View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:08 pm Post subject: Wich Lens In M42 To Have? |
|
|
papasito wrote:
My short equipment is
28 mm F/3,5 Hexanon v.2 AR
35 mm F/2,8 Hexanon v.1 AR *
35 mm F/2,8 SR MDIII
50 mm F/1,7 Hexanon v.2 AR
50 mm F/1,4 nFD
55 mm F/1,2 FD SSC *
90 mm F/2 R pre aspheric *
135 mm F/3,2 Hexanon AR
135 mm F/2,5 Hexanon AR *
70/150 F/4,5 nFD
70/150 F/3,8 Vivitar (Kiron) V.1
105 mm F/3,5 Voigtlander Skopar (1937)
*= my more used lenses
The question is
Which M42 mount lens should be added to my limited equipment?
Old wide angle lens?
Old tele lens form 250 to 400 mm?
thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1552 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
The Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 lovely lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Well, looking at the lenses you already own, I note that you have more in the 50mm range than you do in any of the others, so it suggests to me that you have a slight preference for a "normal" focal length. Given that, I'd suggest a 50mm lens. I own a few in M42 -- a 50/1.4 Super Tak, a 55/1.8 SMC Tak, a 50/1.7 Yashinon and a Helios 44-2.
I haven't used my Taks much yet, but I have used the Yashinon and the Helios quite a bit. Of the two, the Yashinon is definitely sharper and is, in general, a razor sharp optic. I picked mine up at a pawn shop for $10. The Taks will most likely cost more. So if cost is an issue at all, I can really recommend the Yashinon. I believe mine is a DX, not sure, I'd have to go downstairs to look to be sure. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Abbazz
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 Posts: 1098 Location: Jakarta
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Abbazz wrote:
You don't say what is the camera you intend to use the lenses on. For a full-frame 24x36 camera, a Zenitar 16/2.8 or a Takumar 17/4 fisheye would make a nice ultrawide for not to much money. If you don't like fisheyes, a Takumar 24/3.5 is a good lens, not too expensive and significantly wider than your 28mm. Other than that, I consider the vintage ultrawides to be somewhat disappointing considering their price relatively to contemporary lenses. On a format smaller than 24x36, I wouldn't bother with vintage wides at all.
Since you have no long lenses, I would advise getting one of the old Tele-Takumar lenses, like the 200/5.6 or the 300/6.3. They are compact, beautifully constructed, cheap, fun and deliver good results.
Cheers!
Abbazz _________________ Il n'y a rien dans le monde qui n'ait son moment decisif, et le chef-d'oeuvre de la bonne conduite est de connaitre et de prendre ce moment. - Cardinal de Retz
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource:
http://artbig.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
blotafton wrote: |
The Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 lovely lens. |
Yes.
Thank you very much |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Well, looking at the lenses you already own, I note that you have more in the 50mm range than you do in any of the others, so it suggests to me that you have a slight preference for a "normal" focal length. Given that, I'd suggest a 50mm lens. I own a few in M42 -- a 50/1.4 Super Tak, a 55/1.8 SMC Tak, a 50/1.7 Yashinon and a Helios 44-2.
I haven't used my Taks much yet, but I have used the Yashinon and the Helios quite a bit. Of the two, the Yashinon is definitely sharper and is, in general, a razor sharp optic. I picked mine up at a pawn shop for $10. The Taks will most likely cost more. So if cost is an issue at all, I can really recommend the Yashinon. I believe mine is a DX, not sure, I'd have to go downstairs to look to be sure. |
The 1,7 can be the best of Yashica's 50 mm in M42. The DX, DS or DS-M
Am I right? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Abbazz wrote: |
You don't say what is the camera you intend to use the lenses on. For a full-frame 24x36 camera, a Zenitar 16/2.8 or a Takumar 17/4 fisheye would make a nice ultrawide for not to much money. If you don't like fisheyes, a Takumar 24/3.5 is a good lens, not too expensive and significantly wider than your 28mm. Other than that, I consider the vintage ultrawides to be somewhat disappointing considering their price relatively to contemporary lenses. On a format smaller than 24x36, I wouldn't bother with vintage wides at all.
Since you have no long lenses, I would advise getting one of the old Tele-Takumar lenses, like the 200/5.6 or the 300/6.3. They are compact, beautifully constructed, cheap, fun and deliver good results.
Cheers!
Abbazz |
Thank you, Abbazz, very much. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2927 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
Meyer Optic Helioplan 40mm 4.5. A focal length you do not have, it is crazy sharp has its great colors and it's tiny. Rare but not yet too expensive. _________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
jamaeolus wrote: |
Meyer Optic Helioplan 40mm 4.5. A focal length you do not have, it is crazy sharp has its great colors and it's tiny. Rare but not yet too expensive. |
Is this similar to the Meyer Optik Primagon 1:4,5/35 ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
SMC Takumar 3.5/35, a little slow but small, superbly built, sharp, and inexpensive.
In the other direction, the Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50. Beautiful, sharp (but not eyeball cutting), superbly built with a unique rendering that does amazing things with light. It also costs a lot. One of a small number of SLR lenses with a concave front element. _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2927 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
Its an older optical plan, a dialyte IIRC. it is about 1/3 the size and weight of the primagon. It does suffer a bit from low contrast and flair in certain situations though. It is from an era when no coatings or single coatings were the norm.
