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

Arsat-H 20/2.8 mini review
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:33 am    Post subject: Arsat-H 20/2.8 mini review Reply with quote
UPDATE: Full review with sample pictures now available in my blog at http://www.prime35.com/arsat-h-20mm-f-2-8/

...

Just received a brand-new Arsat-H 20/2.8 in Nikon mount. I shot quite a few test images with an adapter on Canon 5DmkII. Below are my impressions so far. A more comprehensive review with sample pictures will follow in a few days.

According to the manual, its optical construction includes a floating element, allowing it to maintain its optical quality across the focusing range.

This lens is quite diminutive, about the size and weight of a Nikkor 50/1.4. Build quality is barely adequate. My copy is a brand new one, it was sealed in a box; yet its aperture already forms a very irregular shape, and its focusing ring is far from being even. The front of the lens slightly wobbles. I haven't seen lenses that would be built worse than this one. However, it can still be mounted and used on the camera, and that's what really matters.

Optically, it's nothing to rave about wide open. Center is quite sharp, but edges and corners are soft. Well, 'soft' doesn't say it all; the corners are some kind of soup. At f/4, corners remain soft. However, by f/5.6 the lens suddenly changes, becoming rather sharp in the center and reasonable in the corners. At f/8, it's sharp across the frame except extreme corners, which never reach even the 'good' territory. By f/11, diffraction starts to show, decreasing resolution slightly. F/16 is even softer due to diffraction.

Chromatic aberrations are pronounced. I guess it's hard to correct in a UWA lens without aspherical elements.

Geometric distortion is noticeable, and is of a complex type. Barrel distortion in the middle of the frame turns into pincushion distortion near the edges. This lens is hardly suitable for architectural photography.

Verdict: used between f/5.6-11, this lens can produce reasonably sharp images. Being a 20mm full-frame rectlinear ultra wide angle lens, this one competes with some much more expensive lenses as well as used UWA's such as Tamron and Tokina 17/3.5. If you're going to use an UWA lens infrequently, this is a good, reasonably priced choice. I paid $113 for my copy; that's about right for this lens. For $150, there are better alternatives, and $200 buys a really nice manual focus UWA lens.

Last edited by aoleg on Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks man, that was very nice of you to post this review. coincidentally, i have been looking for a 17-21mm prime, but have been put off by the prices, so had settled on the arsat as a reasonably priced one--and being russian, i thought it might have the character of a mir or helios.

i think, without knowing for certain, that the older arsats were better built than the new ones. i am curious what you thought about the character of the lens apart from sharpness--does it show its russian heritage like the helios?


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many thanks!


PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i am curious what you thought about the character of the lens apart from sharpness--does it show its russian heritage like the helios?


Unfortunately, it does not appear to be of the same vintage as other Russian lenses. Particularly, I've never seen a Russian lens built that poorly (granted, Jupiter-9 is quite terrible, and Mir-37A is quite bad too, but they don't come even close to this Arsat). I didn't have too many Russian wide angles; Mir-10A (28/3.5) is very nice, built tough but quite large and heavy.

Don't get me wrong: this Arsat is probably the cheapest ultra wide angle lens you're going to get. Also, old UWA Nikkors weren't that brilliant optically, too; I guess this lens is not far beyond of some really old Nikon stuff, which usually sells for double or triple the money. By f/8, the Arsat is quite useable. This is f/8 (click to view in a larger size; the compressed image does not appear as sharp as it actually is - I'll need to host full-size images in my blog, and post a link here):



PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Also, old UWA Nikkors weren't that brilliant optically, too;


In the sixties, Nikon had a weak spot where medium wides were concerned, and their 24/28mm range did not gain popularity until the AI age (almost a decade after they got their designs right) - which back then gave Nikon a relatively poor reputation for wides in general, compared to other brands.

But before Nikon had mastered retrofocus design, they only had a Russar derived mirror-lock-up 20mm (which is excellent even by current standards, but not really practicable to use). The following retrofocus 20mm Nikkors kept to the standard they had set with that, and apart from light falloff to the corners (increasing with the design age of the lens), there is nothing to complain about on them even now.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:
aoleg wrote:
Also, old UWA Nikkors weren't that brilliant optically, too;


In the sixties, Nikon had a weak spot where medium wides were concerned, and their 24/28mm range did not gain popularity until the AI age (almost a decade after they got their designs right) - which back then gave Nikon a relatively poor reputation for wides in general, compared to other brands.


Really? For 24mm specifically, I find their pre-AI 28/2.8 to be quite good. I agree about their earlier 28/(2.8,3.5) and their earlier 20mm (UD). The 28mm/2.8 they didn't get right until the AIS re-design.

Sevo wrote:

But before Nikon had mastered retrofocus design, they only had a Russar derived mirror-lock-up 20mm (which is excellent even by current standards, but not really practicable to use).


(21mm by the way, not 20mm)
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/21mm.htm


PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Used the lens in the wild. Full review with quite a few images now published in my blog at http://www.prime35.com/arsat-h-20mm-f-2-8/

In two words, I found the lens quite usable. Reasonably sharp across the frame by f/11, very nice contrast, impressive handling of flare, saturated and reasonably neutral colors. Quite easy to use, too: just set it to f/11, focus all the way to infinity, and shoot! Kind of turns my 5DmkII into a point-and-shoot camera Smile




PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your work!

Well, at f/11 every lens is usable. Cool
And as far as Russian built is concerned, I think you can be lucky or in trouble. Wink
I've got an optically brilliant Telear 3.5/200 with poor aperture built.
But many other Russian lenses (Jupiter-21, Jupiter-9, Tair-11...) were built like tanks...
It seems that the newer have more problems.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Well, at f/11 every lens is usable. Cool


Well, yes, mostly. There aren't that many ultra wide angles on the market that cost around $100; much less new ones. Sharpness is not the only thing that matters in a UWA lens; there's also contrast, flare resistance, and colors, in which the Arsat excels. There's also CA, vignetting and distortion, which are this lens' weak points.

Why they preferred making a soft (wide open) f/2.8 lens instead of a f/3.5 one that could be made sharper and with less distortion is beyond me...


PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:

Why they preferred making a soft (wide open) f/2.8 lens instead of a f/3.5 one that could be made sharper and with less distortion is beyond me...


Really? It's obvious. Because fast is good and purchasers compare numbers.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
aoleg wrote:

Why they preferred making a soft (wide open) f/2.8 lens instead of a f/3.5 one that could be made sharper and with less distortion is beyond me...


Really? It's obvious. Because fast is good and purchasers compare numbers.


I don't think the marketing was the case in the Soviet times when this lens was being designed (this lens is effectively Mir-73H). They wouldn't have a problem selling anything to their people because of the iron curtain. I must be wrong in my thinking as here we have this lens...


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
aoleg wrote:

Why they preferred making a soft (wide open) f/2.8 lens instead of a f/3.5 one that could be made sharper and with less distortion is beyond me...


Really? It's obvious. Because fast is good and purchasers compare numbers.


Exactly! Look at the prices in the bay...


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is the nikon mount of Arsat pre-AI?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lena wrote:
Is the nikon mount of Arsat pre-AI?


No. It's Ais.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1