MIR-1 2,8 / 37A. Review from the reader Radozhiva

View of the MIR-1 2,8 / 37A lens (ZOMZ, 1973) and examples of photographs from it, and the review itself especially for Radozhiva, prepared Rodion Eshmakov.

MIR-1 2,8 / 37A

MIR-1 2,8 / 37A

Characteristics Mir-1 (A):
Optical design: 6 elements in 5 groups, such as Flektogon (in fact, a retro-focus version of double Gauss);
Resolution (center / edge): 45/23 (data for other modifications)
Diagonal angle of view in full frame: 60 degrees;
Aperture Limits: F / 2.8-F / 16;
Diaphragm design: blackened 10 blade, with preset mechanism;
Thread for filters: 52 * 0,75 mm;
MDF: 0,24 m;
Features: A-adapter that allows you to change the mount to the camera on the N and K mount, thread M39 and M42.
Price in the USSR: 65 rubles

MIR-1 2,8 / 37A

MIR-1 2,8 / 37A

Design differences of Mir-1A from other modifications

Mir-1A is one of the rarest modifications of the widespread Mir-1 lens. Apparently, it was produced only for two years (72-73 g), and only at the Zagorsk OMZ. It can be assumed that most of these lenses were exported, this can explain the detailed marking on the title ring and the presence of an interchangeable shank.

The appearance of the lens

The appearance of the lens

This lens is nothing more than an attempt by ZOMZ to ennoble the already rapidly aging archaic Mir-1.
The lens received a new housing in which plastic parts were used (a ring with a depth of field scale, for example). At the same time, the old layout was preserved - the aperture control ring is installed at the “nose” of the lens, and the focusing one is closer to the mount.

However, the mechanisms of the diaphragm have undergone great changes. The diaphragm itself began to have matte black petals instead of sickle-shaped L-shaped (similar to boomerang), due to which the shape of the closed hole becomes star-shaped:

Aperture shape Mir-1 at F / 5.6

Aperture shape Mir-1 at F / 5.6

The atypical view of the covered diaphragm from behind generated myths about the “double”, “double row” or “20-blade” diaphragm of Mir-1A. Of course, this is not true. Moreover, the well-known Helios-40 and the new KMZ lenses (Zenitar 50 / 1.2 for Sony E) have a similar aperture.

The presetting mechanism is very similar to that available with ISCO Westron 35 / 2.8: to preset the aperture, press the silver round button and turn the aperture ring to the desired value (the ring pauses with a click). After that, without pressing a button, you can set any value from F / 2.8 to the one selected at preset, while the ring goes without clicks.

Due to the fact that the cumbersome mechanism for presetting the diaphragm, which occupied most of the Mir-1 (H / W) housing, disappeared, the designers were able to increase the size of the lens helicoid and focusing ring. In my opinion, this is the most important difference between this lens and other modifications - it makes Mir-1A the most universal of the entire series. The stroke of the helicoid was greatly increased in comparison with other modifications (except that the World-1 Automatic can fight):

Mir-1A at "infinity"

Mir-1A at "infinity"

 

Mir-1A at the MDF. The A adapter is visible.

Mir-1A at the MDF. The A adapter is visible.

Due to the increased stroke, an MDF of only 24 cm was achieved - compared to 70 cm in Mir-1 (H / W) - this is heaven and earth. Moreover, due to the angle of rotation of the ring, close to 360 degrees, smooth focusing is achieved. The ability to focus at short distances greatly expands the range of tasks that such a lens can perform: on cropped cameras, it can become an excellent staffer with a viewing angle close to 45 degrees.

The only minor dissatisfaction was caused by the size of the filters: 52 mm instead of the usual 1 mm for Soviet optics (and for Mir-49). However, this diameter is also very common, especially for later versions of Soviet lenses.

In general, the constructive lens does not cause any complaints, the quality of the lens is excellent.

Optical properties of Mir-1A

The optical quality of the lens is also quite high: in this way it looks like its older brother, Mir-1 ZOMZ (series after 1967). It can even be assumed that apart from the design of the diaphragm, their lens blocks do not differ in anything: Mir-1A carries the same amber-colored single-layer lens illumination, the same high-quality blackening of the ends. Therefore, although you should not expect a miracle from the lens, it is possible of a decent quality.

At an open aperture, the lens is sharp only in the center of the frame. When closing the aperture to F / 8, the sharpness on the matrix Kf = 1.6 is achieved throughout the field. At the same time, the lens has very weak HA, mainly coma is to blame for the fall in sharpness. Compared to ISCO Westron 35 / 2.8, Mir-1A has a sharpness higher than that.

The contrast of the Mir-1A is not bad, but in the backlight, of course, it falls. In addition, like all Mir-1 (H / W), Mir-1A has the ability to generate iridescent glare from a strong light source. However, the glare of Mir-1A is so beautiful that, I think, they can be used as an effect. We can say that the lens "loves" the sun.

