability of the 11mm being almost exactly double a 20mm.
Hey David.
I just bought A second hand 15 mm 2,4 blackstone from MPB. It is Canon ef-mount and I use it on my canon R7 with the Canon EF to RF-adapter.
I find the pictures not to be very sharp. I am wondering if this is simply due to a faulty lens.
You need to take into consideration that I have only been shooting it wide open. Change of aperture is not possible in the current situation as Canon has blocked third party lenses on the new RF-mount. I have contacted Irix technical support about the issue and they have offered me software upgrade of the lens if I ship it to Poland.
Anyway, by turning the lens ever so slightly so there is no communication between lens and camera, I have to been able to take photos wide open.
Back to my concern about image quality.
The lens appears to be in mint condition. I have been shooting at 1/200 sek using a tripod, image stabilizer disabled, focusing with 10x magnification on lcd from a distance of 3 m. In Lightroom I have added global sharpening of 60% to the raw file before exporting as a JPEG without output sharpening.
I have compared with a shot with my decentered Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (dropped it 🫣) which is a zoom and not a particularly sharp lens. Nevertheless this looks better at least in the center
www.flickr.com/gp/76274337@N05/82520T8394
Appreciate any help I can get 🤞 Regards Lars
Hey, Lars, I won't be able to check DropBox and I'll have to remove this comment, too. There are too many malware scams that target RUclips channels for me to leave a download link live. So if you can post the images to something like an Imgur album and re-comment with that link, that I can check. Wide-open, though, my 15mm is also SHOCKINGLY soft.
@@DavidHancock totally understandable. I will have a look on Imgur to see if I can figure out to upload my pictures and post a new comment.
By looking at other reviews, I was by the impression that it is fairly sharp lens. Maybe there is a greater variability in the lens manufacturing process than with bigger companies like Canon ?
@@DavidHancock do you ascribe your lens being “shockingly soft” wide open to a matter of fluctuating manufacturing quality or a general trait of this lens ?
The reason I am asking this is that I found several reviews stating otherwise good sharpness wide open, e.g “Center-sharpness is exceptional, even when shooting wide-open at f/2.4, but more average towards the edges and corners of the image frame”. Digital camera world
@@postabsorptivOne year late…Wondering if you wear glasses? I have found sometimes that what seems sharp wearing glasses and looking through the EVF, is not as sharp as I thought once on my computer. I have to remove my glasses and adjust the diopter on the EVF to be able to get super sharp photos.
Regarding the lens, I just purchased it (hasn’t arrived) and selling my Samyang 24mm f/1.4 due to the same issue. Thought I shot at 2.0 and 2.8 instead of wide open, it was not very sharp in the foreground. I had to stack images one for the foreground and one for background to get the entire image in focus. I’m hoping an UWA lens with correct that.