[BasilG]

Hey,

 

Can we expect any reviews of the lenses supplied by the likes of Laowa and Irix any time soon? I think for landscape photographers these are quite interesting, but it's hard to know whether they really deliver...

 

Thanks!

 

[Brightcolours]

Hey,
 
Can we expect any reviews of the lenses supplied by the likes of Laowa and Irix any time soon? I think for landscape photographers these are quite interesting, but it's hard to know whether they really deliver...
 
Thanks!

There are other reviews available that tell they can deliver.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/irix-...view-30678
You just need a RAW converter that actually corrects (and not masks) CA, like Capture One.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/l...onclusion/

[JJ_SO]

Correcting CA is not exactly a purpose of a lens test?   But anyway, I also think they deliver otherwise they would already been forgotten after announcment.

 

However, I took the risk to get me an untested 14/1.8. For AF, speed and DoF and because Art lenses just need tests to tell how close or how much better than genuine they are.

[mst]

It's interesting that you mention CAs in the context of lens tests... because it's one issue I stumbled into with the relaunch of the DX section. When calibrating the RAW workflow for the MTF results with the D7200, i ended up with reasonable results for several lenses (compared to earlier tests on the D7000), however depending on the parameters chosen the CA results on the D7200 ended up a tad lower than on the D7000 (the absolute (!) values).

I can confirm by now that this is an effect of the newer version of the Raw converter I use for MTF (iridient Developer 1.9.3 vs 3.1.4). The newer converter consistently gives lower CA results (and a tad lower MTF, too) when processing the same NEF files.

To get back to the original question: I'd love to test them, but wanted to avoid buying those lenses. That's why I got in contact with both Lowa and Irix at photokina last year, but especially Irix (or actually their distributor) did not get back to me since, unfortunately.

At least for Nikon, I can unfortunately not promise reviews of those lenses "any time soon". I keep trying to get my hands on these lenses, but there is a bunch of reviews to work on already

[JJ_SO]

I'm not sure about the abolute improvement of CA suppression. At least for a comparison between the CA magnet 85/1.4G from Nikon and the 85/1.4 Art it was very noticeable (in Aperture, that was, which is outdated, forgotten and buried). But still, I also saw a difference in Captire One 10.

[Klaus]

We tested the Laowa 12mm (Canon) and 7.5mm. The 15mm has been withdrawn from a test by Laowa.

 

As for the Irix lenses ... maybe the 11mm. But there's just too much other stuff on my desk at the moment.

[Brightcolours]

JoJu, I meant that the Irix 11mm f4 certainly can deliver, but that it depends on your RAW converter just how good the results will be, because of CA.

[JJ_SO]

I see.

 

Well, I didn't realize until you posted that there are several attempts to correct that bloody CA just with Sofware instead of maximizing lens quality. However, the Sigma feels pretty decent and I hope to take it out in the wild this weekend. In front of 47 MP it should show how to deliver.  Justa couple of some 100 pages manual...

[BasilG]

Thanks for the replies. The Irix lenses would be quite interesting though I understand there's other stuff in the queue.