Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What would be your first m42 lens ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject: What would be your first m42 lens ? Reply with quote
Hello again.
Have a question what would be your first lens (m42) for A-300 ?
Was looking on ebay for some used old lenses and found this two, placed bid and I won Very Happy

Helios 135mm 2.8
Hanimar 135mm 2.8

Didn't pay more then few pounds for each (I try post few samples later - like you probably didn't seen them enough) Wondering how Helios will do whit x2 converter is there will be allot quality distortion ?

Now, wish someone can guide me where I should start looking for any m42 good but cheep macro lenses and telezoom f3.5? or so...

thx for help as always and someone please explain me what's the deal with all Nikon lenses, is there is any converter to use them on Sony ? Btw, I'm selling my d7000 going pro Canon mkII Razz

ok, thats it for now ty and have a good one !


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

I could help you just for what concerns the macro lenses ...
At first, keep in mind that working macro lenses are never cheap, which means that you will hardly find a working macro lens at less that 70 or 80 euros ...

In this range of price, you can find an EBC Fujinon 55/3.5 or an SMC Takumar 50/4 (both excellent lenses), maybe a Volna-9 (but usually these sell at about 100 euros) ... Of course, there are a lot of other M42 macro lenses available, but i'm talking about what i own and use only ...

As a cheaper alternative, you can use a bellows or a focusing helical with either an Industar-50 or a Meyer Domiplan, or, even better, an enlarger lens (you can find EL Nikkors 50/2.8 at 30 or 40 euros, while the 50/4 version sells at 10...15 euros) ... Good enlarger lenses are the various Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Taylor Hobson (although those are becoming quite expensive) ...

Good luck for your fight ...


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can also personally vouch for the Vivitar 90mm 2.8 Macro, can be picked up for around £70-£90 BIN on ebay at the moment. Very, very sharp and also doubles up as a great portrait lens.


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both the 135mm lenses you have puchased should perform well. The Hanimar (mine is an auto-S version) has some lovely creamy bokeh, whilst the Helios is quite sharp.

Another option for macro (on the cheap!) would be a Tamron Adaptall-2 or SP lens. Most of these have a macro function, and whilst not at 1:1 ratio, they generally get you very close! And they're cheap!


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All sounds good I like prices around 50-70 pounds not more since atm it's only my passion not style of living Wink Will search for sure lenses that you guys posted and I will see how it will end up for me.
As for now I found new Tokina 70-210 f4.5 - 6 for quite good money, any good word about this lens ?

Wondering what happens when x2 converter and Helios will work together? Do I will loose quality and if yes how much ?

Need to learn so much about all this I never ever expected that I will find peace with old lenses and camera body Smile


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have two advice to you:

> Roam around the forum;
> Keep an eye out for eBay once in a while.

There are some useful threads around here and you will soon find the urge of looking for the lenses that pack an incredible price-quality ratio.

eBay is the best source for that, other than flee markets of course. You will have to deal with the fact that some people just do not know what they are selling and others are simply out of luck and you get to buy the stuff for way less than they are worth.


PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To me, the obvious answer is a Helios 44!

You can pick em up for pennies and I love them so much I have 7 copies, very robust, sharp, good colours and contrast, excellent bokeh, built like a tank, what's not to love?


PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
To me, the obvious answer is a Helios 44!

You can pick em up for pennies and I love them so much I have 7 copies, very robust, sharp, good colours and contrast, excellent bokeh, built like a tank, what's not to love?


Have two 50mm and 135mm luv em all ! :]
I will try my luck with any 1,4 out there maybe outbid some1 if im lucky enough Razz

Doing two auctions for Soligor and minolta both going for quite cheep atm so hoping I will won Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Heh! My first M42 lens was a 50/1.9. I bought it when I was a teenager. It was the kit lens that came with my brand new Yashica TL Electro. Didn't take me long to figure out that I could use my Dad's Asahi Pentax SMC 50/1.4 and 135/3.5 with the Yashica.


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If your interest is macro, just get a set of m42 extension tubes. They only cost a few pounds. Other cheap options are m42 mount bellows and reversing rings. In fact you could buy all 3 for around 20 quid.


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I were to start over again, I would resist the real cheap lenses. It's too easy to collect a pile of cheepies that ultimately will receive little or no use. I'd scour this forum and others to learn of the better lenses in the different focal lengths and then hold out for the right deals. The money not spent on the bargain bin will fund the little extra the better lenses get.


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
If I were to start over again, I would resist the real cheap lenses. It's too easy to collect a pile of cheepies that ultimately will receive little or no use. I'd scour this forum and others to learn of the better lenses in the different focal lengths and then hold out for the right deals. The money not spent on the bargain bin will fund the little extra the better lenses get.


