m42 lens must-haves: what are they?

no-X · Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:41 am Post subject:

I tried several copies of flektogon 35/2.8 and non was as sharp as 35/2.4.

Anyway, as for "must have" M42 lenses, I think i depend if you prefer sharpness or character.

for sharpness:

Vivitar Series 1 28/1.9
S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5 or Flektogon 35/2.4
S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
S-M-C Macro Takumar 50/4
CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8
CZJ Biometar 80/2.8
CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 or Jupiter-37 135/3.5

for character:

Auto Takumar 35/2.3 (also very sharp at f/11)
Meyer Primagon 35/4.5 (sharp)
Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5
Volna-9 Macro 50/2.8 (sharp but not at Takumar level; best ever bokeh)
Meyer Trioplan 50/2.9
Meyer Primoplan 58/1.9
Jupiter-9 85/2
Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8

djmike · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 930 Location: Taiwan

Paul, you will find the answer for this inquiry is WIDE OPEN as you can also find almost everyone in Forum here has at least five M42 lenses and even more than 10. IMHO, CZJ/EBC and SMC (as you had laready) are good and some Russian lenses are good, too. You better to collect ALL to experience them. Laughing

Mike

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

My only 2 "Must have" M42 lenses. Plenty others I'm happy I do have.
Pancolar MC 50mm

Pancolar MC 80mm

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

hexi · Expire: 2011-11-18

Hi here, i agree with the following :

estudleon · Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina

hinnerker · Expire: 2015-08-09

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I hold over twenty copy of Flek 35 only a few of them had blades problem. None of them had bad optical quality just some of them was better than usual. So I keep my opinion current lens prices are not high at all.

no-X · Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:02 pm Post subject:

hinnerker: Which M42 35mm lens is cheaper and better performing than the Flektogon? I can't say it's my favourite lens, but there are many 35mm M42 lenses, which are more expensive, but worse.

Some lenses are similarly sharp stopped down - S-M-C 35/3.5 or Auto Tak 35/2.3... But none of them is also as good at wider apertures. None of them allows macro 1:2 focusing and none of them has smoother bokeh. All 35mm lenses I tried had significantly harder OOF lights.

How can be a lens considered as overpriced, if equivalent performer for a better price doesn't exist?

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

When speaking about lens prices, high, low, expensive, and cheap are all subjective terms. I have the Flek 35mm f/2.4 and also a Soligor 35mm f/2.8 T-4 lens (from way back). The Soligor can probably be had for $10, the Flek cost me $100 and most go higher. So, the Flek is high priced relative to my Soligor, but certainly not a high priced lens relative to new lenses or even the better Zeiss lenses. However, I will agree that the build quality isn't as good as it should be. On that level, I will say the Soligor is a better build. When it comes to IQ, the Flek is much better overall, although the Soligor does very well in some circumstances.

Today, and because of this thread, I took my Soligor and Flek out to do some comparison shots for my own purposes. The Flek broke. This was the second time the aperture stopped working. The first time it was an easy fix, but this time I allowed a bearing to slip out and had to disassemble more of the lens mount. What a nightmare. I still think those designers had demented minds. After several attempts to get it all back together and working, the last attempt seems to have worked. It works flawlessly now, so I'm not sure yet what I did wrong. Anyway, I think it was the A/M switch that led to the problem. Allowing the switch to get in the halfway position and changing the aperture seems to force a lever out of its sleeve.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

no-X · Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:35 am Post subject:

I was never successful to find the M42 Mir in good condition for better price then Flektogon. Maybe I'll sometimes offer a Flektogon for exchange Smile

As for S-M-C 35/2, it is sharp wide open, but it has also the most significant CA of all 35mm I have ever tried. Flektogon also has much softer bokeh and is way sharper stopped down.

Takumars are good, S-M-C 35/2.0 for low-light, S-M-C 35/3.5 for sharpness and 35/2.3 for low CA and sharpness at f/11, but 3 lenses are needed to beat 1 flektogon.

As for build quality - primary problem of black CZJ lenses is the lube. It was certified only for temperatures lower than 40°C. Reaching this temperature some substances start to evaporate and condense at the coldest part of the lens - aperture blades. The bigger blades, the sooner it will tick them together. At the era of these lenses many owners tried to fix this issue by themselves making damage like deforming the blades, decentering optics, breaking adjusted infinity focus, aperture mechanism etc. These "home-serviced" lenses caused much of the bad build-quality reputation. It was CZJ fault, but multiplied by thumby hands...

aleksanderpolo · Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 684

The flek 35/2.4 is selling for around $200 US in general, similar in price to Distagon 35/2.8. Do they have considerably different character to warrant having both? Or are they too similar?

no-X · Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:38 pm Post subject:

I don't have Distagon 35/2.8 but I can say, that optical design of Flektogon 35/2.4 is very different to flektogon 35/2.8 (which is typical early retrofocal lens), but very similar to some distagons:

estudleon · Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina

a) Price : As all of us know, while there is a buyer that want to pay determinated price to obtain certain lens, it will be the price. Market win. The price isn't subjective.

There is a buyer or not. It's objective. Now, the price formation's process can be subjective, but not the price in itself.

If one person want to pay E 200 for the flektogon 2,4/35 (or for any other lens) and do it, that will be the market's price for the lens. No more to me.

b) The M42 mount isn't the best one to wide angle lenses. I have a flek 2,4/35 and I hoped so much from it. But, in other hand, not much better 35 lenses in the M42 world.

If you like the wide angle pics, I suggest that change the mount (elmarit and distagon are the lenses to go to for me) I don't know much about nikon and canon lenses.

c) The CZJ lenses have a plastic base over one the blades are moving (open and close). That plastic base wear away with the rubbing of blades and are restraining blades. I could verify that with my own eyes and in my own lens.

Rino.

dab63 · Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject:

my_photography · Expire: 2016-12-25

dab63 · Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject:

spleenone · Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia

Once somebody start speak about L-glass everething comparing to them and nothing can compare to them... funny =)
but in glass I suppose Zeiss could beat many new Canon primes mainly in specific and own important clues.

my_photography · Expire: 2016-12-25

Spleenone, thanks for pulling us back to the topic. Will discuss the other side topics in another thread if interested. Laughing

fish4570 · Expire: 2012-03-21

nice shots with the pentacon ...

spleenone · Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia