Good Russian M42 lenses?

[exe163]

Hi, I am about to get a E-P1 (waiting for the 17mm kit), thinking about joining to wonderful vintage MF lens world. I have Nikon as main SLR, which is one of the worse MF capable camera with large register distance, which left me in ignorance about non-nikkor lenses.

I stumble across a large quantity of Russian made M42 lenses, and they goes for close to nothing. Are they worth checking out? Could you guys compile a list of good quality and yet not very expensive lens in M42 mount (and include relative street price if possible)?

I notice there are CZJ and takuma also in the same mount, but they often goes for a lot more b/c of their renounced optic. If there are any cheap ones you can add to the mix would be greatly appreciated.

P.S.: What exactly does APO and ASPH on newer lenses stand for?

[xjjohnno]

Helios 44 which is a 58mm prime has a few model runs but all worth considering. Expect to pay $20ish. The Tair 11A which is 135mm is quite tasty as well. Got mine for about $40 but that was a steal.
I'm sure you are going to be impressed by the choices as other members here add to the list.

[no-X]

APO = apochromatic, it's a better way how to correct chromatic aberration... however, depending on many factors (lens design, focal length, lens speed...) you can find non APO lens, which has lower chromatic aberation than some APO lenses (e.g. some tessars and triplets have really low chromatic aberration)

ASPH - I think it stands for "aspherical". Lenses were developed mostly so that all glass elements had spherical shaped surface. New materials and power of new computers allows to use aspherical surfaces - it allows better correction of some optical aberrations, it also allows easier construction (less optical elements, less lens weight and dimensions)

Cheap and good russian M42 lenses are:

• Mir-1 / Mir-1B 37/2.8 (sharpness depends on copy)
  
• Industar-50-2 50/3.5
  
• Helios-44-2 or 44-3 MC 58/2
  
• Helios-44M-6 MC
  
• Helios-77M MC or 77M-4 MC
  
• Jupiter-11 or 11A 135/4
  
• Jupiter-37A or 37AM 135/3.5 (both are available in MC version, but it's rare)

Helios "44-series" lenses use pre-set aperture system and are less variable in optical quality. Helios "44M-series" lenses are more variable in optical quality. 44M and 44M-4 are not sharper than 44-2 and 44-3 MC, so I wouldn't recommend them. 44M-6 is sharper, so it can be worth the risk.

All of these lenses can be found <$40. Exakt price depends on copy, condition etc.

[Anu]

If you need lightweight reach for the lightweight camera, you might want to consider Soviet MC 3M-5CA mirror lens - 500mm f/8 (in-body image stabilizer helps quite a bit). Mine cost 70 or so euros, so it isn't necessarily too expensive.

Almost forgot: buy CZJ 135/3.5 - absolutely stunnig lens and it is rather inexpensive - with luck you can get one in exellent condition under 50€.

[Orio]

Here's the best ones for me:

MIR-24 (35mm f/2)
Volna-9 (50mm f/2.8 macro)
Jupiter-37 (135mm f/3.5)
Jupiter-21 (200mm f/4)
TAIR-11 (135mm f/2.8 )

[WolverineX]

my Russian lenses are:

Mir-1 (37mm f/2, - for me nice lens for landscapes
Volna-9 (50mm f/2.8 macro) - just acquired it and have yet to try it but it's famed as great macro lens
Jupiter-21 (200mm f/4) - absolute favorite of mine
Industar 50-2 (50mm f/3,5) - miniature in size , nice performance
Industar 61LZ (50mm f/2. - razor sharp, useful as a macro lens
Tair 3 (300mm f/4,5) - sharp telephoto lens, but heavy, not really suitable to put on E-P1
several Helios 44 (58mm f/2)

[Attila]

As you seen from above lists all Russian lenses are at least good and better than average ones. Some of them outstanding if you able to get a good copy (quality control wasn't their strongest part...)

In my experience I found two outstanding Russian lenses

1# Helios-40 8,5cm f1.5 earliest one.
2# Zenitar 16mm fish eye.

[exe163]

Thanks, I am overwhelmed! It would be great if you could include some kind of unit after the price. For some reason, most of you are from Europe, while the site is located in the states .

Can you guys teach me a history lesson here? I can't find any information related to these Russian manufactures. The only thing I know (might be wrong) is that Helio is based on CZ lens design.

I think I will start my 'collection' from a Helios lens. As I am not much of a collector myself, a quick ebay search "helios m42" brings up a number of variation of 58/2 lenses. Which one should I get if I were to only keep one? Also how come Helios only make 58mm and 85mm (in 20:1 ratio) lenses?

