35/2s - Nikkor AI-S and MIR-24N

Gurdie · Expire: 2013-02-20

Here are some sample shots from my 35mm f/2 lenses - which I incidentally acquired the same day.

Bokeh comparison at f/2 (camera on tripod)

Nikkor

MIR

Bokeh comparison at f/8:

Nikkor

MIR

Very similar results.

Outdoor shots:

Nikkor

MIR

The MIR is cooler.

Some notions:

The MIR seems have a wider field of view. It is also harder to focus, the Nikkor snaps to focus much easier. And for some reason, the MIR doesn´t convey the aperture information right. When set at f/2.8, camera reads it as f/2, f/4 as f/2.8 and so on.

mUg · Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Posts: 128

In the last couple of pics, the Mir seems colder (looking at the house)

hk300 · Joined: 30 Oct 2008 Posts: 1041 Location: Hong Kong

thank you for your comparison.
How much did you pay for these lenses?

sichko · Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK

Many thanks. I have the MIR and I've been thinking about the Nikkor. The Nikkor seems to have the edge - but it's much more expensive ?

Gurdie · Expire: 2013-02-20

I paid 80 euros for the Nikkor, because it has some fungus spots inside the front element. I think the current eBay prices are between 150 - 250 euros.
I paid 51 euros for the MIR.

hk300 · Joined: 30 Oct 2008 Posts: 1041 Location: Hong Kong

So ... these nikon pics were made with the fungus inside?
looks fine!

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

Thats an interesting comparison, thanks for sharing it. The Nikkor has higher contrast, the Mir has slightly better out of focus rendering.

spiralcity · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 1207 Location: Chicago, U.S.A

I own the 35mm.
The Nikon is shaper and as noted exhibits a warmer tone.
You can see the difference of sharpness in the fist two pics. The Nikon is deffinetly more crisp in this test.

I purchased my Nikon for 35.00 at shutterblade on ebay. Not expensive at all.