Glare in the backlight on F / 2.8 at Mir-1A

Glare in the backlight on F / 2.8 at Mir-1A

Mir-1 is traditionally not bad in terms of bokeh: heliosimilar (close the front lens on the diagram with your hand and see for yourself) the scheme gives a “twisted” background.

"Swirling" bokeh Mir-1 and glare from the sun

"Swirling" bokeh Mir-1 and glare from the sun

The shape of the diaphragm rarely appears in the photo, only point sources are able to show its true shape.

The lens has good, correct color reproduction (unlike the Mir-1 series until 1967 with blue-violet enlightenment). Despite the low aperture and a small focal length, Mir-1 has a rather small DOF - this is strongly felt when shooting landscapes: when focusing exactly at infinity, objects that are 10-15 m away even at F / 8 can easily “fall out” of the sharpness zone. This clearly demonstrates the inconsistency of the depth of field scales when using optics on a digital camera.

F / 2.8

F / 2.8

F / 5.6

F / 5.6

In general, the optical quality of the lens is very good. The lens did not shame the elder white brother's honor.

Source code here.

Conclusions

Mir-1A is indeed a very successful Soviet lens: both in terms of design and optical part. Perhaps the only thing he lacks is multilayer enlightenment. But his era had not yet arrived. Unfortunately, Mir-1A is extremely rare in the secondary market, and its price is very high - as it is determined by the lack of supply. At this price, it is already possible to purchase his newer aperture fellow MS Mir-24M 35/2.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment: zengarden

 

 

Comments: 34, on the topic: MIR-1 2,8 / 37A. Review from the reader Radozhiva

  • Molchanov Yuri

    Thanks for the review and great photos. The lens is really good.

  • Dmitriy

    One to one Flektogon in the picture)))

  • Alexey

    Beautifully washes the background, a little soft on the open, but overall very decent. And Rodion’s photos are good.

  • в

    thanks! very good lens.

  • anonym

    At this price, it is already possible to purchase his newer aperture fellow MS Mir-24M 35/2.

    and maybe 2 grab) world-24 better optics IMHO)

    • zengarden

      Mir-24 is faster than aperture, but optically worse.

      • Rodion

        He is also boring. And optically not very, indeed.

  • Victor

    Dear author! In photo optics, plastic parts in 1972 - 73 (as you indicate in your review) have not yet been applied. Carbolite was used only in the manufacture of cases for f / a, such as Smena, Orion, Etude, Lomo - compact, Lyubitel and some others ...

    • Rodion

      The depth of field ring is very similar to plastic. Maybe I'm wrong.

      • Dmitriy

        No, it is metal, coated with black varnish. I had never seen this lens before and tried it myself, because I did not find any advantages in comparison with the GDR's Flektogon, from which Mir-1 was copied.

        • Rodion

          Approx.
          Not copied, but counted.

          • Dmitriy

            Due to the lack of appropriate types of glass. Then there was the Brussels Grand Prix, and then the quality went down-down-down ... Especially at the Vologda.

            • zengarden

              Here they sell on Avito white "Brussels" for 2 thousand, but with purple enlightenment. I thought, and did not buy ... he is beautiful, but useless on crop.

              • Alexey

                Alas, similar thoughts arise about most Soviet lenses, in the presence of good modern glasses. And not only on crop.

            • Rodion

              Due to the availability of other varieties. He was sharpened in the center to the detriment of the edges, as far as I remember.

            • Rodion

              It's also funny that Mir-1 does not contain any special glasses, unlike the flektogon, of the lanthanum type - and, moreover, it is clearly not worse.

              • Dmitriy

                And while clearly worse =)

              • Rodion

                Such expressions are often seen in discussions like Biotar vs Helios. That's just no one puts the proofs.
                So if it's worse, it's worth proving.
                In general, Flektogon is extremely poor in design - an unreliable five-petal jump rope is an example of this. Pictures on it do not shine too much either.
                If you, Dmitry, give comparative examples, then your statement can still be considered somehow seriously.
                I saw a comparison among the half tanks, in which the usual G44-2 did not yield to the biotar.

              • Dmitriy

                before you assert something - try to shoot with Flektogon, and if you did not shoot - do not argue, I had Mirow-1 almost all modifications except for 1c except for the Automatic, more precisely, the Automatic was, but it was too lazy to saw it under the thread. But Miras did not stay, but I have been using Flektogon for more than 10 years. I posted examples from him in the review on this site.

                In the meantime, I see from you: “I have not read the book, but I condemn”.

              • Dmitriy

                And about the "unreliable five-petal jump rope." I don’t know what it is, five-petal, and how it works. I have an early six-blade version with a volcanic focusing ring. Jump there - a pair of springs and a pusher ring. There is absolutely nothing to break. And about the wretchedness of the construct: Flektogon focuses from 18 cm, Worlds, except for A and Automatic machine - from 70. So it's somehow even ridiculous to compare the construct.

