MIR-47 20mm f2.5

[Joele]

I am going to buy a Zenitar 16mm fisheye, while I was looking for info on it I found this site (www.rugift.com) which has a number of different zenitar lenses.

This lens also looks interesting, depending on quality but I can find little info on it.

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/mir_47_k_lens.htm

Anybody have this lens or any info on it?

--
------------
Joel - *ist DS

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I am going to buy a Zenitar 16mm fisheye, while I was looking for
info on it I found this site (www.rugift.com) which has a number of
different zenitar lenses.

This lens also looks interesting, depending on quality but I can
find little info on it.

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/mir_47_k_lens.htm

Anybody have this lens or any info on it?

I have used a Zenitar 16/2.8 for years - excellent lens, a bargain. Shortly after buying the Zenitar I bought and tried a Mir 20mm and it was truly dreadful in every possible way. It has massive distortion, it's not sharp even stopped down and the CA is so bad it looks like one of those comib book 3-D pictures.

Other than that it was fine ;-)

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 5:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[Joele]

Thanks for the info John, sounds great ;-)

I am going to buy a Zenitar 16mm fisheye, while I was looking for
info on it I found this site (www.rugift.com) which has a number of
different zenitar lenses.

This lens also looks interesting, depending on quality but I can
find little info on it.

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/mir_47_k_lens.htm

Anybody have this lens or any info on it?

I have used a Zenitar 16/2.8 for years - excellent lens, a bargain.
Shortly after buying the Zenitar I bought and tried a Mir 20mm and
it was truly dreadful in every possible way. It has massive
distortion, it's not sharp even stopped down and the CA is so bad
it looks like one of those comib book 3-D pictures.

Other than that it was fine ;-)

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 5:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

--
------------
Joel - *ist DS

 

[malfunction]

I've seen these lenses as well, and was think about getting one or other. I have a screwmount Jupiter-9 (85/2) which is optically nice but mechanically a bit clumsy.

Does anyone know if the mount is fully compatible with the DS mount, at least as far as metering is concerned? Does it have stop down metering only, a manual aperture transmission to the body like M-mount lenses, or fully automatic like A later mounts?

Also anyone have any comments on the optical quality? Have seen the comments on the Zenitar 16mm fisheye here, looks like a good lens.

Thanks,
Mal..

 

[Matts N]

I recently fell into the Zenitar 16/2.8 trap and bought one. The Zenitar-K, which has the K mount, does not have an A position, ie it's equivalent to a K or M lens. So stop down metering it is.

Have had time to try the lens yet, but judging from samples here on DPR at least I won't be disappointed.

Matts

I've seen these lenses as well, and was think about getting one or
other. I have a screwmount Jupiter-9 (85/2) which is optically nice
but mechanically a bit clumsy.

Does anyone know if the mount is fully compatible with the DS
mount, at least as far as metering is concerned? Does it have stop
down metering only, a manual aperture transmission to the body like
M-mount lenses, or fully automatic like A later mounts?

Also anyone have any comments on the optical quality? Have seen the
comments on the Zenitar 16mm fisheye here, looks like a good lens.

Thanks,
Mal..

--



'He's not stupid, he's just got bad luck thinking'
Unknown

 

[Godfrey]

I have used a Zenitar 16/2.8 for years - excellent lens, a bargain.
Shortly after buying the Zenitar I bought and tried a Mir 20mm and
it was truly dreadful in every possible way. It has massive
distortion, it's not sharp even stopped down and the CA is so bad
it looks like one of those comib book 3-D pictures.

Other than that it was fine ;-)

Hmm. Maybe it's the Russian equivalent of a LensBaby?

Godfrey

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I have used a Zenitar 16/2.8 for years - excellent lens, a bargain.
Shortly after buying the Zenitar I bought and tried a Mir 20mm and
it was truly dreadful in every possible way. It has massive
distortion, it's not sharp even stopped down and the CA is so bad
it looks like one of those comib book 3-D pictures.

Other than that it was fine ;-)

Hmm. Maybe it's the Russian equivalent of a LensBaby?

Maybe, only not as good :-(

It's got to be the worst lens I've ever mounted on an SLR, and that's quite an achievement given some of the lenses I've played with over the years.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 6:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[Max Pometun]

Just forhet about this lens. Zenitar 16mm is the only russian lens I would recommend to anyone. Being from Russia myself, I am somewhat embarrassed that such bad products, like this Mir lens, are produced in my country. I'll only buy this lens if I had a 3-year old child, who wants a wide-angle lens
Max.

