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

Flektogon 35/2.4 SMC Takumar 35/2.0 Mir-24
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both Distagon 35mm f1.4 and Nikon 35mm f1.4 , Nikon is crappy wide open good from f2 outstanding from f4 or higher fstop.

Distagon 35mm f1.4 outstanding at every aperture including wide open, but this is most expensive 35mm what I know. I was lucky I picked up cheap both due they are not MINT (thanks for silly MINT hunters ) Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Assuming current Distagon 35/1.4 price difference with Nikkor 35/1.4 I may say that it is really better to buy a Zeiss if its performance is better on all apertures. BTW how about Zeiss 35/2.8? How good is that lens?


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

I have (and use) both lenses ... Both are top performers, IMHO, but with different characteristics ...

The Flek renders its bokeh as if it were painting, which you can like or not ...



The bokeh of the SMC Tak 35/2 (49mm version) is more creamy, more similar to the one that you can get with a Flek 35/2.8 ...

The Flek is great at short focusing distances, too ... Here is a sample at f/5.6 with an extension ring of 5mm:



To enjoy its sharpness, click on the picture and then display the full res image ...

The SMC Tak is a great performer, too: here's a crop, most probably at f/4 or f5.6, cannot remember:



In terms of color saturation, the SMC Tak is more natural, IMHO, the Flek tends to saturate colors giving them the "classic" Zeiss look:



Thus, finally, the choice is up to you (and your taste) ... But, if i were you, i would try to get both Wink ...

Cheers


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, Indiana. It looks like I'll try both the lens Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
Assuming current Distagon 35/1.4 price difference with Nikkor 35/1.4 I may say that it is really better to buy a Zeiss if its performance is better on all apertures. BTW how about Zeiss 35/2.8? How good is that lens?


It's up to you and your budget, really. If you can afford the Zeiss, it's a better lens; go for it (but beware, it won't clear the mirror of your 5D, so you'll have to either modify the lens or the camera, or use it in LiveView mode for infinity shots). I got a Nikkor a bit cheaper than the average eBay price, so I bought the Nikkor (also no mirror clearance problems on the 5D).

Distagon 35/2.8 is nice and sharp, but not that much better than the (much cheaper) Yashica ML 35/2.8, which is a superb performer. Between these two and considering the price differential, I say it's better to get the Yashica ML.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
Thanks, Indiana. It looks like I'll try both the lens Smile


oh, I thought the Takumar was not considered any more.
if it is you may want to see the photos I have taken with it, not too many good ones I am afraid ( and NOT on FF but on Pentax APS-C ): http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157611348124390/show/


PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
The big plus for the Flek is the very short focussing distance, almost like a macro lens.
+1

I've been using both Flek and ASAHI (Pentax-M SMC version 2/35mm) but i did prefer Zeiss usually for above reason.

Last edited by Pancolart on Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:00 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have got Mir-24 for now. And I am quite impressed with results wide open. I have red many posts on different forums where people expressed their opinion Mir-24 is very average with many aberrations, bad corner sharpness, flares and so on. There are two Mir-24 versions exist: #1 Ukraina Kiev/Uman' Arsenal factory #2 Russia, Krasnogorskiy factory. #1 version is referred as N version (or Н in Russian) and the second as M version.
- N Minimal aperture has f/22, M has f/16
- different body
- N resolution center/corner has 50/30, M version has 40/21
- N minimal focusing distance is 24cm, M is 30cm

I was quite impressed by f/2.0 performance for the money.

f/2.0


PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
I have got Mir-24 for now.

Great Choice!

Incidentally, the part you missed out is that the 24M is M42 mount and 24H/N is Nikon mount. AFAIK there is no difference in the optics.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:

Incidentally, the part you missed out is that the 24M is M42 mount and 24H/N is Nikon mount. AFAIK there is no difference in the optics.

Nope. There is difference in the optics. As per Russian Mir-related sites and sources those versions are different and M index doesn't mean M42 at all. Full box of a new Mir-24 has included two tails - Nikon and M42. I have Mir-42N (Н) and it also has two tails in the box Kiev/Nikon and M42 so going M42 from Kiev takes 3 minutes working with screwdriver. I have original user manual which was coming with both Mir-24 N and M and it states M42 tail is included in standard package. So the original package always included M42 tail for both the versions. Optics are different with no doubt.

Once again:
- N Minimal aperture has f/22, M has f/16
- different body construction design (not only aperture difference)
- N resolution center/corner has 50/30, M version has 40/21
- N minimal focusing distance is 24cm, M is 30cm


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
Optics are different with no doubt.

