MIR 1B 37/2.8 vs Flektogon 35/2.8

[darg]

I see in the past month more of these MIR 1B popping up at the bay and they are praised as Flektogon copies which might be but they are 37mm FL and not 35mm. Is that due to different "rounding" or measuring of FL?

I wonder how do they stack up against a Flektogon? Any experience or direct 1:1 comparison?

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I see in the past month more of these MIR 1B popping up at the bay and they are praised as Flektogon copies which might be but they are 37mm FL and not 35mm. Is that due to different "rounding" or measuring of FL?

I wonder how do they stack up against a Flektogon? Any experience or direct 1:1 comparison?

 

[darg]

Tom Caldwell wrote

The Mir 1B is a very nice lens that I really like but for some reason rarely use. Every photographer should have one in his Russian lens collection. For some reason we "go ape" over the small Russian LTM lenses but the reality is that in my opinion the M42 mount lenses that they made were generally better lenses and better built.

Can't help with the Flek though. Can recommend the Mir 1B.

The 1B must look very pretty on a slr body but the snub rounded aesthetics lose a little gracefulness when they get attached to a mirrorless M42 adapter tube. Doesn't worry them as a lens of course.

 

[SLN001]

The MIR-1B is not a Flektogon copy. Some sellers tout that to increase their sales/profits but it isn't true.

The MIR-1 design was a true indigenous Soviet design. It won an award at the Belgian Grand Prix (whatever that is worth) and the Soviets engraved that information on all their subsequent production. It is a very good lens in its own right. Designed for close focus work, it tends to have weak edges/corners when used for landscape photography.

It is a great lens for use on APS-C cameras.

 

[darg]

The MIR-1B is not a Flektogon copy. Some sellers tout that to increase their sales/profits but it isn't true.

The MIR-1 design was a true indigenous Soviet design. It won an award at the Belgian Grand Prix (whatever that is worth) and the Soviets engraved that information on all their subsequent production. It is a very good lens in its own right. Designed for close focus work, it tends to have weak edges/corners when used for landscape photography.

It is a great lens for use on APS-C cameras.

 

[SLN001]

Don't expect "close focus" like 1 foot or so, I was simply trying to distinguish the 5-30 foot range from the 100+ yard range for classical landscape photography. My past experience with Flektogons (20mm and 35mm) was that they were excellent close focus (1 foot or less) lenses.

 

[darg]

Don't expect "close focus" like 1 foot or so, I was simply trying to distinguish the 5-30 foot range from the 100+ yard range for classical landscape photography. My past experience with Flektogons (20mm and 35mm) was that they were excellent close focus (1 foot or less) lenses.

 

[Robert Tolputt]

There is a comprehensive comparison here :

Loading…

m42lens.blogspot.mx

Flektogon prices seem to have fallen a little, whilst Mir-1 prices seem to be climbing. I had the Mir a long time ago (to go with my Zenit SLR) and remember it for saturated colours and some barrel distortion.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

The MIR-1B is not a Flektogon copy. Some sellers tout that to increase their sales/profits but it isn't true.

The MIR-1 design was a true indigenous Soviet design. It won an award at the Belgian Grand Prix (whatever that is worth) and the Soviets engraved that information on all their subsequent production. It is a very good lens in its own right. Designed for close focus work, it tends to have weak edges/corners when used for landscape photography.

It is a great lens for use on APS-C cameras.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Don't expect "close focus" like 1 foot or so, I was simply trying to distinguish the 5-30 foot range from the 100+ yard range for classical landscape photography. My past experience with Flektogons (20mm and 35mm) was that they were excellent close focus (1 foot or less) lenses.