magellan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I am deciding between a these two vintage lenses: MC MIR-24 N 35mm f/2 and Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f1.7 to use with my speedbooster Panasonic GH3 for photography mainly, and some filming. Anybody have an opinion on which would be a better choice? I realize they are different focal lengths.] Thanks a lot y'all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff CB Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Can't speak for the planar, but I absolutely love the MIR, creamy classic look with warm tones. Given the crop factor with the speedbooster that is the one I recommend. I think the planar might be a little long for general use. One thing I will say is that the mir is absolutely terrible for landscapes, hate the look of it stopped down past f5.6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magellan Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Can't speak for the planar, but I absolutely love the MIR, creamy classic look with warm tones. Given the crop factor with the speedbooster that is the one I recommend. I think the planar might be a little long for general use. One thing I will say is that the mir is absolutely terrible for landscapes, hate the look of it stopped down past f5.6.Awesome! Do you have any photos you took with it I could check out? Just interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff CB Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 kidzrevil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff CB Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Simple video shot with it, gives you an idea of how it renders. Just the interview bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The two lenses you're considering have two distinctly different focal lengths. The 50mm will end up being a portrait tele lens with the Speed Booster on your camera, the 35mm will behave as a normal lens. Comparing the two therefore is, I'm afraid, comparing apples and oranges. On top of that, the Zeiss will have a modern, cool, rather clinical look, the MIR will look slightly more vintage - but not much since it's a rather modern lens compared to the Russian vintage classics Helios 58mm, Zenit 85mm and MIR 37mm.I did have the MIR 35mm/2.0 in Nikon mount, but sold it after comparing it to my Nikkor Ai-s 35mm/2.0. The two lenses didn't differ that much since both produced a similar-looking, "warm"/non-clinical and subjectively pleasing image somewhere in between a vintage and a contemporary lens. But the Nikkor had overally better optical quality (color rendition and detail resolution) and a more solid metal construction. Since the two lenses came really close, I'd advise to not hesitate buying the MIR if you should find it for $100 or less. (The Nikkor normally sells for around $150 in good used condition, but since I happened to get mine for around $70, it even was a better value deal for me than the MIR.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I was going to say the same, the nikkor seems to be a better option. It goes for less than 100$. I really like the lens, it works wonders on close distance(less than 3m). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.