of course I have searched, I have seen photos and videos from both lenses, I just need some professional/ experienced opinions on my problem
Hi! I shoot video exclusively with either a Canon T3 or 7D. I don't even own a Canon AF lens any longer (non-L AF lenses are soft, harsh, and dingy) but I own 4 Vintage Nikkors (all at least 30 years old), 2 recent Nikkor zooms, and 2 Vintage Russian Primes:
Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS
Nikkor 35mm f2 Pre-AI
MIR-24 35mm f2
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Pre-AI
HELIOS 44m 58mm f2
Nikkor 135mm f3.5 Pre-AI
Nikkor 28-200mm D Series
Nikkor 18-135mm G Series (with Aperture mod)
The difference between the MIR-24 and the Nikkor 35mm is this...
The Nikkor/Nikon is very clear, sharp, contrasty (even at f2) lens, and the industry standard back in the 60's for News and Magazine Photographers. If you compare it to Nikon's current glass it has considerably more bite and depth. Not the greatest Bokah, but it's not bad considering this lens is as crisp as it is.
The Russian MIR-24 is a whole different feel, and a trip to own. It has even more contrast than my Nikkors (at least my copy does) and the wierdest/coolest bokah I've ever seen, especially for video. Just a hair less sharpness than the Nikkor (but that's a very thin hair, both are tack sharp) and it actually shoots better in low light (less artifacts), even though it's the same f stop range.
If I had to grab 2 primes to shoot video, I'd choose my Nikkor 28mm (arguably the sharpest Nikkor glass ever made) my MIR-24, and my 28-200 D for everything else in between.
So I prefer the MIR-24, its a total blast and really fun to shoot with. I have it mounted on my Prime camera, and I only switch it out when I have to because of distance.
MT