 

[Zaldidun]

Just forhet about this lens. Zenitar 16mm is the only russian lens
I would recommend to anyone. Being from Russia myself, I am
somewhat embarrassed that such bad products, like this Mir lens,
are produced in my country. I'll only buy this lens if I had a
3-year old child, who wants a wide-angle lens
Max.

Max,

Yes, the Mir is not Russia's best, but there have been (and still are) some gems coming out of KMZ and LZOS. Besides the Zenitar 16mm, I can attest to the excellent quality and value of the great MTO-11 SA 1000m Maksutov telephoto lens (effective focal length is actually 1,100mm)
http://www.lzos.ru/mto_11_sa.htm
and the superb Rubinar 500mm
http://www.lzos.ru/rub_8_500.htm
Also a great value is the Jupiter 9, if you get one of the better recent copies
http://www.lzos.ru/jupiter_9.htm

 

[malfunction]

I have a Rubinar 500/5.6 macro mirror lens which is very nice, but won't fit on the DS without a spacer such as a teleconverter. With a 2x teleconverter, I can read 1cm text at about 80m distance. But very hard to focus this way!

I also have a Jupiter 9 (85/2), which has had an interesting life. I had it in a bag on the back of my motorcycle on a long trip. The bag fell over the exhaust pipe, the lens got hot, and somethng that looked like grease had condensed on the glass elements. I thought it was a total write-off, not worth trying to clean, and chucked it into a box of broken camera bits. I was clearing out this box recently, found the lens and had a look through it. Somehow all the grease has disappeared and the lens is completely clear now. I've never used it in anger, but it seems reasonably sharp.

 

[Franka T.L.]

Well Look like I am the only one getting good result from my lot of Soviet Optics. Actually out of all of them, its the Fisheye that I really do not care for; just do not like the Fisheye distortion. I must have very good relationship with my Soviet lens dealer. he save up all the fine samples for me.

I had use both the Mir-20 / 20M & the Mir 47 and found them doing quite well. Resolution and contrast is not up to modern contemporarries. but the overall tonal range is good and I am getting very consistent and good result from both of them. So do my J-9 85/2.0 and all the 135

I would say the problem with most of these Soviet Optics is not in their optical performance or design. Those are actually quite good. But a total lack of Quality assembly and relatively primitive coating. The latter one can be partially cured with proper use of Hood and can be exploited for its effect, while the only way to solve the former one is proper CLA of the lens which I did have that done to those Lens I intend to use.

--
Franka

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I would say the problem with most of these Soviet Optics is not in
their optical performance or design. Those are actually quite good.
But a total lack of Quality assembly and relatively primitive
coating. The latter one can be partially cured with proper use of
Hood and can be exploited for its effect, while the only way to
solve the former one is proper CLA of the lens which I did have
that done to those Lens I intend to use.

You're dead right about QA variability - pehaps I got an exceptionally bad one. But every other Russian or Ukranian lens I've used has been very good indeed, including the Zenitar 16/2.8, the uncoated Jupiter-9 85/2, and the Industar 50/3.5 that I still own and use, not forgetting the excellent Zenitar 50/1.7 that I just sold.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 6:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[Joseph Tainter]

The Zenitar 16 mm f2.8 is sharper than the DA 14 f2.8.

Aside from the optical qualities of the Mir, you will want to be certain that it will fit on the D or DS. It is quite wide and might hit the overhanging rtf.

I have a Ukrainian 35 mm. f2.8 tilt/shift that is quite good optically. It is at home, and I don't recall its brand name.

Joe

I am going to buy a Zenitar 16mm fisheye, while I was looking for
info on it I found this site (www.rugift.com) which has a number of
different zenitar lenses.

This lens also looks interesting, depending on quality but I can
find little info on it.

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/mir_47_k_lens.htm

Anybody have this lens or any info on it?

--
------------
Joel - *ist DS

 

[John Bean (UK)]

The Zenitar 16 mm f2.8 is sharper than the DA 14 f2.8.

Aside from the optical qualities of the Mir, you will want to be
certain that it will fit on the D or DS. It is quite wide and might
hit the overhanging rtf.

You might be right - it was a tight fit for the Sigma SD9 I tried it on and the Pentax *istDS has a lot less clearance onder the overhang.

I have a Ukrainian 35 mm. f2.8 tilt/shift that is quite good
optically. It is at home, and I don't recall its brand name.

That's probably the Arsat. I had one on a Nikon many years ago, very nice lens indeed for the modest price. The Arsat 300/2.8 is a pretty mean performer for very little money too. The Ukranian lenses tended to have much better build quality than the Russian lenses of the same era, or maybe I just got lucky.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 6:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[Godfrey]

The Zenitar 16 mm f2.8 is sharper than the DA 14 f2.8.

