 |
e-person.ipernity.com [deleted] says:
I am sorry, I only own the Flektogon 50mm F4 for the medium format Pentacon Six mount and I can tell you is very good. I own two MIR lenses for the Kiev 88 and they are not as good. By good I mean sharpness and colour rendition.
In M42 I only own a Tessar 50/2.8 and a Meyer Optik Primagon 35/4.5 which are not bad either.
I also own some other russian lenses in m39 mounts, and none of them is comparable to the Zeiss ones, I am afraid.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi!
I've got the MIR-1B 2.8/37 and this is a great lens!
It is at least as good as my 35mm Tak.
Everybody I know who uses a MIR-1 is very satisfied with it.
But you have to keep in mind that is equals about 60mm at a crop-DSLR.
Fora "normal" lens, you should rather look for a good 28mm.
As far as the Flek 2.4/35 is concerned, I just can say (I don't have it) that the guys I know who use it thing it is a good lens, but some are not really convinced by it.
I decided against the Flek and for the MIR also because the MIR is much cheaper to get!
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have both the Flek 35mm and the Mir-1B 37mm f2.8. They are both excellent lenses and well worth having. The Flek (which is a good one) slightly edges it on colours (the Mir still has very nice colours), better bokeh (Zeiss bokeh is some of the best around), but they are both quite sharp.
Word of warning - there are plenty of Fleks around, they go for plenty of money, and some are not that good. There are quite a few complaints about them being soft and I suspect they are easily damaged without it being aparent, so you may get a nail that needs proper servicing if you are unlucky.
On the other hand, I have owned several Mir-1's and they have all been consistently good. They also cost a lot less. Highly recommended.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Interesting note about the bokeh, as usually the bokeh on many Zeiss designs is quite distracting (Sonnars being a notable exception). I'd have thought the bokeh would be better on the MIR our of these two, as I think the MIR has a great many aperture blades more than the Flektogon.
Anyhow, the bokeh on a ~35mm lens is not so important to me, so I think I'll just go with the MIR. When used on a DSLR, I also prefer the dual-ring aperture control the MIR has (similar to the Jupiter-9). Thanks for the replies, everyone! =)
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
As far as bokeh is concerned, it is not only about the number of blades!
The number of blade determines the shape of the aperture and thus the shape of bokeh highlights, but not their character - this the glass does!
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
LucisPictor edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
Certainly, so, but I've been under the impression that the MIR is a clone of the flektogon design, so I expected them to have quite similar bokeh apart from the aperture blades. I'm not sure where I got that impression from, however.
As for the bokeh character, many Zeiss designs (other than Sonnars) seem to have rather poor bokeh. For example, in the Zeiss group on flickr there's a thread about Zeiss bokeh, and many of the sample shots there (supposedly demonstrating the bokeh quality) have, in my opinion, quite bad/distracting bokeh. Sometimes the distraction may work as an effect in itself, but smooth and creamy bokeh would be my choice most of the time.
When the bokeh is otherwise good, for me it is sometimes ruined by a non-circular aperture shape.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Actually I think the bokeh on the Flek is not bad for a wide angle. OOF areas generally nice and soft until you stop down a bit. Better than an equivalent modern Canon lens, though. Flek shot here;
Nice colours from the Mir-1.
Only drawbacks I can think of with the Mir-1 are that it can flare a bit, and if you get one with a tight focus ring, you can unscrew the lens from the mount while ttrying to focus. I agree on the handy stop down feature, though. Beats counting clicks any day.
And yes, the Sonnar bokeh is good. Actually, its fantastic.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Very nice shot with the Flektogon. The bokeh seems quite... aggressive, definitely not laid-back, but it works nicely in that shot with the sharp needles and all.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To Arkku:
From a Taiwanese website which is a dealer selling Russian lenses indicates that Mir 1 is a direct copy of the early Flektogon design. The outlook of Mir 1 is "quite" similar to the Flektogon 35/f2.8 and they both have the same optical design 6-element 5-group.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have Mир-1в (a.k.a. Mir-1V ) Russian m42 lens for Zenit.
I'm using it with Canon EOS 10D with M42 Hama adapter.
I'm very content with that lens.
My pictures with Mir-1V here.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have a Mir 1v on order. I have come to appreciate the versatility of preset lenses, and the Flektogon is out as sadly the prices are too high for this over-hyped lens!
Posted 39 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the Flek and I love using it. It focuses so close for an almost 1:2 Magnification and I like how it focuses at infinity after 3 meters. Great for quick street shooting. I think the bokeh from it is nice.
Originally posted 39 months ago.
(permalink)
hey mr. eric edited this topic 39 months ago.
|
|
|
I've found the Mir to be rather soft. Maybe mine was a bad example, but I suspect the Flektogon is better.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A new enough zeiss should have coatings equivalent to Pentax's SMC and be quite flare resistant. .
