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.