Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Gooshin · 02-27-2009, 09:23 AM

the MC MIR 20mm F2.5 seems rather attractive for a mere 200 dollars

anyone use this badboy on a full frame camera wide open? curious..

deadwolfbones · 02-27-2009, 09:39 AM

Russian Glass would be a pretty good band name.

ryan s · 02-27-2009, 12:05 PM

Have you searched the manual lens forums? I know people have posted pics using digital cams, but I don't know about FF or film...

I think I can recall one 5D test...but nooooooo idea who did it. Long time ago...

I'm also thinking about getting that Mir since a comparable Flektogon is way more expensive and becoming harder to find a not-abused/neglected copy.

Nesster · 02-27-2009, 12:20 PM

certainly M42 lenses from Russia are full frame, intended for film cameras

**Rense** · 02-27-2009, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

certainly M42 lenses from Russia are full frame, intended for film cameras

I second that, sure!

Gooshin · 02-27-2009, 04:17 PM

i have no doubt that it covers full frame, i'm curious of the quality.

after using my budget sigma 18mm f2.8 lens on a film camera, i quickly realized why something like the Carl Ziess 18mm f3.5 fetches 1500 dollars for "mere manual lens"

the corners wide open are ridiculously soft, (two pics below)

so i was curious if the russian MC 20 F2.5 exhibits a similar effect, ergo would only be usefull @ F11 or something??

Ratmagiclady · 02-27-2009, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Russian Glass would be a pretty good band name.

Russian Glass and the Industars?

Actually, though, Gooshin... When you say 'budget Sigma...' When from? Was it really meant for full frame, or does it just happen to cover? It's actually interesting to me.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-27-2009 at 04:55 PM.

Steinback · 02-27-2009, 08:45 PM

Straying further from your original topic, I'd be interested in seeing how the current Sigma 20mm f/1.8 compares to your 18mm f3.5 on film.

Completely different price leagues I'm sure, but those are some mighty soft edges for a full frame lens.

Ratmagiclady · 02-27-2009, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Steinback

Straying further from your original topic, I'd be interested in seeing how the current Sigma 20mm f/1.8 compares to your 18mm f3.5 on film.

Completely different price leagues I'm sure, but those are some mighty soft edges for a full frame lens.

Actually, that's why I'm wondering if that optic was really made for full frame, or just happens to cover. I had a home-built thing which did something like that. I do miss it from time to time.

ryan s · 02-27-2009, 11:57 PM

Honestly...if I hazzard a guess judging by other wide (and moderate-wide) angles, I would say the Mir would have soft corners unless stopped down past f/5.6

Although I would be curious--and grateful--to be proven wrong...

lithos · 02-28-2009, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Russian Glass would be a pretty good band name.

MC MIR would be a pretty bad rapper's name.

georgweb · 02-28-2009, 03:08 AM

Gooshin,
I really don't know about any wide angle lens with good corners full open. I don't claim to know it all though :-)

Let's start with the benchmark lens, see the curves dropping towards the corners at full open.

The Mir 20/3.5 is said to be a decendant of the CZJ Flek 20/2.8. I have seen other sources claiming it decends from the older CZJ 20/4 model.

OTOH there is the 20/2.5 Mir47.

Either way, these lenses should give better results than the Sigma (another wild guess:-)

Last wild guess: The bigger the front lens, the better the full open performance (only valid with same FL/f-stop comparison). In that regard the old CZJ Zebra 20/f4 Flektogon with its 70-something mm front should not be too bad.

Best, Georg

edit: The proof of the pudding

Nesster · 02-28-2009, 04:46 AM

Thanks for the links Georg-
I have a Vivitar 21mm that also loses it in the corners - though sometimes it's better than other times, and actually may be more OK on film than digital. I'd expect the other way around, but so far that's my experience.

The other thing about the older wide angles is that with the bigger front lens they quickly run into flare and haze glare which exacerbates the resolution loss and other ills of the edge.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=21mm+vivitar&m=text

Ira · 03-06-2009, 08:57 AM

Well, I might as well ride on the back of this thread instead of starting a new one.

A few months ago, I bought a Mir 37mm, 2.8--the one that won the Grand Prix in Brussels in 1958, whatever the hell that means. (It says it on the lens--whoopee. My confusion with this dubious distinction is how the hell could my lens have been made in 1958 anyway if they won this dubious award IN 1958?)

Anyway, it's supposed to be M42, it sat in my lens case forever, and now that I'm organizing all of my equipment and just tried to screw it onto the Spotty the first time, it's less than 42mm and doesn't screw on.

Did MIR require an additional ring to bring it up to M42?

Gooshin · 03-06-2009, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Ira

Well, I might as well ride on the back of this thread instead of starting a new one.

A few months ago, I bought a Mir 37mm, 2.8--the one that won the Grand Prix in Brussels in 1958, whatever the hell that means. (It says it on the lens--whoopee. My confusion with this dubious distinction is how the hell could my lens have been made in 1958 anyway if they won this dubious award IN 1958?)

Anyway, it's supposed to be M42, it sat in my lens case forever, and now that I'm organizing all of my equipment and just tried to screw it onto the Spotty the first time, it's less than 42mm and doesn't screw on.

Did MIR require an additional ring to bring it up to M42?

is it M39?

02-27-2009, 09:23 AM	#1
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	russian glass? the MC MIR 20mm F2.5 seems rather attractive for a mere 200 dollars anyone use this badboy on a full frame camera wide open? curious..