[lahnet]

Helios 58mm are so cheap that I would recommend you to find a seller that have 2 or 3 different types, take also a Industar while you are at it

Maybe aldd a Jupiter 135mm or a Tair 135mm.

That will minimize your shipping cost, and kick-start your collection.

[Attila]

Buy all cheap ones without hesitation and try them. It is great fun and ask us before buy $$ ones (not many out there).

[hexi]

I bought mine 22€. It was just a bit dusty on the outside, otherwise lenses and overall condition is great. Its a Helios 44M 58mm, very good lens highly recommended, and as prices go higher, and people at least realise that those lenses are worth keeping afterall, buy one as quick as you can

[mflex-on]

my experiences

Mir-1 2.8/37 silver finish, ZM39, can be adapted for M42
corners quite soft on a fullframe DSLR,
sharp from corner to corner at aperture 5.6 and 8,
contrast loss at 11 and over
i like colour rendering

Jupiter-11 4/135 silver finish, ZM39, can be adapted for M42
is ok but not very sharp, nice colours

Jupiter-12 2.8/35 silver finish, LTM39
outstanding rendering of colours and detail on film

Industar 61LZ
not suitable for fullframe DSLR, too bad corners. Should be nice on a APS DSLR

[Sztywny]

I prefer Jupiter 9 85/2 , Mir 20/3,5 and that's all , becouse I don't play with others lenses

[martinsmith99]

Take a look at Zentit cameras. They usually come with a Helios or an Industar on. It's usually cheaper to buy this way rather than the lens separetly.

[Univer]

Hi All,

Maybe I can add a specific question to the OP's general one.

I've had my Industar-61 for about a month now (using it on an *istDL), and I've been delighted with the results. I've had great fun, especially, with closeups taken in the garden.

In fact, I'm so fond of the Industar that I'm seriously considering adding a Volna-9 as well. I've read the relevant threads here, and I've admired the online photos taken with this lens. My question: do you reckon the improved macro performance (or the different "look") of the Volna justifies owning this lens as well as the Industar?

Thanks!

Jon

[aoleg]

[yalcinaydin]

I also want an E-Pen but I would definitely choose the olympus-om Zuikos as they are smaller and lighter which makes them more suitable for the E-Pen. For M42 I used and liked Volna-9, Tair-11, HElios 55-2

[cheve]

[no-X]

Tessar formula:
CZJ Tessar 40/4.5 (rare, very sharp even at f/4.5, but incompatible with some DSLR cameras)
CZJ Tessar 50/3.5 (rare, only alu/crome version available)
CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (old version: alu/chrome barrel, recalculated version: zebra/black/prakticar)
Industar 50 and 50-2 50/3.5 (cheap)
Industar 61, 61 L/Z and 61 L/Z MC 50/2.8
Super/S-M-C Macro Takumar 50/4 and some other f/3.5-4 macro lenses
There are some Meyer lenses which are very likely based on Tessar formula, but I have no idea how they perform (50 and 8xmm Primotars)

All tessar lenses are sharp - the new CZJ Tessars are a bit better than the old ones. Some of these lenses are sharp as e.g. S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 or MC Pancolar 50/1.8, some of them are slightly less sharp.

Triplets have soft corners and sharp (sometimes very sharp) centre. The most known are Meyer Trioplan 50/2.9 (very sharp centre even f/2.9), Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8, Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4.5. There are many other triplet based lenses, but they are known for significant variability and many copies can be bad (Domiplan, Meritar).

These triplets are very good for close-up: sharp center (borders are not important because of bokeh), low or zero axial CA and many of them have very specific bokeh - which is very dependable on actual aperture value (Trioplans).

[Banjo]

[conor12]

[karabud]

Mir 24n for me is brilliant lens for small and medium-distance:)
Helios 44 i good for portraits (depends on the model)

[Krisgage]

For me is Helios 44M , 44-2 ; Jupiter-37A and 11A, Industar 61 macro

[burrencrawler]

[memetph]

I use M42 lenses on MfT cameras ( Pana) .
I recommend you the Super Takumar or SMC 55mm f1.8 or f2 and the Helios 58 f2 model 44-2. Regarding the Helios I prefer the 44-2 to later M versions.
They are very nice teleobjectives for MFT. Thery are sharp and have a avery nice out of focus.
You should use them with a teleobjective hood for better results. You can also make beautiful close-ups with them.

I have other soviets , Jupiter 8 and 37, Mir 1, Industar. I don't find them so useful with my MFT cameras. If you want a soviet long tele you could consider the Jupiter 9, 11 or 37. The last is the most affordable.