Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:20 am    Post subject: MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5 Reply with quote

I primarily shoot wedding films with an A7S, and need an ultra-wide on the cheap.

Which of these would be preferable?

I understand the latter is a different focal length altogether compared to the former two,
and ideally the wider I can go, the better;
but I need decent levels of sharpness without having to stop down too much,
and if that means sacrificing a bit of ultra-wide-ness then so be it.

For reference, I use a Zenitar M2s 50mm f/2.0 and a Zenitar-1N 85mm f/1.4 - so I'm looking for sharpness levels to match these lenses.
I also have a Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 1:1 macro which I do NOT use, as I find the rendering and colors of that lens to not go too well with my Zenitars
(which is kind of why I'm a bit skeptical about the Vivitar 20mm and how well I could cut its footage with my Zenitars).


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old ultra-wide can be sharp in the center but not the edges until stopped down to F5.6 or beyond. The Tamron is not cheap too.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to post my first pic here but struck out.

I own the Mir-20 and the Tamron 17. The 17 is alot wider than 20mm Mir, so perhaps not the best comparison. Comparing the lenses

1) the mir has alot less "as shot" contrast than the Tamron my Mir is serial 871464, so perhaps there are later versions with better coatings, or perhaps not. There is no shortage of web pages discussing variants of russian glass.

2) Both Lens have a fair bit of CA.

3) Both lenses stopped down to 5.6 are pretty sharp

4) The Mir is very intolerant of flare, and for me this is a deal breaker for the Mir. (I was going to do what you just posted and keep one and pass one along, and the Mir will be leaving)

There is a Tokina 17mm, that many report is better than the tamron, but I dont have it to comment, you can google the comparison between the two.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gatorengineer64 wrote:
I tried to post my first pic here but struck out.

I own the Mir-20 and the Tamron 17. The 17 is alot wider than 20mm Mir, so perhaps not the best comparison. Comparing the lenses

1) the mir has alot less "as shot" contrast than the Tamron my Mir is serial 871464, so perhaps there are later versions with better coatings, or perhaps not. There is no shortage of web pages discussing variants of russian glass.

2) Both Lens have a fair bit of CA.

3) Both lenses stopped down to 5.6 are pretty sharp

4) The Mir is very intolerant of flare, and for me this is a deal breaker for the Mir. (I was going to do what you just posted and keep one and pass one along, and the Mir will be leaving)

There is a Tokina 17mm, that many report is better than the tamron, but I dont have it to comment, you can google the comparison between the two.


Thanks for that! I found a variant of the Tamron 17mm locally for what it seems to be an absolute steal, so I might as well spring for that then.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Tokina 17 is just about my most used lens on my Sony A6000, it really is very good, but obviously edge performance doesn't count.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Lloyd on the Tokina 17 on crop or m4/3

I compare it to my lumix 20 all the time, so to me anything 16-24 is the ultra wide category and it's quite a fair comparison to group them all and do that, if not practical and of course there are differences. They are distorted looks and the field curvature varies so widely if you don't group them like this then you're missing out .... like that TV ad, I'm the kid who could've lived here if our realtor would have shown us this house? Of course my opinion is a less rigid style and mathematical order has no relevance in my style. Another factor is if you prefer correcting or exploiting? To me it's incredibly important to find a feel in these ultra-wides and more so than in other lenses (way more) where color and contrast should be a higher priority. I think I need the perspective and then performance second when it comes to ultra-wides, that's what radiates me. The RMC 17 3.5 out resolves a fair share of cameras and is extremely well corrected so the reality is; it has no resolving weakness 10" to infinity most balanced close to distances of any I've found in the range, expect equally high IQ, near or far and then realize "every" other lens in this range tried to achieve its own set goal. Some emphasized near, some far, some sharp, some color balanced....CA is no issue on mine btw. In short ultra-wides, the more independently different ones are the only ones that matter. If all we look for is sharpness as a priority then it's about technical achievement not composition, ultra-wides kind of tend to separate those differences....demanding the best of your imagination and serve little to nothing for the technical savvy and that niche... sharpness? hah! A lens is not capable of your expectations, only your mind connected to the viewfinder with your eye is.... I am the "Not You"


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd pick the Tokina, or a Nikkor 18/4, I love my CV15III

Mir 20


Nikkor 18/4
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/tags/nikkor184ai/


CV15III
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/tags/cv15iii/


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I happen to have both the Tamron and the Tokina. On crop both lenses are excellent performers. The Tamron however is the better lens on FF.
See my topic on the Tokina, which show quite some differences between left and right edges. The lens is not aligned very well, it also seemed as if i am not the only one with that problem.

