[JJ_SO]

Exactly what I thought.

 

Some years ago, this would have been a quite unique lens ... but today ...

there are the Sam 14/2.8s ... the Tam 15-30/2.8 ...the Tok 16-28/2.8

and the Can 16-35/2.8 ... so it must fit into the field of competitors ...

and frankly ... f/2.4 instead of f/2.8 is not really worth mentioning.

 

If it is cheap enough, it will find its place in the market ... if it is not,

it better have really outstanding optical quality.

 

Rainer

Well, if you already mention zooms, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 would also fit in this category and still is outstanding for it's price, as well as Canon's 11-24/4 although only f/4. Then there's a Zeiss 15/2.8 Milvus...

 

You all relaized, there will be two versions of this Irix Lens? same optical data, but one with lighter body and the other with tougher materials. Therefore 650€ will be possible for the cheaper one.

 

Makes it more difficult to see it's place in the market.

 
The rear gelatines mean you have to remove the lens fro the body for each change of a filter, also at slower apertures you will see (at this FL) each grain of dust. Also, a M95 filter might be cheaper than the adaptors with 150×150 Filters, but a good polarizer or ND at that size is no bargain. Expect 200-250€ for the circular polarizer.

 

Dave, I don't see the point of a lens with high resolution when the distortion sucks. Measure the resolution after correction of distortion and all of a sudden, it's just a mediocre glass. Maybe I read too much bad stuff about Samyang  like badly centerred or poor assembly and those comments were only exceptions but usually you get what you pay for.