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Mир-1в has a nice bokeh but handles bokeh highlights not as well as other lenses do. I like the idea of the flexible aperture but don't like the position of the focus ring.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What about Takumar 35mm f/2? Is it as sharp as those two?
I've readed that the f/3.5 one works very well, but that aperture is not enough wide for me.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Often the fast lenses get really sharp when stopped down.
So yes, a Tak 2/35 won't be any worse than a 3.5/35 when used at f4.
There are only very few lenses that are already sharp when wide open - mostly they bear the name "Leica". ;)
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
LucisPictor edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
Ok, I understand, but I think that I wouldn't use much a manual lens with smaller aperture than a usual zoom.
Despite it has much better quality, it's less versatile for daily photography.
Posted 32 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HI Guys, I have bought a Mir-1, it´s coming now from ebay, I just want to be sure if the mount of this lens is m42, am I ok?
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ask the seller as quickly as you can, since I think these would have been made in at least two mounts other than M42. (M39 and Kiev/Contax).
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, it's either M42, or M39.
It's most likely M42 though, so I'd put my money on you being ok :)
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mi1 and Mir 1B was made only for M42,
never saw one in LSMM39 for Fed or Zorki
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think Max was referring to the M39 or Russian SLRs, which had the samne register like M42. Different from LTM.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yes, true, it was made for the Zenit M3, also had M39, distanc like M42
S O R R Y
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Even if it was Zenit M39, you can buy M39 to M42 adapter rings pretty cheap. There would be no infinity focus issues.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey girls and guys..I had to join this group just to respond to what i regard as large amounts of nonsense being spouted in this thread (and, i assume taking as gospel by anyone googling for info). So here's my opinons too..
"Zeiss" bokeh (east or west) isn;t 'the best around' far from it. Apart from the Sonnar formula lenses, Zeiss are in my experience and others too, not great for bokeh and never tried to be either. Which lens are you refering of? Tessar, Biotar, Planar, Pancolar?
Takumar 35 lenses. They're not good. In my opinion they are the WORST of the takumar/S-Tak lenses I have owned/used.
Flektogon. Not in any way a 'great' bokeh lens. What rot! Other than quite 'sharp' not so much a good alround lens either. 'Good color' isnt something that brings the Flektogon to mind. The Mir 1 is an improved type of Flektogon and shown in tests to possess higher acuity also. Much better color. Ever used a Flektogon in a poppy field on a bright day. Rubbish lens. Highly overhyped and least desirable of the Zeiss lenses for any purpose.
BTW the Mir-1 variant is the 1V not 1B. The cyrillic B is a V in western script. Please stop waffling on about the 1B.
The MIR 1 is an excellent lens. The Flektogons really are not as good in any way. There are Zeiss and Soviet lenses to be rated highly side by side. If you haven't found Soviet glass that can compare at least with Zeiss, you havent owned enough copies or are ignorant of the serialed copies which are the ones to have.
Sorry to sound off but really tired of the manual focus 'know alls' who aren't experts at all and trot out such 'PC' tosh but have these inflated web identities here there and all over making BS pronouncements such as Ive read in this thread.
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ooh, somebody got out of bed the wrong side and joined Flickr to have a rant?! :-)
I don't think most manual focus "know alls" make any great claims to be experts or optical scientists. Just enthusiasts who actually use the lenses and feed back their opinions, subjective as they are. If somebody is daft enough to derive what they perceive as absolute truth from a Google of some forum posts without applying a little critical thought of their own, then yes they almost deserve to get fleeced for buying a Flek at an inflated price :-)
My personal, subjective opinion of the Flek is that it's a lens with certain strengths (sharpness, vivid colour that can be too much in some conditions as you rightly point out, but useful in less blazing light or when using film, nice bokeh in some situations, close focus) but it is overhyped. I'd say it's worth having one to use if you find it at a sensible price (I paid £25 for one in a secondhand shop), and I detest evilBay dealers who IMHO are more responsible for overhyping stuff than forum members. We talk about the lenses, but it's them asking stupid prices and often getting them and driving the market.
I have nothing to say about Mirs as I don't own any!
I dunno if I'm one of your self-appointed experts? I started and moderate a group here about using manual focus lenses on Canon EOS cameras, it's full of lens reviews and has a couple of thousand members, and I'm not short of opinions, but these opinions come from several years of using a variety of lenses. I don't pontificate about stuff I know nothing about but am glad when somebody else does. It's all useful.
One of the nice things about the manual focus community is that it's a broad church: there are people who are in it looking for high end optical quality; there are collectors who maybe spend more time acquiring stuff than using it, and I don't have a problem with that; there are those who get into it just looking for cheaper alternatives to expensive AF stuff; lots of us enjoy the more deliberate, controlled and yes, nostalgic experience of using MF. I personally like the history side of it, trying out different lenses and attempting to analyse what makes a particular formula different from another. I'm not that good at it or knowledgeable, I've made some howlers like calling Ernostar designs a Sonnar etc, but I enjoy myself and most importantly, I take pics and share them.