I sort of agree with this. However, if you are an inveterate tinkerer and want to get used to what the various mounts/focal lengths/apertures are capable of, then amassing a collection of cheapies will give you plenty of material to play with. You should, as Woodrim says, keep your main eye on the quality stuff though. Smile


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
If I were to start over again, I would resist the real cheap lenses. It's too easy to collect a pile of cheepies that ultimately will receive little or no use. I'd scour this forum and others to learn of the better lenses in the different focal lengths and then hold out for the right deals. The money not spent on the bargain bin will fund the little extra the better lenses get.

+10


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
If I were to start over again, I would resist the real cheap lenses. It's too easy to collect a pile of cheepies that ultimately will receive little or no use. I'd scour this forum and others to learn of the better lenses in the different focal lengths and then hold out for the right deals. The money not spent on the bargain bin will fund the little extra the better lenses get.


Some true words, but...
... hunting for and trying out lenses is also fun. And that's only really possible with cheap lenses. Wink
In the long run, you will only use the really good lenses on a regular basis. Here I agree.


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I could begin again, I should chose

11/18 fish eye takumar

2/35 SMC Takumar

2/85 J-9

2,8/135- Steinheil D macro.

Exotic one: 1,2/55 MC porst. The last tomioka made, I guess.

Rino.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
woodrim wrote:
If I were to start over again, I would resist the real cheap lenses. It's too easy to collect a pile of cheapies that ultimately will receive little or no use. I'd scour this forum and others to learn of the better lenses in the different focal lengths and then hold out for the right deals. The money not spent on the bargain bin will fund the little extra the better lenses get.


Some true words, but...
... hunting for and trying out lenses is also fun. And that's only really possible with cheap lenses. Wink
In the long run, you will only use the really good lenses on a regular basis. Here I agree.


Lucis is of course right and I should have acknowledged the urge to tinker or "discover" would be a challenge to resist. Still, for me, to do it over would be to learn from first experience, and what I learned was that common, ordinary, and cheap lenses were just that. I also learned that mount conversions were not worth the effort when the lenses were also available with M42 mounts.

I have observed what I perceive to be an interesting reaction to most ordinary lenses; people usually report out positive results almost as if they're surprised to get recognizable images. The truth is, as I see it, that the different between an ordinary lens and a great one is somewhere around 2% to 5%. Many times differences can't be appreciated until you've pixel peeped or put the lenses through rigorous exercises and side by side comparisons of the results. With all of that understood, we still seek out those more highly regarded lenses for the extra 2% of performance they deliver. However, I should also acknowledge that there is more than image quality; to a lesser extent, but still important, are factors such as ease of use - focusing and feel. Then there are the fashion and status aspects of being seen with a good looking lens or a brand name. I can say that I have successfully resisted those factors since I have some very ugly lenses.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think that both (Lucispictor and Woodrim) are speacking of different situations.
It seems to me than Lucispictor refered to try lenses, like play a beauty game.
And Woodrim give his opinion about a different use, perhaps from an another point of view.

Those uses can coexist. There are a lot of lenses for the two points of view.

Rino


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rino: Lucis and I are not really very far apart. I do recognize the fun factor and I have enjoyed doing that myself. But I'm offering the opinion that in the end, it is not very practical and the "fun" lenses will serve little benefit, and with that Lucis and I agree.

Remember, we're talking about cheap lenses. There are also some very good lenses which are relatively inexpensive; the Helios 44 being one good example, some Jupiters another.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
...........Remember, we're talking about cheap lenses. There are also some very good lenses which are relatively inexpensive; the Helios 44 being one good example, some Jupiters another.


YES!!!!!! Laughing Laughing

Regards.

Rino.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
If I were to start over again, I would resist the real cheap lenses. It's too easy to collect a pile of cheepies that ultimately will receive little or no use. I'd scour this forum and others to learn of the better lenses in the different focal lengths and then hold out for the right deals. The money not spent on the bargain bin will fund the little extra the better lenses get.


I sort of agree. I bought a load of lenses that turned out to be junk but I also bought some at the same bargain bin price that turned out to be very good, however, the ones that are good are the ones you would have expected to be good!

