Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

MIR 24H MC 35mm f/2 vs Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 2:36 pm    Post subject: MIR 24H MC 35mm f/2 vs Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 Reply with quote
OK, decided to test my newly acquired MIR 24H MC 35mm f/2 against the great Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8.
Note: the light conditions were changing all the time, because of clouds; keep in mind when interpreting the test.

First: comparison @ infinity. First an overview of the landscape, with the crop areas indicated:
infinityoverview by devoscasper, on Flickr

Then, a comparison of the center crops:

infinityCenter by devoscasper, on Flickr

Both lenses show very good detail. The MIR slightly soft wide open, but still very good detail. The detail rendering of the Minolta is a bit crisper, but not by much. These are 100% crops though, and only very small portions of the complete image. For real life photography the difference is insignificant IMO.

Then, the corners:

infinityCorner by devoscasper, on Flickr


As you can read in this thread http://forum.mflenses.com/interesting-lens-reflection-t84934.html my initial impression was that the corners of the MIR didn't seem to be very sharp. I take that back. In fact they are excellent. The Minolta's corners are better @ f/2.8 and f/4, but stopped down to f/5.6 and f/8, the MIR shows sharper corners. Impressive!

Then, bokeh.
Bokehcomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Of course, the faster MIR allows for softer bokeh. I think both lenses have decent looking bokeh though. Distance to the subject is 30cm, which is the MFD of the Minolta. The MIR has another advantage though: it's MFD is only 24cm.
This allows for even more blown out backgrounds. Here a comparison of both lenses @ their maximum bokeh setting:
MaxBokehComparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

All in all I'm very surprised by the MIR's performance. Watch out with pointing to the sun though!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Thank you!

I am one sitting deep in my dry cabin. May be I should dig it out and test it during Chinese new year.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice performance wide open on that Spiderman shot! Also the minimum focusing distance is great


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I own the discussed lens, and also Konica AR 35/2.0 and Olympus OM 35/2.0

Don't know the reason (maybe the problem is in the particular sample) but Mir is visibly better then Olympus.

I didn't do the test comparison. The opinion is based on the practical use of both.

But the Konica really has it's own character, and is very nice lens.

There is the sample with Mir lens. Camera Sony a7s



Not for me that spring will come..


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also other sample with discussed Mir lens. F/2.0, camera Sony a7s



PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
I own the discussed lens, and also Konica AR 35/2.0 and Olympus OM 35/2.0

Don't know the reason (maybe the problem is in the particular sample) but Mir is visibly better then Olympus.

I didn't do the test comparison. The opinion is based on the practical use of both.

But the Konica really has it's own character, and is very nice lens.

There is the sample with Mir lens. Camera Sony a7s



Not for me that spring will come..


it would be nice to see a sample shot wide open with the sun in the center area - just curious if all samples suffer from the strong reflections wide open (i assume on film it wouldn´t have to be same issue)


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
I own the discussed lens, and also Konica AR 35/2.0 and Olympus OM 35/2.0

Don't know the reason (maybe the problem is in the particular sample) but Mir is visibly better then Olympus.

I didn't do the test comparison. The opinion is based on the practical use of both.

But the Konica really has it's own character, and is very nice lens.

There is the sample with Mir lens. Camera Sony a7s



Not for me that spring will come..


Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Funny image!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:


it would be nice to see a sample shot wide open with the sun in the center area


Well, the sample with the fully open diaphragm I had presented there already. But - without thew sun in the center. Which I never did with the lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:


Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


Always is happy to share! Happy Cat


PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
Also other sample with discussed Mir lens. F/2.0, camera Sony a7s



very nice result , i haven´t seen this one before


PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
OK, decided to test my newly acquired MIR 24H MC 35mm f/2 against the great Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8.
Note: the light conditions were changing all the time, because of clouds; keep in mind when interpreting the test.



The light is completely different for the two lenses - no meaningful comparison possible ...


LittleAlex wrote:
I own the discussed lens, and also Konica AR 35/2.0 and Olympus OM 35/2.0
Mir is visibly better then Olympus.

I don't know any of the two lenses personally. However, the lens section of the Oly 2/35mm to me looks rather "old school" even though it's from the early 1970. The Mir 2/35mm lens section looks rather "modern", even though its production started in 1976. However nearly all major Japanese manufacturers started to introduce really good 2.8/35mm lenses around 1975; their design is more related to the design of the Mir 3/35mm lens.


LittleAlex wrote:
But the Konica really has it's own character, and is very nice lens.

Certainly "old school" with lots of "glow" wide open ... Wink

S


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2024 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:



LittleAlex wrote:
But the Konica really has it's own character, and is very nice lens.

Certainly "old school" with lots of "glow" wide open ... Wink

S


No, I would't say so:





PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2024 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
stevemark wrote:


LittleAlex wrote:
But the Konica really has it's own character, and is very nice lens.

Certainly "old school" with lots of "glow" wide open ... Wink

S


No, I would't say so:



Alex - your above image was NOT taken wide open. As an experienced photographer you should notice that immediately:

1) Depth of field is much too large for a 35 mm lens at f2
2) Corner resolution is good (much too good for the Konica AR 2/35mm @ f2.0)
3) Exposure of 1/100s at ISO 200 is indicating f8 or f11 (the highlights in bright sun are NOT blown out)
4) And finally the proof: Your image shows perfectly hexagonal bokeh structures. The Konica 2/35mm has fairly rounded aperture blades, and this image certainly wasn't shoot af f2, f2.8 or f4.

Don't cheat. I'll always catch those guys Laugh 1



PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2024 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Don't cheat. I'll always catch those guys



Well - you are too smart, to be honest! Laugh 1

But the second one, as I remember, really was performed at F/2.0, because the light conditions were horrible.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1