I should unwad your knickers if I were you, flesh out your profile with some pictures that back up the points you're ranting about, chill out and have a glass of wine and enjoy the community for what it is. Otherwise you just come over like a spoilt kid wanting to be the centre of attention :-P
Originally posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
SteveFE edited this topic 12 months ago.
|
|
Max sinton is right the lens was produced for 2 standards ZM39 and M42, optically the lens was design fo M42 but earlier Zenit bodies took only M39 lenses hence there are some Mir m39 but it is not a Leica M39, it has the same mount but the flange distance of an M42 mount .
The whole history of the Mir 1 lens
www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/mir-1.html
Originally posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
iliakoltsov edited this topic 12 months ago.
|
|
Never owned a Flektogon but the pics don't back up the claims of poor colours and it being an over-rated lens.
However, there are a LOT of bad copies of the Flektogons around, particularly the 2.4, the f4 version seems to be more sturdily built.
If you look around the net at samples posted of Flektogons, there are a lot with issues, seems the QC in Jena slipped a bit, also, like a few other Jena lenses, the aperture mechanism in the Flektogon isn't very well built and you see a lot of them for sale with stuck apertures.
On the Mir-1, everyone says it's good stopped down but lacks sharpness wide open, not shot much with my copy yet but it definitely has good contrast and is sharp.
You don't see a lot of broken Mir-1s but broken Fleks are common, make of that what you will. Reason I've never invested in a Flektogon is I have some very nice Meyer 28, 30 and 35mm lenses that I am very happy with and they all work perfectly, they are my most used lenses.
I do want to add a 20mm to my set, either a Nikon, Flektogon or Mir-20, probably the Mir as it's the cheapest usually and all my other Russian lenses are really good performers (apart from a Jupiter-11A that looks like it's been through a nuclear war!) and are solid metal built to last.
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, and I forgot to add, the Mir-1 was also made in the unusual bayonet mount for the Kiev-10 and 15 cameras which are rare in the West, I have a Mir in this mount, bought by accident as I thought it was in Nikon mount for the Kiev-19.
Posted 12 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Both lenses are totally different because they are of a different age.
You could compare the Mir-1 and the older Flektogon 2.8/35. I did have a Mir-1 and still have an alloy Flektogon so I know them both.
The newer 2.4/35 has multicoating and a totally different lens design. I know several copies, 3 of them are excellent (optics and mechanics), 2 are avarage (both with good mechanics but optically not so nice) and one was a real lemon.
The 2.4 Flektogon I have is a good lens which is worth every penny.
Posted 11 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi there!
Anyone ever compared the Mir-24 35mm f2.0 to the Mir-1 37mm f2,8?
I think about getting one, but can't decide. For close focusing the Mir-24 is better. Do the flare similar?
thanks!
Posted 10 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have not had any experience with the flektogon 35mm, but I am using mir 1v a lot.
My lens is very sharp, beautifully sharp even at 2.8! I can truthfully say that I use this lens the most.
I recently bought SMC Takumar 28mm 3.5, which is said to be king of sharpness, but it doesn't get anywhere near mir 1v at f8...
Only thing I don't like about mir 1v is that it has VERY stiff aperture ring, but the preset ring is smooth as a butter, so it does not matter very much.
Here is a picture I took 2 days ago with my trusty mir 1v:
www.deviantart.com/download/260138028/companionship_by_wh...
Posted 8 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How do you think about of my pictures? My DSLR is D5000 and I using an optical adapter
www.flickr.com/photos/73087047@N05/6607449743/
www.flickr.com/photos/73087047@N05/6607440823/
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
irukai edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
Hi Arkku,
I like the Mir 24M 35mm f2 more than Mir 1v. It seems to be sharper and have better bokeh wide open.
Jay
Posted 3 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
this is with a canon FL 35mm f2.5 on an Olympus E-1. I really don't see a problem with the out-of-focus area. had to make a mount.
this was done with a MIR 1B on an Olympus E-1
this was done with a Petri 35mm f2.8. These come in M42 mounts as well though this one came with a bayonet, modification required
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(permalink)
akione7 edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
|
JayUSA63: Thanks, but note that my original question was posted in 2007, so the answer is no longer very relevant to me personally. =)
(Of course any comments about these lenses are still welcome in this thread for future reference. Personally I ended up first getting the MIR-1V but then also got the Flektogon when I came across a relatively cheap one.)
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(permalink)
Arkku edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
|
bravo to you Arkku.
please show us examples of each capability and possible weaknesses...
thanks...
Posted 3 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
M42 /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to M42 discussion threads