The Good I got very cheap:

Pentacon 1.8/50
Pentacon 2.8/28
Pentacon 4/200
Petri CC Auto 1.8/55
Helios 44-2 2/58
Helios 44-M4 2/58
Jupiter-11A 4/135
Meyer-Optik Primotar 3.5/135
Schneider Componon-S 4.5/100

The Bad I got very cheap:

Aritar 3.5/35
Paragon PMC 3.3/200
Albinar 3.5/200
Aldis 2.5/85
Derek Gardner 2.8/135
Mirage 2.8/135
Hanimex 3.5/35
Promura 5/300
Pentor 5.6/300
Meyer-Optik Domiplan 2.8/50
plus about a dozen zoom lenses

One good point about all the bad lenses I bought is that I learnt the different between crap IQ and good IQ. For instance, to really appreciate how good my Tair-3C 300mm is, I had to use some other 300mm lenses, they were awful by comparison. Same with the Albinar and Paragon 200s, I thought they were decent until I got a Pentacon 4/200...

I think the caveat to the tip on not buying the bargain bin stuff is to only spend very little on them, that way you have some fun trying them out and learning about lenses without having wasted much cash if it is junk. Sometimes you will stumble across the odd gem like I did with the Petri 1.8/55 which I paid 99p for and is a stunning gem of a lens.

Do your research is a good way to save money on the obvious junk lenses, you will pick up many tips on the forums but also, remember that if you can read that someone like Attila loves his Hexanons or Arkku loves his EBC Fujinons or I love my PB mount Pentacons then so can everyone else and these lenses then increase in price as they become more sought-after.

For instance, after recent discussions on this forum, I bet the prices of ML series Yashica lenses goes up but the price of DSB series Yashicas goes down.

So do try out some cheapies but also do your research to learn what to avoid and what is worth taking a risk on...

Good luck and happy hunting!


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Rino: Lucis and I are not really very far apart. I do recognize the fun factor and I have enjoyed doing that myself. But I'm offering the opinion that in the end, it is not very practical and the "fun" lenses will serve little benefit, and with that Lucis and I agree.

Remember, we're talking about cheap lenses. There are also some very good lenses which are relatively inexpensive; the Helios 44 being one good example, some Jupiters another.


+1

I'd love there to be a list of 'known to be good' cheap lenses but it would be self-defeating because the lenses on the list would then increase in price!

However, the Soviets did produce so many copies of some lenses that they will always be commonly available probably, I don't see the supply of Helios-44s, Industar-50s or Jupiter-8s drying up anytime soon, probably not in my lifetime!


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Meh. Misread the question. In my sleep-deprived state I thought...never mind.

As for what M42 lenses I would buy first? They've been pretty well covered. They need to be in the focal length and speed that is useful to you, and they need to be in good condition.

Don't worry overmuch about the "best" lens. The difference between a poor lens and a good lens is noticeable, but, depending on the subject, often isn't critical. And, you'd have to study a pair of photos to tell the difference between a great lens and a good lens, assuming proper technique was used with both photos--if not, then the one taken with the superior technique will be the better quality image.

Lens 'quality' falls far down the list as to what makes a great photo. For example, look up Galen Rowell. He took many great photos, and he usually used lightweight (for easy carry), inexpensive, consumer-grade cameras and lenses that wouldn't merit more than a scornful mention on an equipment snob's list.

One of my favorite quotes is by Ansel Adams:
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

The one M42 lens I wish I still had? An Asahi Pentax 50/1.4 SMC Super Takumar.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, panam, the OP, aske what would be my first M42 lens.

Thing about firsts is you don't always know when they're gonna happen, or what they're gonna be.

I bought my first M42 lens at a second hand store. It was a Helios-44M with caps in close to mint condition. Paid $20 for it. I wouldn't mind finding a good 135mm f/2.8 to go with it, but I haven't been looking all that hard for one, really.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Galen Rowell mostly used Nikons and Nikon lenses are pretty good...

Shame he isn't around today to see what he would have done with modern hdr techniques, he did a lot of work into getting the most out of the dynamic range of film.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Galen Rowell mostly used Nikons and Nikon lenses are pretty good...

Shame he isn't around today to see what he would have done with modern hdr techniques, he did a lot of work into getting the most out of the dynamic range of film.

Oh, no question that most Nikon gear is pretty good. But he did not always use "the best". Very commonly, he used cheap, light Nikons like the N90, FM10, and FE10 cams--not exactly cream of the crop. He did have high end gear like the F4 and lenses like the 35/1.4 Ais and 85/1.4 Ais, but he frequently used the 20/4 Ai, 35/3.5 Ai, and the AF 28-80/3.5-5.6, a very cheap, light, plastic lens. He used the cheap, light gear because he could carry it anywhere and be ready for anything that cropped up. One of his famous shots is of the rainbow over the Tibetan palace, taken with a Nikon Series E 75-150 (which was made by Kiron, not Nikon)

All the cheap, light lenses he liked to use were on par with some of the better M42 lenses, and better than most people thought. But they were not high end, top of the line optics by any stretch. And that is my point.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2