This review features the MIR-1 2.8/37 AVTOMAT lens with the rare Kiev-Avtomat bayonet mount. There are countless variations of the MIR-1 lens, but a comprehensive list can be found in the review of one of them: the Mir-1V 2,8/37 (M42, Vologda).
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
The MIR-1 2.8/37 AVTOMAT is a fixed focal length lens with a maximum aperture ratio of 1:2.8 and a focal length of 37 mm. It is considered a popular Soviet wide-angle lens, a modified/copied version of the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.8/35. As far as I know, the MIR-1 2.8/37 AVTOMAT was produced with two different lens mounts. Another version of the lens featured a 'nut'-shaped focusing ring ( see image ).
Bayonet mount 'Kiev-Avtomat' is used only by Soviet reflex cameras KIEV-10, KIEV-11 (prototype), KIEV-15 Tee and KIEV-15 TTL. It is usually customary to talk about two main models: KIEV-10 and KIEV-15.
The most comprehensive list of lenses with the Kyiv-Avtomat bayonet mount can be found in the review of the JUPITER-11 4/135 AVTOMAT . You'll also find interesting information on lenses of this type there.
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC MACHINE with bottom case cover and front protective cover
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC is made of metal and glass. The focusing ring is also metal. This is the first 'AUTOMATIC' lens in my hands, which has no focus ring play.
During focusing, the front lens does not rotate, but the lens trunk extends. Focus ring rotates 270 degrees. Focus ring travel is smooth. Focusing is done by moving the entire lens unit. The minimum focusing distance is only 24 cm, which is very, very happy :). In this case, the maximum macro scale can be 1: 4,3.
The lens has a focusing distance scale and depth of field scale for F / 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22. Like all AUTOMAT lenses, MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMAT does not have a diaphragm control ring.
The aperture can be adjusted using the so-called "jumper"—a special protrusion on the side of the lens mount. When using it on modern cameras, you have to remove the lens to set the desired aperture , and even then, you have to do it by eye. I used the lens on a Sony a7 with a homemade adapter. How to make an adapter is shown in the review of the JUPITER-11 4/135 AUTOMATIC.
The diameter of the front light filter is standard, at 52 mm. The lens cap is metal, fits snugly to the frame of the case, but does not have latches, it is very easy to lose such a cap. The lens was sold in a plastic case typical of Soviet optics.
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC mount
The diaphragm consists of 5 (five!) Blades :(. The blades of the diaphragm are made of shiny red-gold metal. On covered diaphragms it is very easy to get 'nuts'. Most likely, the lenses of the AUTOMAT series were economized on blades to facilitate the operation of automation.
They saved on lenses of the AUTOMAT series and on enlightenment. If you look at MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMAT, then the presence of coated optics may not be noticed. But still, if you look very closely, then the rear and front lenses cast a faint blue tint. Most likely due to poor enlightenment, around bright light sources in the frame, the lens draws rather big prominences, rings, rainbows and other otherworldly stuff. It is good that MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMAT practically does not give any yellow-green tint, which is inherent in many Soviet lenses.
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTO while focusing on MDF
Diaphragm petals from the MIR-1 bayonet mount 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
Aperture blades MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
Enlightenment of the lenses MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC SYSTEM in the ZK
The relative dimensions of the lens MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
MIR-1V 2,8/37 and MIR-1 2.8/37 Automatic
The MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC instance, which I visited in my review, did not give very good sharpness in the center of the frame at F / 2.8. At the edges and corners of the frame on F / 2.8, everything was even worse. If you cover the diaphragm, then the sharpness comes back to normal. My copy gave a noticeable subsidence in sharpness on the left side of the image, from here I can conclude that the quality of the optics or its assembly is not the best. Also, the lens suffers from vignetting, even on covered apertures (when used on a full-frame camera).
The worst thing is that the MIR-1 2.8/37 Automatic produces an inordinate amount of flare and performs poorly in backlit and sidelight. I've noticed that one flare almost always appears in the frame. Also, most likely because the aperture blades reflect light, the amount of flare increases, and their color matches the red-gold color of the aperture blades ( example ). Jokingly, I'd call this lens ' BlikoMIR One .'