I showed some samples a few weeks back, Klaus started the thread with some gorgeous flower shots, but his skill makes virtually any lens look great (I swear if he picked up the broken shards of a beer bottle he could get amazing images!), my meager talents are better at showing the capabilities of the lens:
http://forum.mflenses.com/helioplan-late-autumn-sunlight-afternoon-walk-t61964,highlight,+helioplan,start,25.html _________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marek
Joined: 13 Apr 2014 Posts: 903 Location: In the heart of Europe
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marek wrote:
I am currently selling M42 100/2,8 Meyer Orestor in complete and CLA'ed as-new condition, as well as some nice refurbished screw mount telephotos, incl. some rarities, as photos below suggests.
They all roughly fill your empty focal length slots you may miss.
Feel free to PM me in case of interest but some of them you'll find under my Ebay sales at my signature
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
Here is my mostly complete lens-list image upload (excluding my untouchable collection and really dirty things Im either gonna send to CLA or too lazy to deal with...)
http://www.uschovna.cz/zasilka/YZ9WFYR6XZW8ZXL2-2K9/GRUP7B9PTH _________________ Angry young man !
Flickr | Juzaphoto | Ebay sales
marekfiser [at] gmail [dot] com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 Posts: 514 Location: Jersey C.I.
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
Any screw-fit Fujinon! The 16mm fish-eye is great fun, the 19mm is really well corrected
I don't have a 24mm or a 28mm but would grab one in a flash if the price was right.
The 35mm f/1.9 is on one of my Pentaxes now.
The 85mm "Soft-focus" is fairly unique, if you're into portraiture especially.
A Tessar, the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 is widely available, relatively light weight and still reasonably priced.
A Domiplan ... Trioplan-like bokeh at a fraction of the price!
An Industar 50-2 ... small and fiddly like you wouldn't believe. Just set it and forget it and point and shoot ... great lens.
Any Tamron Adaptall-2 lens with appropriate adaptor.
The list goes on ... call back if you want any more ideas |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3693 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
If you'd ask which M42 lens would not be suitable it would make an answer little bit easier . Just too many nice M42 lenses. All Warsaw Pact is collectible, all early Japan is collectible. Personally i skip zooms, i skip lenses after material and workforce reductions were implemented and production transferred to new countries suffering birth quality standards. Nevertheless if i have to name one lens just read my forum username . It was my first love and still persists. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 902 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
I couldn't see any Takumars on your list, but I've yet to find a bad one.
I also note there's nothing longer than 135, yet you mark the 135 as one of your most used lenses. So would a longer lens be useful to you??
Perhaps something 200+ might add some versatility.
I don't often use long M42 lenses myself using either AF or mirror lenses when I want more reach. The Tak. 300/4 I have is a capable lens but just too heavy to lug around (at over 1.5kg my version feels like it weighs as much as my Sigma 150-500, and the difference in speed isn't that significant) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2921 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Takumar 135/2.5 v2. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2491
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Maybe a Macro lens? _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Any of the M42 lens in my signature. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16541 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Not to forget the CZJ Pancolar 1.8/80mm... _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6008 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
DConvert wrote: |
I couldn't see any Takumars on your list, but I've yet to find a bad one.
I also note there's nothing longer than 135, yet you mark the 135 as one of your most used lenses. So would a longer lens be useful to you??
Perhaps something 200+ might add some versatility.
I don't often use long M42 lenses myself using either AF or mirror lenses when I want more reach. The Tak. 300/4 I have is a capable lens but just too heavy to lug around (at over 1.5kg my version feels like it weighs as much as my Sigma 150-500, and the difference in speed isn't that significant) |
I agree that a 200mm will add some reach to your shooting.
There are several excellent 200's in M42.
I have a few that I can recommend:
Takumar 200mm f3.5
Super-Takumar 200mm f4
Yashinon DX 200mm f4
Tom
Last edited by Oldhand on Fri May 18, 2018 9:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 304 Location: EU
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
Highlights of the Takumar line:
* S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
* 2nd version of S-M-C 135/2.5
* S-M-C Takumar 85/1.8
Soviet lenses are also very interesting:
* Volna-9 50/2.8
* Zenitar-M 50/1.7
GDR lenses:
* CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8
* multi-bladed version of Pentacon 135/2.8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Thanks.
For all |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
newst wrote: |
SMC Takumar 3.5/35, a little slow but small, superbly built, sharp, and inexpensive.
In the other direction, the Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50. Beautiful, sharp (but not eyeball cutting), superbly built with a unique rendering that does amazing things with light. It also costs a lot. One of a small number of SLR lenses with a concave front element. |
Two great lenses, of course.
I took some pics with the Ultron in 1973 (with my father's Icarex) and Perutz film.
Great lens. From F/4 to F/11. I think that in Zeiss line only the Planar c/y 1,7/50 >800.000 can beat it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Auto Rikenon 55mm f1.4 , Super Takumar 55mm f1.8, Jupiter 37A 135 3.5 , Zenitar 50mm f1,7, usw...
The Carl Zeiss range for QBM or M42 mount : 50mm 1.8 Planar , Sonnar 85 2.8... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6008 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
I mentioned earlier that you might like to consider a 200mm lens.
There is - at a little longer focal length - 250mm which is not much sought after in the marketplace.
I have a Soligor 250mm f4.5 made by Tokina which is excellent
#1
Here is one in the marketplace at the moment that looks like it was made by Komine - M42? not sure of that ?
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Soligar-1-4-5-250MM-Zoom-Lens-No-665220-Excellent-Condition-Zoom-Lens/282967355542?hash=item41e22b3096:g:sXoAAOSw8HBZDnP7
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|