However: i enjoy using the Tokina more than i do the Tamron. Can't really explain this, but the Tamron seems more "clinical" if that makes any sense....

Topic here: http://forum.mflenses.com/rmc-tokina-3-5-17-on-sony-a7-t73884,highlight,%2Btokina+%2B17m.html

And a sample on a Canon 5D (Tokina 17mm):

Drama in the air by René Maly, on Flickr

Cheers, René!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mir in the post above the last post seems to have a left right focusing imbalance, too but maybe it's just my eyes...my dollar store glasses and these recycled contacts in combination cause quite a blur sometimes



Anyhow... So if you have a good sample of some lens, any lens, and it serves 'your' eye well....how could you possibly go wrong?


I'll tell you exactly how, by looking through the eyes of the one who told you something was best and not through your own?


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't shy away from the Viv's, as everybody here knows copies can vary depending on maker, they use some fine glass and provide superb results.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't test the Mir 20 anymore, I lent it to a friend, and haven't seen him in a number of years since, in this pic I was trying to focus on the ducks.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love the Tokina 17/3.5. Sharp, contrasty and almost no distortion. I used it on my Oly OM-4; great lens.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:52 am    Post subject: Re: MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5 Reply with quote

Damp Cat wrote:
I primarily shoot wedding films with an A7S, and need an ultra-wide on the cheap.

Which of these would be preferable?

I understand the latter is a different focal length altogether compared to the former two,
and ideally the wider I can go, the better;
but I need decent levels of sharpness without having to stop down too much,
and if that means sacrificing a bit of ultra-wide-ness then so be it.


If you go to ultra-wide, you can look at the Sigma 14mm 3.5 which did exists in both af and mf (i have the om version) version

Quality is ok / Distortion very low


[/img]https://omexperience.wordpress.com/lenses/sigma-14mm-f3-5/[img][/img][img]





ps : these are scans from film in medium resolution (not top res)


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
... I lent it to a friend, and haven't seen him in a number of years


what other good could a friend possibly be, then to relieve you from a defective lens for free?

...the right side of that image is sharper with more defined detail, a broader dof but on the left side the sky in the background is focused however the trees and around them and that person walking is not as sharply defined as the right side is ? Just saying... human nature knows best what it doesn't like

We can let one lens taint all as humans and it's very hard for some to get over it and accept that there are better samples in one extreme, in another some people are never satisfied and go through multiple samples....obsessed with finding the golden sample - we are photographers, that's our only commonality. We are nothing alike in reality and with all these varying minds, taste, opinions how could it ever be possible to have a best of anything? my point


PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:49 am    Post subject: Re: MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5 Reply with quote

Damp Cat wrote:
I primarily shoot wedding films with an A7S, and need an ultra-wide on the cheap.

Which of these would be preferable?

I understand the latter is a different focal length altogether compared to the former two,
and ideally the wider I can go, the better;
but I need decent levels of sharpness without having to stop down too much,
and if that means sacrificing a bit of ultra-wide-ness then so be it.

For reference, I use a Zenitar M2s 50mm f/2.0 and a Zenitar-1N 85mm f/1.4 - so I'm looking for sharpness levels to match these lenses.
I also have a Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 1:1 macro which I do NOT use, as I find the rendering and colors of that lens to not go too well with my Zenitars
(which is kind of why I'm a bit skeptical about the Vivitar 20mm and how well I could cut its footage with my Zenitars).


I have a Vivitar 17mm f/3.5, made by Tokina, in Canon FD mount. I've used it with film cameras only prior to buying my NEX 7, but I've found that my NEX doesn't care for this lens too much. Images I get with it are just so-so.

I also own a Tamron 17mm f/3.5 and I've also had good luck with it with film cameras. Unfortunately, same as the Vivitar, my NEX doesn't care for it. Images are just so-so. It has to do with the way the rays are bent with these lenses and the angle they impact the sensors.

But this shouldn't affect you since you have a FF A7S. I've found both the Tamron and the Vivitar to be reasonably sharp to the corners with my film cameras.

Another lens that comes to mind that you might want to consider, not quite as wide, but an outstanding optic, is the Nikon 20mm f/3.5 UD. It's an older lens, but it is a good one. As far as that goes, I reckon the later model Nikon 20mm's will be good as well.