Wednesday, June 22, 2005, 10:31:09 PM, Michael wrote:
MS> You mean this one ?
MS>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=707&item=7524815518&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Basically. There are two 20mm lenses from USSR, this 3.5/20mm, and another
one - 2.5/20mm (I forgot the name). At least one of these comes in K
mount.
I just searched my list archives from 2001 to 2005 and found several
quotes about the lens:
**************
I promised Frantisek that I would write a report on my conclusions about
this lens, and now that I have enough photos taken with it, here they
go.
My thoughts about this lens are more or less the same expressed by Paul
Stregevsky some weeks ago. It is really sharp, from corner to corner at
mid apertures, from f:8 to f:16. Wide open (at 2.5) it is soft at the
corners, but usable. The only issue with this lens is flare. In spite of
being MC, its flare resistance is not in the same league of SMC Pentax
lenses. In fact, I took some photos with the sun in the frame, to
compare to similar photos I have taken with the FA 24 mm. 2.0, and the
Mir flares much more.
But I paid 90 US $ dollars plus 9$ shipping expenses for this lens, new.
And I think that it is really good for the price.
I think I'll send a photo taken with this lens to March's PUG, as it
will be about "A wide angle point of view". As I said, if you can't or
don't want to pay the price for a Pentax K, M, A or FA 20 mm., it is an
interesting option.
[by Carlos R.]
***********************
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Dan Scott wrote:
> I've read somewhere that MZ and MX users should file away a bit of
> the incredibly thick aluminum ring the filters are set into, which is
> supposed to fix the problem you mention.
And Program A/Program Plus users :-( I found out the hard way, now my
mirror has a tiny nick in it. LX is OK tho.
Chris
***********************
This list may exclude some post-Soviet designs. But off the top of my head,
the only K-mount models that are commonly available are the Zenitar 16/2.8
fisheye and Zenitar 20/2.5 rectilinear. Any other models that escape me are
simply not fast enough to interest most of the list members. Maybe I'm
forgetting an odd mirror lens or two. I know, we hear about the 85/1.4K and
200/2.8K, but where are they?
Paul F. Stregevsky
***********************
[what's with Paul anyway?]
***********************
[one lister compared an old Mir 20mm f/3.5 to his SuperTakumar 20mm
f/4.5 (the Bow-Wow Tak).]
The results: MUCH better edge sharpness, barrel distortion about as expected,
flare proneness about
as expected as well. Yet, I would rate this lens at this early juncture as a
better lens than the
SuperTak 20.
***********************
[Chris S. wrote more:]
I have the Mir 47K (20mm f2.5 k-mount) and I am quite pleased with it.
It's multicoated but not as flare resistant as SMC lenses (but then, what
it?!) but it's sharp and nicely rectilinear. However, it does have one or
two interesting 'quirks' you have to be careful of:
1. The filters go on the back, you get three supplied with it. I have had
differing reports as to whether one has to be fitted permanently (i.e.
part of the optical formula). One guy I have spoken to swears that the
factory technicians told him they do, however my mate down the corridor
at work has read the manual for me (he's Russian) and it apparently says
nothing about this. Also the optical diagram in the manual doesn't include
the filter. This is fairly crucial because
THE LENS + FILTER CAN FOUL THE MIRROR ON SOME PENTAX MODELS !!
I write that in caps to save you the pain I felt on seeing a wee chip
taken out the mirror on my Program A. You can grind the screw-on filter
ring down a bit which stops this happening. Incidentally, it doesn't foul
at all on my LX, thank God. Currently I leave the UV fiter permanently
attached.
Overall, apart from the Prog A's mirror incident, the lens has performed
very well. I don't regret the just under $100 US
**************************
Hope this helps.
Frantisek.
[Other options (vivitar 19/3.8, and all similar named lenses like
20/3.8 and 19/3.5, which should be all the same by Cosina)]
I've had the Vivitar 19/3.8. Build was ok, sharpness was ok, at least
in the center. The real problem was flare control, or, the complete
lack thereof. The lens was almost unusable in any situation where the
sun wasn't behind me. Even cloudy days would pose problems, and I never
could find a suitable hood. I don't believe that the lens is
multicoated, at least with some of the inner elements. I could hold it
and at certain angles, it would reflect light just like an uncoated
filter.
William Johnson
***********************
Hope this helps.
>From the texts, it looks like the 20/3.5 is the sharper lens than the
20/2.5 and it was listed
