Comparison MIR24H 35mm f/2 vs Minolta MDIII 35mm f/2.8

[caspert79]

I did a quick comparison between these lenses in another topic, but the light conditions were changing all the time. So, this time, another comparison in stable weather conditions.

comparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Conclusion: The MIR is sharp in the center from f/2. Both lenses are sharp in the center @ all tested apertures. The MIR needs some closing down to match the corners of the Minolta. @f/5.6 it's close, and @ f/8 and f/11 it's about the same.
I think the MIR does a pretty good job, considering that the Minolta is one of the best vintage 35mm's available. For landscape photography my first choice would be the Minolta; it needs less closing down, and is a much lighter lens. It has slightly better contrast as well. When it comes to inside or bokeh photography, my first choice would be the MIR. It's faster, and has a small MFD. This is the maximum bokeh I could get out of both lenses:

MaxBokehComparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

[lumens pixel]

Very useful info.

[Doc Sharptail]

Kind of a lop-sided test, especially if the Mir is what I think it is...

Do you have a pic of the Mir?
That 35 f2 Mir is one of those "almost bought" lenses for me.
The blades on the copy I was considering were in dire need of a cleaning, and I let it pass...

-D.S.