              • Rodion

                https://radojuva.com/2013/03/flektogon-2-8-35-mm-review-cjz/ - 5 lep.

                “But the Miras did not stay, but I have been using Flektogon for more than 10 years.” - the effect of the nameplate.

                “Flektogon focuses from 18 cm” - and this one is 24 cm. The difference is not that great.

                "I posted examples from him in the review on this site."
                And these examples are not in favor of Flektogon.

              • Dmitriy

                I advise only one thing: do not talk about what I did not use. So far, even polemicizing is ridiculous with those who did not hold the lens in their hands.
                Happy to stay.

              • Rodion

                What's the difference? You have started a controversy about crooked copying. There were no proofs on your part. Make comparisons - and the question will disappear by itself.
                Tryndezh on the Internet about "shitty scoop" and "magnificent Zeiss" is already so tired - as a rule, photos are not given.
                PS Okay, stay.

              • Rodion

                In general, admire: https://m42lens.blogspot.ru/2013/06/mir-1b-37mm-f28-vs-carl-zeiss-jena.html
                The saddest World-1 - Vologda vs. Flektogon.
                Alas, the contrast in Pl is lower, and the level of chromatism is higher. For the most part, the comparison is not in favor of flektogon.

              • Dmitriy

                From personal experience, Rodion. To begin with, I have not a "zebra", but an earlier release, as I said, at the turn of the 50-60s. Perhaps the quality has dropped over the years, because Arkady's review of the “zebra” was generally obscene. But this is a retreat. In fact, if we compare the contrast at approximately the same level with the white CMZ-shny, the chromatic is present, but not very pronounced, noticeably less than 1V, for example, and easier to correct. Regarding sharpness, they are rather weak at the open edge (however, the Worlds are the same), but the sharpness in the center is somewhat better, which can be explained by the better mechanical build quality, the front lens unit of the Flektogon is tightly rolled up, so that the centering of the lenses is unshakable, which cannot be said about Vologda residents, for example. What pleases me is the color rendering. It is not too saturated, slightly shifted to the warm side, but without such pronounced yellowness as in white KMZ-shnyh and without the greenery of white zagors. I see only one drawback before Mir-1: a 6-blade diaphragm, but there is nowhere to go - a jump rope. I do not exclude the effect of the nameplate, but the lens is really of high quality, perhaps because it is not yet “consumer goods”, in contrast to the 70s.

              • Dmitriy

                Or like this.

  • zengarden

    A gorgeous lens, but very rare and expensive (we sell 15 each).
    There was a pair of Mir-1B, sold; the crop was not impressed at all, although the picture was not bad.

    > The lens has good, correct color rendering (unlike the Mir-1 series before 1967 with blue-violet coating).

    Older violet-coated lenses have an unusual retro color rendering. And the new ones, with yellow, are more "correct" and boring.

    • Rodion

      I don't know, I don't see anything good in their yellowness - they have no contrast, they catch the blue veil, the white balance is disgusting to edit. Amber enlightenment is definitely better.

  • Vanka Kosoy

    Here is a comparison of MIR-1A ZOMZ (export version) and MIR-1V VOMZ
    http://storage6.static.itmages.ru/i/16/1016/h_1476624996_9708945_25cdf6d144.jpg

    http://storage5.static.itmages.ru/i/16/1016/h_1476625054_1900690_f37dde0a1f.jpg

    the difference is obvious, the ordinary world merges in half, and the MIR-1A rules

    • Rodion

      With World-1 ZOMZ 1967-1969 white would be compared.

      • Vanka Kosoy

        I don’t have a whit

  • Rodion

    For a number of reasons, I have to put this lens up for sale.
    Contact: rudzil@yandex.ru

    • Rodion

      That's it, the lens has found an owner.

  • Paul

    Regarding the mechanics of the old Germans, I agree with Rodion on a really poor construct, I did a lot of disassembling of Zeiss and Orestogons, they didn’t think that metal has an aging property and chemical incompatibility (I mean the active oxidation of metals when aluminum does not metal compatibility, plus oil, which gives the catalyst effect to all of this) in general, it happens that it is very difficult to disassemble the springs; everything has to be changed, but helius, like the world, is simpler to construct and smaller parts, while everything works more reliably than the old Germans, I’m just an example, I think many met the problem of closing or opening in the Zeiss, Orestogon in the GDR and the West, but in the Geleus it is very rare and this is not because the oil is often on the diaphragm’s lobes but the simple construct is thought out much better old ceisses and orestogons

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2017/05/mir-1-2-8-37a/?replytocom=164080

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2017/05/mir-1-2-8-37a/?replytocom=164080