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 20mm f/3.5 -- comparable to Nikkor or Flektogon?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:03 am    Post subject: Mir 20mm f/3.5 -- comparable to Nikkor or Flektogon? Reply with quote

Hey guys, it's been quite a while since I've stopped by -- been busy house hunting and stuff.

I've been looking for an ultra wide in Nikon mount for a while now. My first choice would be an old UD pre-AI 20mm Nikkor, but even though they're over 40 years old now, most of them, they still tend to be pricey. Today I've come across a couple of 20mm Mir's and I'm wondering how they compare. You folks in Europe have much more familiarity with Russian optics than most of us in the States do, so I thought I'd toss the question out to you before I buy.

Both the lenses I've seen have the AI metering tab, so that means they're not older than the late 1970s. Multicoated, too. So if you have any experience with the Mir 20's, how would you compare them to Nikkors or even a Flektogon?

Thanks in advance!


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mir is ok, but not as good as other lenses, CA is much more prominent.
An old shot on my 1DIII with the Mir.


Nikkor AI 18/4 on my A7r


My OM 21/3.5 has vignetting on my A7r but is sharp enough.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought a Mir to use on my Sony A7. My copy was very bad on the edges. The image was blurred even if I stopped down..
In addition , my lens had problem with the aperture blades which are five.
I have now a Canon FD 20 f2.8 and I am happy with it.

I have also a Mir 1b 37 mm which is very weak on the edges. Mir means , world or peace in russian. So both lenses lie in peace in a drawer.

The rendition of those lenses is good in the center with beautiful colours . So they might give nice pictures with APS-C sensors.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
I bought a Mir to use on my Sony A7. My copy was very bad on the edges. The image was blurred even if I stopped down..
In addition , my lens had problem with the aperture blades which are five.
I have now a Canon FD 20 f2.8 and I am happy with it.

I have also a Mir 1b 37 mm which is very weak on the edges. Mir means , world or peace in russian. So both lenses lie in peace in a drawer.

The rendition of those lenses is good in the center with beautiful colours . So they might give nice pictures with APS-C sensors.


Exactly my thought, the Mir is nice on aps-c (even if you can already see some sharpness loss at the edges of the aps-c frame), I love the colors, and it flares like mad - that can be fun sometimes. All in all, a good lens for the right price imho. The Flektogon 20/4 is much better, though.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the feedback, guys. The way I see it, there's not much point of going to the expense of 20mm if it's just gonna be used on an APS-C camera. That's roughly the equivalent of a 30mm in 35mm format, isn't it.

I have several Nikon film cameras that I still use for shooting film, and currently the widest I have in the format is 24mm. 20mm would be nice, 17mm or 18mm even better, but it's really hard to find deals on them and I guess I don't want one badly enough to pay full pop for one. I own a Tokina-made Vivitar 17mm in Canon FD mount. A nice lens. My next digital camera's gonna be a Sony A7 or A7r, so that Vivitar will work fine with it. But I still want an ultra wide in Nikon mount. Was kinda hoping the Mir might be a way to save money. Doesn't sound like the savings will be worth it, though.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had crappy and stunning MIR both and dozen of Flektogons my 50+ or more, none of them was crappy.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tokina AF 3.5-4.5/20-35 or 3.5-4.5/19-35. Same lens, just the 19-35 is a later version with more plastics in the body.

This lens is common and cheap and outperforms 90% of legacy ultrawides imho.

Second choice would be the Sigma 3.5-4.5/21-35, also common and cheap, a bit more flare prone as it has a larger front glass.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a 20mm Ud which I picked up for 40 bucks. It is not mint, but it is not junk either. The glass are perfect, aperture works crisply and the focus are super smooth. Its truly a beautiful lens. I guess I just got lucky finding it , especially for that price.



PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

200-300 USD value lens this UD nikkor minimum and excellent as well, congrats!


PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, in fact anywhere around $200 for the UD Nikkor nowadays is a very good price. I see it at auction consistently bid up higher than that.

I found another -- an old Vivitar 20/3.8 non-AI, so it's older than 1978 or so. SN begins with 22, so it's made by Kino, makers of the Kiron optics. I'm guessing it's a decent lens. The other Kino's I have are certainly very good to excellent. I'm tempted to get it. It's priced pretty favorably -- $114.