Irix 11mm f/4 lens additional coverage (sample photos, reviews)

Some additional coverage of the new Irix 11mm f/4 full frame lens - first, a field of view comparison with the Irix 15mm f/2.4 lens (click for larger view, high resolution photos available on flickr):

Irix 11mm f/4 lens sample photos taken with the Nikon D810 (high resolution photos are available on flickr):

More sample photos taken with other cameras:

Irix 11mm f/4.0 Sample pictures

Video review of the Irix 11mm f/4 lens:

Ephotozine published their review of the Irix 11mm f/4 lens:

Irix 11mm f/4 MTF Charts

Irix 11mm f/4 MTF Charts

Irix 11mm f/4 Chromatic Aberration Charts

Irix 11mm f/4 Chromatic Aberration Charts

See also this quick hands-on of the lens from last year. Additional information on the Irix 11mm f/4 lens, including press release, MTF charts, specifications and pictures can be found over at PhotoRumors.

Irix lenses can be purchased at Amazon US, Amazon UKAmazon DE and Amazon IT. In the next few weeks I will be getting some discount codes for all Irix products, so stay tuned.

Two more videos - Irix 11mm f/4 lens sample footage and an interview with Irix from Photokina:

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • MB

    For what it is seems very nice…

  • Viktor

    Looks well made, however I do not like such ultra wide angle lenses (just personal preference). I do like their 15mm more and if they come with 18mm/20mm, I would like it even more…..

    • paige4o4

      Me neither, but for architecture and real estate photographers this could be an amazing piece of equipment.

  • Aldo

    Wow I didnt think there was such thing as ‘too wide’ til I saw these images. I dont know what it is but something got lost…

    • I’ll tell you what got lost, a frame of reference, view this wide works best up close to the target and getting crazy angles and perspectives…these sample photos are lacking. If anything my 14-24mm has pushed me to work harder on framing and getting to vistas that have truly incredible viewsheds – with a tele you can make a 10 degree wide chunk of your landscape pretty and a target, with such a wide angle lens you have to find the right subject or discipline in portraying your vision.

      I would put it in a cactus and shoot the stars moving around the arms for example. Or inside a cockpit, those are great places for absurdly wide angles

  • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

    I’m no pro, I sold my 14-24 2.8 Nikon about 2 months ago because I probably used it twice in the last year.
    But this 11 makes want to get a wide angle lens again.
    What do you guys think of these pics?
    They look good to me.
    Out of my Nikon 2.8 trinity I always felt the 14-24 was the worst.
    I’ve been doing a lot of wildlife with my 200-500 lately, but this one looks like a good bring to manhattan lens.

    • I use my 14-24mm so much it pretty much remains welded on my FX body so thank you for stroking my ego ;P
      Also I love mine dearly, have you tried using it for astrophotography? It’s a fantastic performer in that regard

    • tristan Rhodes

      I think in how it compares to other similar super wide zooms it is at least on par with the other 2 top level Nikon zooms and probably more of a standout than either of those. I certainly shoot more pics with both the 24-70 and 70-200 at weddings, but I have tried replacing it with both the the 16-35 (IQ way lower) and the 20mm G (I use around 20mm on the 14-24 the most, and the 20mm prime is good but missed the ultra wide). It would probably take a 14 or 15mm and a 20 or 21mm prime to replace it in my bag and that just isn’t practical for most things. it is also incredibly useful for architectural jobs and occasional landscapes.

      I dont think an 11mm is your answer. I think it is probably a prime in the 14-17mm range (maybe the sigma 20mm Art) and some practice with composition / post processing to better utilize / minimize perspective distortion with ultra-wide lenses.

    • I’ve never heard anyone complain about the 14-24, nor had any complaints myself (used, but don’t own one).

      But that 200-500 is a stunner. I’ve been using mine both bare and with a TC-14E (v1!), and it’s just sharp no matter what. And the VR is outstanding–I’ve yet to put it on a tripod or monopod.

    • Mato34

      Sold my 14-24 some years ago for the same reason as you (almost no use), and bought a Samyang 14/2.8.

      For the price I couldn’t be more satisfied with it. I had both simultaneously some time, so I could compare them: Sharpness is better on the Samyang than on my 14-24 (at any case I could compare), distortion is worst (highly disturbing with straight lines on the borders) but easy to PP, size and weight are quite smaller, and construction noticeable not as good. But for 300 € is a heck of a lens.

      Just FYI, if you want to have a look at it.

  • So when you say “full size photos available on Flickr”

    …you actually mean “slightly larger but still pointlessly low-resolution photos available on Flickr.”

    • Yes, higher resolution, sorry – I thought they were full res.

    • Lex Cross

      The high res originals are there. Look further.

      • so I was right after all 🙂

        • Lex Cross

          We’ll… half right. Not all the ones shown are full res but there are a lot of full res ones.

          • Ok, I did not check all, I guess the ones I checked were full res.

  • Adam Brown

    After reading the ephotozine review, I think I really want this lens. Just a little concerned about the size, 785 grams is a bit heavy for lens I want to travel with.

    • Other than weight, it looks surprisingly compact. And which weight were you looking at? The “blackstone” or “firefly”?

      • RC Jenkins

        Yes, looks interesting

        Completely unrelated question: anyone looking for a Samyang…? 🙂


      • Adam Brown

        The ephotozine reviews says the firefly is 783 grams but they appear to be mistaken. Appears that’s the blackstone weight and the firefly is 730. Not horrible — similar to many of my current lenses. But a fair amount heavier than my current Rokinon 14mm and my Nikon 18-35. Not sure I want to keep increasing the weight of my camera bag, with a lens as heavy as my 24-70/2.8. The Venus laowa is just a bit over 600 grams … but 1mm less wide, and a bit more expensive. Or I could stick with my Rokinon. I’ll have to think about it.

        • Greg

          Though the Laowa at f/2.8 offers a bit more light.

  • Hmm. I wonder how this lens would work for night sky shots? f/4 ought to be usable at such a wide angle, assuming the image quality is tolerable.

    • zzzxtreme

      i’m surprised that my samyang gives me very clean night shots at f8 at night

  • Rich P

    I handled their lenses at The Photoplus Expo. They seem to be VERY well built and their employees were pretty skilled. I might pick up one of them; two if they come out with something non wide angle.

  • Was kind of excited until I saw the rocks on the left in this

    Wow. That’s EPIC CA. This was taken adapted to an A7R II, so, I assume no automatic corrections took place. I know CA is “easy to fix” but the idea that it’s a lossless fix sometimes bandied about is 100% false. The practical impact will be loss of contrast wherever there is notable CA. It may or may not matter for your photos but it’s something to note. That review above was probably based on corrected images, or something much lower res than the Sony cam. At 42mp those CA sections are more like 10-15 pixels.

  • Back to top