02-28-2009, 03:08 AM	#12
georgweb Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Berlin, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,386	Gooshin, I really don't know about any wide angle lens with good corners full open. I don't claim to know it all though :-) Let's start with the benchmark lens, see the curves dropping towards the corners at full open. The Mir 20/3.5 is said to be a decendant of the CZJ Flek 20/2.8. I have seen other sources claiming it decends from the older CZJ 20/4 model. OTOH there is the 20/2.5 Mir47. Either way, these lenses should give better results than the Sigma (another wild guess:-) Last wild guess: The bigger the front lens, the better the full open performance (only valid with same FL/f-stop comparison). In that regard the old CZJ Zebra 20/f4 Flektogon with its 70-something mm front should not be too bad. Best, Georg edit: The proof of the pudding Last edited by georgweb; 02-28-2009 at 03:28 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Russian Beauty	JohnBee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	01-22-2010 12:56 AM
Russian Coke	sureshgvv	Post Your Photos!	3	07-10-2008 03:45 PM
Russian Lenses	Okami	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	05-21-2008 07:02 PM
Pentax glass versus 3rd Party Glass???	rdrum76	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	11-04-2007 04:02 PM
Autumn colors - old glass is a good glass	andrei46	Post Your Photos!	5	10-26-2007 09:35 AM

02-27-2009, 09:39 AM	#2
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	Russian Glass would be a pretty good band name.

02-27-2009, 12:05 PM	#3
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Have you searched the manual lens forums? I know people have posted pics using digital cams, but I don't know about FF or film... I think I can recall one 5D test...but nooooooo idea who did it. Long time ago... I'm also thinking about getting that Mir since a comparable Flektogon is way more expensive and becoming harder to find a not-abused/neglected copy.

02-27-2009, 12:20 PM	#4
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	certainly M42 lenses from Russia are full frame, intended for film cameras

02-27-2009, 04:11 PM	#5
Rense Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,050	Originally posted by Nesster certainly M42 lenses from Russia are full frame, intended for film cameras I second that, sure!

02-27-2009, 04:17 PM	#6
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	i have no doubt that it covers full frame, i'm curious of the quality. after using my budget sigma 18mm f2.8 lens on a film camera, i quickly realized why something like the Carl Ziess 18mm f3.5 fetches 1500 dollars for "mere manual lens" the corners wide open are ridiculously soft, (two pics below) so i was curious if the russian MC 20 F2.5 exhibits a similar effect, ergo would only be usefull @ F11 or something??

02-27-2009, 04:49 PM	#7
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Russian Glass would be a pretty good band name. Russian Glass and the Industars? Actually, though, Gooshin... When you say 'budget Sigma...' When from? Was it really meant for full frame, or does it just happen to cover? It's actually interesting to me. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-27-2009 at 04:55 PM.

02-27-2009, 08:45 PM	#8
Steinback Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: GTA, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,673	Straying further from your original topic, I'd be interested in seeing how the current Sigma 20mm f/1.8 compares to your 18mm f3.5 on film. Completely different price leagues I'm sure, but those are some mighty soft edges for a full frame lens.

02-27-2009, 09:37 PM	#9
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Steinback Straying further from your original topic, I'd be interested in seeing how the current Sigma 20mm f/1.8 compares to your 18mm f3.5 on film. Completely different price leagues I'm sure, but those are some mighty soft edges for a full frame lens. Actually, that's why I'm wondering if that optic was really made for full frame, or just happens to cover. I had a home-built thing which did something like that. I do miss it from time to time.

02-27-2009, 11:57 PM	#10
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Honestly...if I hazzard a guess judging by other wide (and moderate-wide) angles, I would say the Mir would have soft corners unless stopped down past f/5.6 Although I would be curious--and grateful--to be proven wrong...

02-28-2009, 12:50 AM	#11
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Russian Glass would be a pretty good band name. MC MIR would be a pretty bad rapper's name.

02-28-2009, 04:46 AM	#13
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Thanks for the links Georg- I have a Vivitar 21mm that also loses it in the corners - though sometimes it's better than other times, and actually may be more OK on film than digital. I'd expect the other way around, but so far that's my experience. The other thing about the older wide angles is that with the bigger front lens they quickly run into flare and haze glare which exacerbates the resolution loss and other ills of the edge. http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=21mm+vivitar&m=text

03-06-2009, 08:57 AM	#14
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Well, I might as well ride on the back of this thread instead of starting a new one. A few months ago, I bought a Mir 37mm, 2.8--the one that won the Grand Prix in Brussels in 1958, whatever the hell that means. (It says it on the lens--whoopee. My confusion with this dubious distinction is how the hell could my lens have been made in 1958 anyway if they won this dubious award IN 1958?) Anyway, it's supposed to be M42, it sat in my lens case forever, and now that I'm organizing all of my equipment and just tried to screw it onto the Spotty the first time, it's less than 42mm and doesn't screw on. Did MIR require an additional ring to bring it up to M42?

03-06-2009, 09:01 AM	#15
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ira Well, I might as well ride on the back of this thread instead of starting a new one. A few months ago, I bought a Mir 37mm, 2.8--the one that won the Grand Prix in Brussels in 1958, whatever the hell that means. (It says it on the lens--whoopee. My confusion with this dubious distinction is how the hell could my lens have been made in 1958 anyway if they won this dubious award IN 1958?) Anyway, it's supposed to be M42, it sat in my lens case forever, and now that I'm organizing all of my equipment and just tried to screw it onto the Spotty the first time, it's less than 42mm and doesn't screw on. Did MIR require an additional ring to bring it up to M42? is it M39?

russian glass?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!