Some Suggestions?

[magkelly]

I'm looking for an M42 wide angle to complete my Pentax lens set and I'm wondering what to get. I'm not really seeing anything in the Takumar range I can afford and I was wondering if maybe Vivitar was the way to go?

Anyone want to suggest one I should look out for? Cheap is really a necessity for right now, but semi-decent would of course be nice too. I've got pretty much everything else at this point.

Thanks!

[Kathmandu]

Personally, I have a Vemar @35mm , 2 Soligors @28mm wide ,that I bought as bargain lenses, and have liked the results. Vivitar has good wide angle lenses(from results I have seen) ,but could be pricey too depending on what make it is. "Bigdawg' here is a Vivitar efficiniado and can saturate you with info on Vivitar-I hope he is reading this.

[ManualFocus-G]

The 28xxxxx serial Vivitar 28/2.8 is a superb lens, as is the Tamron Adaptall-2 28/2.5 and both can be had pretty cheaply

[RioRico]

Right now, at this very moment, on the bay are to be found Super Takumars 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 for very very little money. Outside the wide range, the Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 is a real gem, small and incredibly cheap. Don't give up!

[Attila]

Super-Takumar 20mm f4.5

[Big Dawg]

[Attila]

[no-X]

[ramiller500]

Chinon M42 wide angles (marked Japan on front ring) are good.

[cooltouch]

Once you get down to the 20mm range, things start getting pretty pricey, pretty much regardless of who made the lens. Exceptions exist, but this is often the case.

I would recommend you set your sights on a 24mm. Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, whatever. They'll all most likely be decent optics. The reason why I recommend a 24mm is because it will give you everything a 28mm will, plus a lot more. Once I bought a 24mm for my first SLR outfit, my 28mm never came out of my bag again.

[magkelly]

Okay, that really helps. Thanks, all of you. I don't know much about wide angle lenses yet. I wasn't sure of which MM to go for. I was thinking 28MM but it sounds like 20-24 is better. One question for later when I get my Pentax DSLR does the 18-55MM kit lens cover that range effectively and/or how do manual wide angle lenses actually work on DSLR's? What I am reading on that score is a bit confusing. Seems like DSLR's work with wide angle lenses differently then SLR's? I understand that some lenses the range is different because it's on a DSLR.

[luisalegria]

I find the Pentax 18-55 kit lens very good indeed, or at least the one that came with my K-x

I have no wide-angle lenses that are better, technically, and I do have an excellent Pentax-M 24mm to compare it with.

Maybe a truly expensive Zeiss wide angle would do better, but my eyes are not good enough or my taste educated enough to make such distinctions.

I still like using the 19mm f/3.8 Vivitar (made by Cosina), but not because its a better lens, its certainly not as good. The reason is it seems faster to get into action using hyperfocal techniques (you use the scale on the lens to focus to a guesstimated distance and depend on depth of field to cover your subject). Its faster getting on a fleeting subject than waiting for the AF lens to focus.

[cooltouch]

[martinsmith99]

On a crop sensor DSLR I would not bother with a wide angle MF lens as the price will be high. Stick with the Pentax zoom as it will probably be wider and better quality than than anything you can afford at this time.

If you can get a Vivitar 19mm it may not break the bank. I have one and use it a lot on FF & 35mm cameras. Again, your Pentax zoom will be wider and likely beat it on quality.

[RioRico]

Ah, focal lengths are endlessly fascinating! Yes, a 100mm lens is still 100mm no matter whether it's on a LF (large format), MF (medium format), FF (full frame), HF (half frame = APS-C), m4/3, or 110 camera. The sensor/film frame just sees different amounts of the projected image. We talk about 'equivalents' because that's easy FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH FILM. If you haven't pumped film, forget you ever heard the obscene phrase "crop factor".

Still , there *are* angle-of-view / field-of-view (AOV /FOV) equivalents. Back in the day, a working 35mm fotog might a bunch of prime lenses: 24 or 28mm, 35mm, 50 or 55mm, 85mm, 135mm. These fall into certain classes. Here are the FF and FH / APS-C equivalents:

FullFrame - HF / APS-C - class
21mm ----- 14mm ------ ultra wide
24-28mm - 16-20mm -- wide
35mm ----- 24mm ------ moderate wide
43mm ----- 28mm ------ wide-normal
50-55mm - 35-37mm -- long-normal
85-90mm - 50-58mm -- portrait
135mm --- 85-100mm - short tele
200mm --- 135mm ----- tele

The DA18-55 kit lens is quite decent and a real bargain. You'll notice that its range covers the wide-to-portrait classes. Practice, and you'll get a feel for which focal lengths (FL's) you use most. There are a few reasons for buying prime lenses (manual are much cheaper than autofocus) in that 18-55mm range:

* Some primes are MUCH faster than the kit at the same FL.
* Some primes are noticeably sharper at wider apertures.
* Many primes are easy to pre-focus, to better exploit DOF.
* Some primes are drenched in pixie dust for magic images.

When I got my K20D and AF360 flash, the lenses I chose were the DA10-17 fisheye, DA18-250 superzoom, and FA50/1.4 Fast Fifty. I got the DA18-55 later, and I use it, but not as much as the others. And I got a Zenitar 16/2.8 because it's wider than the 18's, and faster than the 10-17. So, the primes I'm likely to carry (but not all at once!) include:

* Zenitar 16/2.8 -- fast, wide, not too expensive
* Tokina 21/3.8 -- slow, wide, cheap, great for streets
* variously a 24/2.8 or 28/2.8 or 35/2.8 -- educational (and cheap)
* FA50/1.4 or M50/1.7 or 50/4 macro -- fast and magic
* Nikkor 85/2 or Vivitar 90/2.8 macro -- portraits, short tele, etc
* Takumar-B 135/2.5 and Tele-Tak 200/5.6 -- longer magic (and cheap)

You'll find that many others carry similar glass -- more expensive if they can afford it, thrift-shop specials otherwise. It's great fun to find something cheap and/or weird, and see how it performs. I have about a dozen impoverished Fast Fifty's that need to be taken out and exercised more, and compared -- a shoot-out!

Enough of that -- back to wider glass. Unfortunately, it's expensive. About the cheapest is the Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye for under US$200. I was lucky to get that Tokina 21/3.8 for US$25 but it's slow and not that wide. At 16mm and wider, prices skyrocket. Cheap (and not so cheap) wide-angle and fisheye adapters exist, and they almost universally suck. Alas, someday you're likely to fall for the siren call of a 10-20. You will be unable to resist. You are doomed. Welcome!

[mo]

great information happening here!

[magkelly]

Right now I'm learning. I've been shooting mainly with my Fuji S7000 which is an upscale point and shoot, but lately also with 2 old SLR kits, one Pentax SPII, one Yashica. The Fuji does have some manual settings like an DSLR but it's not nearly as advanced and what lenses you can buy for it are pretty lame. No advanced settings at all, which is why I also got the SLR's so I could learn to use real lenses properly.

At the moment the Yashica FX-2 is out of commission. It's got hinge issues and needs foam replacement. I may get that repaired eventually but for now I'm seriously thinking about replacing it with an FR-I as I've read some good things about those.

I did have a pair of FX-3 2000's one working, one not, but I gave those to someone else earlier tonight. After using the one for a bit I really just didn't like that camera nearly as much as the FX-2. The FR-I seems like it would be a good replacement. It's sturdier than the FX-3's and it's also all black which I like.

For the Yashica cameras I have a 28MM Soligor, a 50MM DSB, 135MM YUS, 75-300MM Vivitar. For the Pentax I have 50MM/55MM Takumar, 105MM Takumar, 135MM Rokinon, 75-260 Vivitar, and a Sunagar 500MM coming Friday. The last two are T-mounts and I may just get the Yashica T-adapter too so I can use them with the Yashica as well.

Long range plans, DSLR, preferably Pentax K-x if I don't end up settling for an earlier one used. But a Nikon might be a possibility too maybe if I happen to get a good deal on one. Pentax is hard to buy here, no stores here that sell them. I do plan on using the M42's on whichever one I get with the appropriate adapter. I'm going to go with the kit lens though as well and maybe with a digital 75-300mm. I'm hoping to have one for Christmas, but even if Santa doesn't oblige I definitely want one by late next Spring, even if I have to settle for an *ist or something similar.

I'm currently a student photographer on a really tight budget but I'm going pro eventually. I want to end up doing a lot of stock work and portraits and such. I'm not into doing big events like weddings or sports and other action stuff. A lot of the work I'll be doing is in the boudoir and maternity, portraits field. I'll also be doing some work with kids, and show people, portfolios and the like, again mostly portrait work.

The best lenses for me have to be the portrait lenses. They're top priority. I'm also a birder so that's why I wanted the 2 longer lenses I bought. I don't do much that requires a really fast lens. How good and sharp a lens is that's far more important to me than how fast it is.

Also I like to be in total control of my settings. I'm not big on the camera/lens deciding things for me. I've actually had to shoot a lot in the auto modes with my Fuji. What you can actually do in manual mode with it can be pretty limiting sometimes. The Fuji, it's just enough of a decent camera to tease sometimes but it's limitations can really drive you nuts if you want to be in full control. It's been a real joy not having to do that with my SPII but I really want the best of both worlds eventually, manual lenses and a great digital body with full capacity in the manual mode.

When I go pro I want 2 DSLR's both from the same camera maker. I'm probably going to go with a K-x if I can afford one, or the later version thereof and also with a K-7, ditto, for shooting outside. Probably won't do a heck of a lot of work where I need an all-weather body, but with doing portfolios I do anticipate doing some beach work and I eventually want one camera that's resistant to sand, rain etc, and one to use for mostly indoor studio work. I want to start out with the K-x, but money-wise, realistically I'm probably going to get stuck with an earlier model for a while.

[8310]

If using your M42 lenses on your future DSLR is important to you, better do not get a Nikon. Adapting M42 to Nikon F is either very difficult to impossible or results in image degradation.
Go for a Pentax or a Canon.

How about a Mir-20M? It would be super wide for now, but still a wide angle lens when used on digital. I have never used one, but its results do not seem to be that bad.
I think there is one being sold in the marketplace right now.

[magkelly]

Hmm, that's interesting. Didn't realize that. So many adapters out there for M42 to Nikon I figured it must be okay. The Nikons I've seen locally, not bad, but I'm not much of a Canon fan. I don't much like their DSLR's from what I've seen of them so far.

They have plenty of Canon and some Nikon locally at Target, Walmart, Best Buy etc, but no Pentax unfortunately. Pentax is still likely what I'll get even if I will probably have to order online or take a trip to get one. I'm about 85% sure that's what I want to do.

I may settle for an *ist for a while, but I do have my heart set on something newer at some point. As my pro semi-pro camera I like the K-7 but that K-x is really singing a siren song too. I do want to see what Sept and the big photo show brings. Supposedly we're getting K-5 and K-r now too so maybe it's good that my wallet isn't quite there yet. The prices on the other two may drop a bit and that would be good.