Once again:
- N Minimal aperture has f/22, M has f/16
- different body construction design (not only aperture difference)
- N resolution center/corner has 50/30, M version has 40/21
- N minimal focusing distance is 24cm, M is 30cm


The optics (or, rather, the optical construction; the factories might have used different glass and coatings) is the same with MC Mir-24N and MC Mir-24M versions. Source: http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/mir-24.html

The bodies of the two versions are distinctly different (same goes, for example, for Mir-20 N and M, with "M" version being a totally different beast outside but featuring, in its MC version, the same optics). The Nikon version was originally supplied with two mounts (Nikon F and M42). Mir-24M never came with a Nikon mount (it has an M42 aperture pin and no means whatsoever for Nikon aperture indexing or aperture stop-down mecanisms).


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Comparison shots between the two models.







PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg yes my bad optics are the same, but different resolution because of glass quality
Mal1905 As I can see you have shaved part of Kiev tier on Mir-24N? I have just screwed off aperture pin and it works well with my M42-EOS adapter so far.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lens came to me like that - seller described it as having been 'factory converted' Wink

Arctures wrote:
Mal1905 As I can see you have shaved part of Kiev tier on Mir-24N? I have just screwed off aperture pin and it works well with my M42-EOS adapter so far.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
yes my bad optics are the same, but different resolution because of glass quality.

And the difference in minimum focus distance is because of the larger back-focus of the Nikon mount.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
...and M index doesn't mean M42 at all.


I think that you are right. It is the signature of Nikolay Mikhaylovich Marenkov the KMZ designer So, for example, Marenkov designed the auto-aperture mechanism for the Helios 44 which became the 44M. And the Zenit E camera became the Zenit EM

Arctures wrote:

Once again:
- N Minimal aperture has f/22, M has f/16
- different body construction design (not only aperture difference)
- N resolution center/corner has 50/30, M version has 40/21
- N minimal focusing distance is 24cm, M is 30cm


Could you give us sources for the resolution numbers ? There are various numbers floating around the internet, e.g.

40/21 for the 24N ...

http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/mir-24.html

although this might be a misprint for the 24M, and

50/22 for the 24M ...

http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmsinglelensreflexcameras/lenses/index.htm


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:

I think that you are right. It is the signature of Nikolay Mikhaylovich Marenkov the KMZ designer So, for example, Marenkov designed the auto-aperture mechanism for the Helios 44 which became the 44M. And the Zenit E camera became the Zenit EM


May be but some sites refers index M as a blinking diaphragm. Word 'blinking' begins from M in Russian http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/nikkor18135_mir24.shtml . Same source states resolution 40/21 lines/mm for "М" and 50/22 lines/mm for "Н" (ixbt.com says resolution was taken from 'Photographer's reference' book) when some others I've seen state 50/30 and 40/21 respectively.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're also dealing with two different factories in separate republics of the Soviet Union. If you can find evidence to say that Arsenal and KMZ administrators had a meeting over optical resolution testing standardization, I'd really like to see it.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
sichko wrote:

I think that you are right. It is the signature of Nikolay Mikhaylovich Marenkov the KMZ designer So, for example, Marenkov designed the auto-aperture mechanism for the Helios 44 which became the 44M. And the Zenit E camera became the Zenit EM


May be but some sites refers index M as a blinking diaphragm. Word 'blinking' begins from M in Russian http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/nikkor18135_mir24.shtml . Same source states resolution 40/21 lines/mm for "М" and 50/22 lines/mm for "Н" (ixbt.com says resolution was taken from 'Photographer's reference' book) when some others I've seen state 50/30 and 40/21 respectively.


Thanks for the link. In connection with the "M", Marenkov also designed the Zorki 3M, Zenit 3M which do not have the "blinking" diaphragm.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The "M" could mean several things. I don't know about cameras, but on lenses it was either a "blinking diaphragm" (same as Japanese "Auto" designation) or "modernized" (as in Jupiter-37AM). Likewise, the "A" was for an "adapter", a T2-like mount found on many lenses (e.g. Jupiter-37AM). On lenses, the "M" has nothing to do with the lens designer.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are a couple of wide-angle nikkors that have a flange protruding from the back that prevents them mounting on a Canon camera. There is one 28mm like that and I think there is a 20mm with the same issue.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Found very nice info about many USSR lenses here: www.inr.ru/~serge/sov_lens.html


PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is it possible to change topic title and add Mir there?


PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arctures wrote:
Found very nice info about many USSR lenses here: www.inr.ru/~serge/sov_lens.html


What am I missing here? That site lists the Helios 44-2 as 38/20 resolution. That doesn't sound so great to me. I have the lens and find it quite sharp. Additionally, the Jupiter 12 is 36/18. Real close to the Helios, but the numbers don't sound like they support people's opinions. I had expected 50-60 range numbers.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Arctures wrote:
Found very nice info about many USSR lenses here: www.inr.ru/~serge/sov_lens.html


What am I missing here? That site lists the Helios 44-2 as 38/20 resolution. That doesn't sound so great to me. I have the lens and find it quite sharp. Additionally, the Jupiter 12 is 36/18. Real close to the Helios, but the numbers don't sound like they support people's opinions. I had expected 50-60 range numbers.


You do realize the resolution measuring standards were quite different with Russian lenses? Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3