Opinions about M42 lenses needed

[kyrcy]

Which of following M42 lenses are worth buying?


Wide angle:

Porst Super Weitwinkel auto N 28mm f/2.8 S/N:7xxxxx

Ringfoto Auto 28mm f/3.5 S/N:2xxxxxx

MC Super Albinar Auto 28mm f/2.8 S/N:7xxxxx

Pentacon auto MC 29mm f/2.8 S/N:4xxxxxx

Auto Chinon 35mm f/2.8 S/N:5xxxxx

Soligor 35mm f/2.8 S/N:2xxxxxx

Super Travenar 35mm f/2.8 S/N:7xxxxx


Telephoto:

Pallas Magenta AM 135mm f/2.8 S/N:2xxxxx

Auto Exaktar 135mm f/2.8 S/N:7xxxxxx

Soligor Auto Telephoto 135mm f/2.8 S/N:3xxxxx

Auto-Revuenon MC 135mm f/2.8 S/N:8xxxxx

Auto Albinar Special 135mm f/2.8 S/N:2xxxxx

Optomax 135mm f/3.5 S/N:5xxxxx

Prinzflex Auto Reflex 135mm f/3.5 S/N:7xxxxx

Optomax 200mm f/4.5 S/N:5xxxx

Raynox Auto Tele 200mm f/3.5 S/N:0xxxxxx

Auto Albinar Special 200mm f/3.5 S/N:7xxxxx


I could not find much information about most of the lenses so any opinions are welcome.

I am mostly interested about image quality without having to stop down the lens a lot.

[cooltouch]

Of all the lenses you mention, I have personal experience with only one: the Albinar 28mm f/2.8. Mine also had a "macro" mode, of sorts, and was in Canon FD mount. The lens I owned wasn't very good. It just wasn't capable of producing sharp photos. This was back in my slide shooting days, so I can only compare it to other lenses I had at the time. It definitely wasn't as sharp as my Canon 50mm f/1.8. I also owned an Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9 zoom back then, which was a surprisingly good lens. Much better than the 28mm.

[Minolfan]

I only have experience with Pentacon auto MC 29mm f/2.8 but S/N: 98xxxxx.
I have two copies of that lens, one never sharp, but the other is a very nice and sharp lens.
So you need some luck with that lens, no general advice from me

[Lloydy]

the Super Travenar was almost certainly the worst lens I've ever had, but it could have been a bad copy. It's a lens that turns up under many different names.
Soligor 35 / 2.8 - mine is a decent lens, but there are many variations of style and manufacturer of the Soligors - the same goes for the 135 / 2.8 - mine is a Tokina 135 / 2.8 which is excellent, a very good lens.

The same goes for the other lenses on the list, they are branded by a retailer or a distributor - the Prinzflex is the store brand of Dixons in the UK - and they are lenses sourced from various manufacturers, basically they are a lottery because the retailers would change suppliers at any time as long as they had "a 135 / 2.8" to sell.

I have a good Optomax lens, a very good Chinon and a very poor one, and a lot of Soligor - the majority are good to excellent.

[exaklaus]

[DigiChromeEd]

[quote="exaklaus"]

[spiralcity]

The Chinon should perform adequately, the price point should be reasonable, so you really cant lose.

[marcusBMG]

[ManualFocus-G]

I'd save up a little more money and buy lenses with known good performance, especially if you need decent performance at wide apertures.

That said, if you fancy a bit of fun, buy some of them but only at very low prices. That way you can evaluate yourself and sell on without much loss if they are rubbish.

There ARE some gems out there e.g. Tokina made Soligor 300/5.5 preset lens. Look out for the Miranda 24/2.8 too, that one is pretty decent from f/4.

[Attila]

none of them , you not able to sell it if you get bored or just for peanuts , I bought many cheapos like these to try them out. All went free to vintage market to my friend, I spent money and never get back a single cents. If you buy more respected lenses and you get bored you able to sell them easily , very low price okay on a few items, but don't buy many of them.
At F8 all lenses will be usable in list , you can expect at least ok sharpness and details ,lower contrast , that is all.

[visualopsins]

There is some kind of value in trying many lenses. Looking through many lenses gives experience most photographers of the past never had. We need every advantage to get past their attainment.

[cooltouch]

[sceptic]

As others before me have already said, those lenses are bottom-of-the-barrel and shouldn't be bought for their superior optical properties.
I've bought my share of similar lenses, often as part of a kit containing a more desirable lens (Takumars, for instance), but now try and avoid them. They take up vaulable real estate in my cupboards and are hard (if not impossible) to sell at a reasonable price.

They do however make for perfect "training dummies" if you want to practice lens repair/re-lubing/aperture blade cleaning (I always recommend people to practice on lenses they can afford to ruin).

Also, sometimes they come with a nice quality filter attached which can be worth more than the lens itself (I've bought junk lenses with B+W filters attached, more than doubling its value)

[buerokratiehasser]

Most of them are relabels, so it's hard to tell without photos.

But is the Raynox (never had one) in the same clunk class?


Sight unseen i'd probably go for Pentacon 29 if only because it's a well known lens. Porst Super Weitwinkel maybe though I never had one, could be a good lens relabeled.

From the teles well, good 135/2.8 are very common anyway. The Super Albinar maybe.

[valjo]

My Recomendation (personal used):
Optomax 200mm f/4.5

[valjo]

Optomax 4.5/200mm, f=4.5

[spiralcity]

I guess the question is what expectations do you have? I have used the Chinon and it's OK, so I disagree with most of the negative comments on that particular lens. I own an Optomax 400mm which is OK, I spent 20.00 dollars for it. I don't buy glass to make a profit by reselling it, I usually just keep my glass, I do not consider 20.00 a huge loss if a lens doesn't meet my expectations. To be honest, if I spent 20.00 on a lens I wouldn't expect much from it at all, it would just be a curiosity buy. If 20.00 is a huge sum to you, then save up for better glass, but if your buying one of these lenses just for the fun factor, then go for it.


Optomax 400 with 2x doubler.