View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Damp Cat
Joined: 21 Jun 2016 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:20 am Post subject: MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5 |
|
|
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). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7547 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gatorengineer64
Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 279
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ A7R4, GFX50R and a bucket of mflenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Damp Cat
Joined: 21 Jun 2016 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damp Cat wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7775 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
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. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
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/
_________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TrueLoveOne
Joined: 30 Sep 2012 Posts: 1840 Location: Netherlands
Expire: 2013-12-24
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
TrueLoveOne wrote:
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! _________________ My Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/
Sony A7, Canon 5D mkII, Minolta 7D + RD3000 and some more.....
Minolta and Konica collector.... slowly selling all the other stuff! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr G
Joined: 27 Jan 2014 Posts: 187 Location: London & Essex
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr G wrote:
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. _________________ EVEN A BLIND SQUIRREL FINDS A NUT NOW AND THEN! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
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. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I love the Tokina 17/3.5. Sharp, contrasty and almost no distortion. I used it on my Oly OM-4; great lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PBFACTS
Joined: 24 Dec 2008 Posts: 564
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:52 am Post subject: Re: MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5 |
|
|
PBFACTS wrote:
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) _________________ OM USER .. I KEEP/USE:
Om2 sp + T32 (grip/filter/zoom) + T8
+ Zuiko 16mm 3.5 / 55mm 1.2 / 65-200 4/ x1.4
+ Sigma 8mm 4.0 / 14mm 3.5 / 18-35 3.5-4.5
+ Tamron 35/105 2.8
+Tokina 150/500 5.6
+ Kiron 105/2.8 macro 1:1
+ Vivitar S1 90/180 falst field macro
+ 2x Doubler HR7
>>I SELL: OM10 + OM4ti
+ i sell: OM Md1 + Md 2 + Grip PowerPack + charger
+ i sell: OM Zuiko 24mm 2.8 / 28mm 3.5 / 50mm 1.8 / 50mm 1.4 / 50mm 3.5 macro / 35-70 3.6 / 35-105 3.5-4.5 / 75-150 4 / 500mm / 2xA
+ i sell: OM Kiron 28/105 3.2-4.5 / 1.5 converter
+ i sell: OM Makinon reflex 5.6/300 + Spector reflex (makinon) 500mm
+ i sell: OM Macro panagor extender 1:1
+ i sell: OM Sigma 16mm 2.8 fisheye (last version) / 21-35 3.5-4.2 ot/ 28-70 2.8 /1000mm mirror
+ i sell: Tamron 28-70 3.5-4.5 / 28-80 sp 3.5-4.2 / 28-135 sp 4-4.5 / /28-200 3.5 / 35-135 3..5-4.5 / 90mm sp macro 1:1 2.8
+ i sell: OM Soligor 2x doubler / x3 converte
+ i sell: Soligor FisheEye x0.15
+ i sell: OM Tokina 28/135 4-4.6 / 70/210 3.5 (= vivitar S1 v2)
+ i sell: OM Vivitar 28-70 3.5-4.8 / 28-90 s1 2.8-3.5 / 35-70 2.8-3.8 / 55/2.8 Macro 1:1 (komine) / 70-150 3.8 ot (kiron) / 75-150 ot 3.8 (tokina + 2x matched)
+ i sell : OM cosina 100-500 5.6/8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:49 am Post subject: Re: MIR-20 vs. Vivitar 20mm 3.8 vs. Tamron/Tokina 17mm 3.5 |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|