Z 6 enters "secret garden"

[belgiumreporter]

It's been raining for weeks now, yesterday was the coldest August day since the begining of records in 1833. I was tired of sitting inside and when  the rain stopped for a brief moment i rushed towards the city center with the following gear : Nikon Z6 with m42 adapter, Mir-1 37mm f2.8/ ENNA Lithagon 35mm f3.5/ Helios 44 58mm f2 and Rexatar 100mm f2.

can't say i'm proud of the results but to my excuse the grey overcast didn't help much on bringing out the colours, time shortage made me work to fast and sloppy. Anyway the shots were all made in what was formally known as the French quarter (actually the neighbourhood i spent the first 20 years of my life). Even though it is in the city center only locals know about the "secret" botanic garden wich is pictured here. The cabarets and champagne bars close to the theather have been replaced by high end fashion stores and the "better" antique shops. each time i come there i think of the Beatles song "in my life" : there are places i remember some have gone and some remain....

Here's some of the shots:

[julio1fer]

Great shots, it looks like a very nice place, good that it remains. I thought you had used a Zorki-6!

How would you rate the Lithagon against the Mir?

[belgiumreporter]

Aug 25, 2021 17:10:17 GMT -5 julio1fer said:

Great shots, it looks like a very nice place, good that it remains. I thought you had used a Zorki-6!

How would you rate the Lithagon against the Mir?

The zorki 6, that would be a chalenge... I've tried to compare the lithagon, MIR, nikkor 35 and nikkor VR 16-35 f4G but the results are inconclusive because drifting clouds kept changing the amount of light. I'll have to test these lenses in the studio with controlled lighting.
Secondly i noticed the Mir won't focus to infinity so i became doubtfull (because it's got a M39 mount) if it was a rangefinder lens. When i put it on a canon rangefinder it didn't work either as though the focussing spot in the finder does move when focussing it is way off. Other m39 lenses do focus to infinity with the m42 to Z adapter (i use a M39 to M42 conversion ring in this set up) so there shouldn't be a problem with the mount to film (sensor)  index distance. I didn't notice this problem before as the few shots i've made with the MIR all were at close distances.

[julio1fer]

IIRC the Mir is a lens for the Zenit 3M, which used a 39mm thread but had a longer focal distance than RF cameras. I used a Zenit 3M for 12 years or so.

[belgiumreporter]

Aug 25, 2021 17:10:17 GMT -5 julio1fer said:

Great shots, it looks like a very nice place, good that it remains. I thought you had used a Zorki-6!

How would you rate the Lithagon against the Mir?

I finally found some time to test some "old" 35 mm's The first one isn't a 35 but rather a 37mm the MIR1 2.8, then there's the ENNA Lithagon 35 /3.5, the Super Takumar 35 /3.5 and for comparison the Nikkor-S 35 /2.8.

All these lenses were put on the Z6 with the apropriate adapters.

Here's the lenses:


This is the test scene:




And here are the results cut out at 100%

( click on the image to see it at full res)


The Mir performs reasonably well at f2.8 doesn't get better at f4, but becomes good at f8 and even improves at f16 contrast is good at all apertures.Though i opened up the lens and removed the focussing stopper pin so closer focussing is possible, it still won't focus closer than 40cm.

The Enna is about as sharp at f3.5 as the MIR at f2.8 it improves at f4 surpasses the MIR at f8 bit and loses the edge at f16 contrast seems to be a little less than the MIR

The Takumar is the best of the bunch sharpness is already good at f3.5 get's better at 4 and really bites at 8 at f16 it gets a little less sharp. This lens has wonderfull colors and contrast, maybe the "super" coating has something to do with that, i've made all shot's semi back lit wich challenges their flare resistance and this takumar handles things very nice.

The "old" Nikkor is the worst of them all wide open (f2.8) to such an extend i'll have to check if there's something wrong with it or if i focussed wrong... from f4 on it becomes very sharp, though the lack of contrast isn't in its favour, over all it doesn't look good for the nikkor.


The MIR 1 wich is a zeiss design has some swirly bokeh wide open, while it and the Nikkor produce "soap bubble" highlights, the Takumar and the Enna have more softness in the out of focus area's.

Note the difference in angle of view between the 37 and 35 mm 

The "wall" test is to follow checking corner to corner sharpness, distortion and such

[belgiumreporter]

Vignetting and distortion:
All lenses when used at full apperture vignet significantly, all have some slight barrel distortion:


From f8 on vignetting improves:

[julio1fer]

Thanks for this comparison. The Takumar looks the best of this group, and the Mir is close. The Enna was looking at a relative in the focus target but it did not help.

I too expected more from the Nikkor.

[belgiumreporter]

Center of the image, at full aperture only the MIR performs a little less.




Left low corner full aperture, the nikkor outshines them all Mir is good, ENNA not to bad, but my oh my the takumar really unacceptable.



Left low corner f8 nikkor improves and becomes very good, takumar improves but is still the worst of the bunch, both the ENNA and MIR improve to acceptable.


Conclusion so far: i must have done something wrong in the first test (TLR's in the garden) as the nikkor came out so bad, this could have been what is tested but in the later test the nikkor beats them all.... remember the full aperture shots both the ENNA and takumar are 1:3.5 while the MIR and nikkor are 1:2.8. These days many of these lenses are hyped on you tube and other channels by influencers trying to get views claiming another "sensational" lens they've discovered. The takumar is very "hot" at this moment and concequently prices on Ebay go way up. From what i've tested i wouldn't say any of these lenses are bad, but i wouldn't spend a small fortune on them soley based on the hype. Judge for yourselve what money you're willing to spend on these "oldies" when they reach or exceed the price of modern lenses it is often more interesting to buy the modern ones unless you want to go for a specific (vintage) look. I've had these lenses in my collection as they came with cameras i once bought, it's sometimes fun to use them but i don't think i would buy them seperatly and surely not for the prices asked for some. 
The nikkor 35/2.8 i've used in this test is the early "C" seven element version, the later ones only have 5 elements and aren't as good as the "C".  I've got a few different versions maybe one of these days i'll compare them. 

[julio1fer]

This series is closer to expectations! Obviously all of these are very decent optics.

I will have to look at my Nikon 35, try to count the elements…

[belgiumreporter]

Sept 28, 2021 20:06:15 GMT -5 julio1fer said:

This series is closer to expectations! Obviously all of these are very decent optics.

I will have to look at my Nikon 35, try to count the elements…

There are 8 versions of the 35 2.8 nikkor:

Nikkor -S 2.8/3.5cm the first 1959 version starting with serial 920 110

Nikkor -S 2.8/3.5cm second version the "R" infra red mark from the first version is replaced by a red point seials start at 167 539

Nikkor -S 2.8/35mm 1965 version the difragm ring now got the "hill and valley" style serial start at 255 311

Nikkor -S-C 2.8/35mm later version of the S now with added "C" coating

Nikkor - 2.8/35mm from 1975 on the 7 elements 35mm is re-designed and becomes a six element aperture now goes to 22, to achieve better contrast the front lens is made significantly smaller serial starts at 773 111

Nikkor -2.8/35mm in 1978 now becomes AI serial starts at 350 001

Nikkor 2.8/35mm optical formula changed once more to 5 elements in 5 groups serial

Nikkor 2.8/35mm from 1981on the 35mm is adapted to AI-S serial starts at 521 001.

Still have to check wich ones i've got