Interesting assertion. I'd like to see some tests showing that a de-fished Zenitar 16mm image has the same or better LP/mm resolution capability as the DA14/2.8 from center to corners. I'd be happy to set up a standardized target for the DA14 and share the setup/image files with anyone who wants to do the same with the Zenitar 16mm for comparison.

Godfrey

 

[John Bean (UK)]

The Zenitar 16 mm f2.8 is sharper than the DA 14 f2.8.

Interesting assertion.

I didn't assert that Godfrey, I have no idea how well the DA 14 performs. You're replying to the wrong message.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 6:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[Joseph Tainter]

Sorry I don't have a web site to post the results. I tested The DA 14 f2.8, the FA 20 f2.8, and the Zenitar 16 f2.8 against an adobe (mud brick) wall. This is a test that gives a lot of small details -- cracks between the bricks, cracks in the bricks, and rock inclusions. The testing was all at f2.8 since I need primes to be good wide open. The comparison was done at actual pixels in PS. I haven't tried de-fishing anything.

The FA 20 was also sharper than the DA 14.

I did the test mainly to see how the FA 20 f2.8 would fare against the Sigma 20 f1.8. I tested both at f2.8. The FA 20 was better in the center, at the edges, and in the corners. And this was with the FA 20 wide open while the Sigma was stopped down. The Sigma went back to where I had borrowed it from.

I am not criticizing the DA 14. I was one of the first in the U.S. to have it (perhaps the first, since I ordered it months before it was shipped here).

If someone wants to do a more formal test, great. My testing was to see how each performed in the way I would use them. For my kind of shooting, I am convinced that the Zenitar is sharper than the DA 14. That said, the DA 14 is in my travel kit while the Zenitar is in semi-retirement. Sharpness isn't everything, and for me the DA 14 is sharp enough.

Joe

The Zenitar 16 mm f2.8 is sharper than the DA 14 f2.8.

Interesting assertion. I'd like to see some tests showing that a
de-fished Zenitar 16mm image has the same or better LP/mm
resolution capability as the DA14/2.8 from center to corners. I'd
be happy to set up a standardized target for the DA14 and share the
setup/image files with anyone who wants to do the same with the
Zenitar 16mm for comparison.

Godfrey

 

[Joseph Tainter]

That's it -- the Arsat 35 mm tilt/shift.

I didn't know about the Arsat 300 f2.8. Hmmm. I've wanted a 300 f2.8, but the Tokina (which I had wanted) is discontinued. I may have to look into the Arsat.

Joe

The Zenitar 16 mm f2.8 is sharper than the DA 14 f2.8.

Aside from the optical qualities of the Mir, you will want to be
certain that it will fit on the D or DS. It is quite wide and might
hit the overhanging rtf.

You might be right - it was a tight fit for the Sigma SD9 I tried
it on and the Pentax *istDS has a lot less clearance onder the
overhang.

I have a Ukrainian 35 mm. f2.8 tilt/shift that is quite good
optically. It is at home, and I don't recall its brand name.

That's probably the Arsat. I had one on a Nikon many years ago,
very nice lens indeed for the modest price. The Arsat 300/2.8 is a
pretty mean performer for very little money too. The Ukranian
lenses tended to have much better build quality than the Russian
lenses of the same era, or maybe I just got lucky.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 6:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[John Bean (UK)]

That's it -- the Arsat 35 mm tilt/shift.

I didn't know about the Arsat 300 f2.8. Hmmm. I've wanted a 300
f2.8, but the Tokina (which I had wanted) is discontinued. I may
have to look into the Arsat.

I think it's still being made, but I seem to remember it was only available in NAI mount but I could be wrong. It was not as contrasty as the Nikkor - no surprise there! - but plenty sharp, at least as good as the Tamron SP.

--
John Bean

PAW 2005 Week 6:



See: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/paw

 

[saltoricco]

And now you can sell it on eBay as "mint"!

• Holger (sending back bad lenses monkey)

I also have a Jupiter 9 (85/2), which has had an interesting life.
I had it in a bag on the back of my motorcycle on a long trip. The
bag fell over the exhaust pipe, the lens got hot, and somethng that
looked like grease had condensed on the glass elements. I thought
it was a total write-off, not worth trying to clean, and chucked it
into a box of broken camera bits. I was clearing out this box
recently, found the lens and had a look through it. Somehow all the
grease has disappeared and the lens is completely clear now. I've
never used it in anger, but it seems reasonably sharp.