Irix 150mm F2.8 Macro 1:1 lens preorders arrive ahead of December release

sigma 150mm apo 2.8

@justin - give or take a cm its the same, probably due to slight discrepancies from an actual 150mm focal length
The min. focussing distance to achieve 1:1 is a function of the angle of view of the lens, which is directly related to its focal length. That's why all the 50mm macro lenses have much the same minimum, as do the 105mm lenses and so on.

@nick. A lot of modern macro lenses reduce the focal length when you focus closer. This is to achieve 1:1 without enormous extension in the barrel.
My classic manual Nikkor micro 105mm f4 ais does not have any flaffy elements to fiddle with focal lengths and is therefore great on bellows. It compares to the sigma 150 for working distance at 1:1. The manual Nikkor micro 105 f2.8 is worse in this regard because of that floating element.

And the Pentax K. Can you believe it? Kudos to them.

There have been 180mm macros from Sigma with 3.5 and 5.6 apertures.
It's not about handholding but carrying them, out in the nature for example.

Why f 2.8 because it also makes a great portrait lens. Very good focal length for head shots. Good for outdoor portraits compressing the background a bit.

Nikon has offered a 200mm f/4.0 macro lens since about 1978. The AF-D version is awesome optically. Well, the older manual one is, too.

Many want a bright image in their viewfinder when using a macro, something lacking in an f8 or f5.6 lens.

Aha, focus stacking wide aperture shots is common in my workflow nowadays. I would do over a dozen shots at f2.8 to f4 and stack for a completely sharp main subject while retaining the bokeh of f2.8 in the foreground and background.

I thought i just mentioned that it's necessary in clinical photography

Back in college when we wrote clinical management reports we were already required to submit high quality photos together with the report. In college they had several old Nikon D90, D7000 and 90mm tamrons available. Together with the crop factor you're getting 135mm equivalent.

A 150mm is ideal on full frame in such use cases, I've been looking around for options and it seems only Sigma's 150mm 2.8 fits my criteria, with no art version in sight yet. It's something i can use both in my miniature photography hobby and also at work. Manual focus is fine for the former but not the latter.

It's all about efficiency. You want to get the procedure done as quickly as possible. You wouldn't want your other patients to be waiting outside for very long while you take your own sweet time on one patient. For every additional 5 to 10 minutes wasted on a patient, you'll see several patients lesser in a single morning. 10 minutes is enough to do a single tooth extraction procedure.

And, as pointed out by others, it's also a good portrait lens. Personally, I don't like 105mm and 135mm 1.4/1.8 prime lenses that much. Highly specialised tools where they are too long to be useful outside of portrait shots. The long MFD meant they can't be used for macro or close ups. They are also not long enough to shoot sports either. Macro lenses with AF are more useful in this regard.

I don't buy a pricy lens just to do one single type of photography. It's not cost efficient since I'm not a professional who's making money directly from photography.

For many years Lester Dine (https://dinecorp.com/) has been modifying and kitting out dental photography gear. For much of that time he was modifying the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8 - among the modifications was a special guide collar with specific dental-related markings. You can see an example in my gallery https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9033108749/photos/3823443/s-l1600dine
More currently they are offering two Nikon camera-based kits (D3400 & D5600) that use a Tamron 90mm macro along with ring and point flashes.
Given the elevated price-point dictated by more sophisticated auto-focus and stabilized Micro-Nikkor lens I think they priced themselves out of the modifying reseller's consideration.

I would think that for dental photography (and a lot of macro work), a smaller format would work better, like MFT with the Olympus 60/2.8. Stopping way down for DOF wipes out most claimed advantages of a larger format; roughly half the f-stop and 1/4 the ISO speed could be used for the same DOF and shutter speed than with 35mm format— and it is a far smaller lens to be pushing into a patient’s mouth!

I don't believe you'll find a new Sigma 150 f2.8 lens for the same price as this. Perhaps you could provide a link to where you can ... ?

@Charlie. My Old manual micro Nikkor 105mm mentions Ai :)

Nick, the Sigma, at least in my country, is $50 more expensive, negligible.

1) It has AF.

2) It's a proven reliable performer.

3) It's available from one of the world's best optics manufacturers, not a marketing company that could be bust soon.

Three significant benefits for the consumer that's worth the 50 bucks.

I will concede though, there are no neutrino dragonflies in the Sigma -and that's a shame, really just a dam shame. Sigma need to include flux capacitors, left-oriented falangies and boxomatronics in all their optics henceforth, I think they should add it to existing lenses via a firmware update, since, obviously the boxomatronics are hardware, neutrino dragonflies could carry them over. Obviously.

@damian
So when you said the Sigma was cheaper you were not being very accurate were you ? It is not in fact cheaper.
A quick look at the B&H site shows the Sigma at $1099 which is considerably more expensive than the $595 quoted in this article - nearly double and not just the $50 you claim. Perhaps you could show where you can buy the Sigma 150 new for just $50 more than this Irix lens ?
Don't forget to lampoon Apple with their "retina" screens. "lightning" and "firewire" connecters etc. Same bollox different company :-)

@damian
1) did I say you owned Apple products, only that a lot of other companies use ludicrous branding names. Your phone has a "snapdragon" chip in it - is that any less ridiculous ?
2) I couldn't see where you lived in your profile so guessed, apologies for any insult caused ;-). The Sigma lens is strangely cheap in Oz.
3) I own a Sigma 150 already why would I need another lens ? I was just curious about your ( incorrect ) claim that the Sigma was cheaper.
Weirdly you couldn't make a simple click on my profile to see I live in the UK ? ;-) Here, the Sigma is £780 which is about the same as the US price. No idea how much the Irix will sell for

It's manual focus. If a DSLR flange distance manual focus lens scares you from mounting it on a mirrorless APS-C, you really need to educate yourself.

Damn these comments are caustic haha

If it is a green coating it should be pistacchio :)

White balance controls for it?

I would imagine so. The Irix 15mm has. The color and contrast is very different and fun to shoot with. I only hope this one is the same.