Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Wich Lens In M42 To Have?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject: Wich Lens In M42 To Have? Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 lovely lens.


PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
The Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 lovely lens.


Yes.

Thank you very much


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 ?


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Smile

#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


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you'd ask which M42 lens would not be suitable it would make an answer little bit easier Smile. 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 Wink. It was my first love and still persists.


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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)


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Takumar 135/2.5 v2.


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe a Macro lens?


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any of the M42 lens in my signature. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to forget the CZJ Pancolar 1.8/80mm...


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks.

For all


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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