Example photo on MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC
The original files can be downloaded from this link (46 photos in .ARW format, 755 MB). I used the lens on a Sony a7 camera with a homemade adapter. Some photos were taken in APS-C crop mode.
MIR-1 2.8/37 AUTOMATIC and JUPITER-9 2/85 AUTOMATIC
You can view the catalog of modern lenses of the brands 'Zenitar' and 'Helios' at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.
Conclusion
My copy of MIR-1 2.8 / 37 AUTOMATIC turned out to be very weak. Of the obvious advantages of the lens, I just want to highlight a good assembly, a small minimum focusing distance and a kind of lens 'pattern'.
This material was prepared by Arkady Shapoval . The greatest support for the site is if you use links on this site, such as Amazon , when purchasing anything . It costs you nothing, but for this site, and therefore for my family, it's the main source of support.
Thanks for the review!
I liked the photographs, both of Kiev and nature. Unless, of course, not compare with anything.
Counter arguments for large-pixel cropped D1x. In the APS-C mode on the Sony a7, it is also not visible that the edges of the lens "float".
World 1 The machine is really weak and sharpness comes only on covered (or well covered) apertures. The aberrations at 2.8 (in my specimen) are hardly unbelievable and the only thing is that this is not bad for a creative monocle (two in one and a monocle and a lens). It becomes sharp on the covers, though the edges of the frame (Kenon crop) are not the best (at least the Helios is noticeably inferior), I think it’s sadder on the full frame. Nevertheless, it can give an acceptable image, it is easier to focus due to flu. The glare (in my specimen) I think is not scary. On a covered diaphragm it gives a nice macro (flu also helps) Ordinary World 1 is not capable of this (example in the photo). And he really does not spoil the color. I used it converted to Kenon with infinity and iris control (you do not need to remove it from the camera, but had to redo it) until the canon went into another world. I don’t watch the sharpness subsidence on the left side of my own, and I doubt that this optics is so bad, maybe your adapter is a little inaccurate.
The problem is not the adapter.
I agree that it’s not in the adapter. Although I was dealing with three World 1 Automatons and everyone gave the same picture. A marriage happens, although maybe someone once dismantled it, inaccurate assembly affects.
Where can I find an adapter for this lens?
Nobody produces adapters on lenses; you need to make them yourself.
It’s interesting, but at the top widths, everything is sharp at aperture 2.8 around the entire edge of the frame? In any case, when shooting a landscape, you have to close the hole. And for 8 pictures, it’s really nothing. And about the backlight, so this trouble is probably the whole of Soviet optics, my gelik in front of the window on the open one shows a spot, and the budget kenon copes
46 photos in '.ARW' format, 755 Mb
'ARW' are RAW files used by Sony cameras.
I have a white world-1. There were black ones. White is different in the picture in my opinion for the better. Glare does not catch so frankly.
Brown pelusts with diaphragms are super! Radianska optics will do it by itself, and with such peels - the image will not be doused with a cell)))
I do not advise you to unscrew the ring behind which the bearings are located - it will be very problematic to assemble them back, I fiddled for several days while I figured out how to assemble them back ...
so how to collect it, the same problem came out)
I don't remember exactly, I think I smeared them (bearings) with something like PVA glue, and then washed them ... But I put everything in.
Thank you!
The review is semi-literate. “The lens adds rainbow rings and other otherworldly effects.” In fact, lenses add effects not on the other side, but on the side. If you don't like MIR-1, buy Karl Zeiss optics - there will be a black aperture without glare - but the prices are different. What you wanted from a cheap Soviet lens with outdated coating.
it was written by me on purpose. If something about the lens is not correctly described, then specify. thanks
I found a Mir-1, 2,8/37 lens, but it’s of a strange shape and I can’t find information about it anywhere, what camera it fits and what adapters are needed, maybe someone recognizes this mysterious comrade
Mir-1 had technical options that are not described in the reviews on this site. Attach a photo of the lens, then it will be clearer.
Hello everyone. I have a mir 1 machine gun that is not installed in the Kyiv 15 camera.
Doesn't fit. I inserted it anyway, but the diaphragm doesn't work. The back is milled and it looks like it's not exactly...