Best 50mm m42 lens?

What is the best fast fifty (-ish) lens in m42? Two answers are commonly given. (1) The Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f1.8, period. (Or alternatively the 50mm f1.4.) (2) Virtually all standard kit lenses are competent performers, most models in good condition will be more than enough (especially if shooting film).

What’s good about the Takumar? It has excellent optics: both the optical formula (sharpness, control of aberrations) and the coatings (contrast, flare-resistance), as well as the more elusive features of rendering and bokeh. It’s well-built, light and ergonomic. It’s plentiful and affordable (the 50mm f1.4 somewhat less so).

Whether or not you agree that one of the Takumars is the very best m42 fast fifty, it makes sense to take it as a point of comparison. So I’m looking for two kinds of comment. First, I’m interested to hear if you think some other lens equals or ideally outperforms the Takumar(s) as an all-around fast fifty — and why. Second, do suggest lenses that may not be on a par with the Takumars in all (most) respects, but still have a feature in which they are superior. For instance, the Helios 44 can make swirly bokeh, while the Pentacon 50mm f1.8 has the minimum focussing distance of one foot (compared to the Takumar’s 1.5 feet).

What else is out there? The (EBC) Fujinons 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 are sometimes entered as contenders for the best all-around fast fifty, and in any case they stand out for their open-aperture-metering capability with the Fujicas; the 55mm f1.6 and f2.2 are at least unusual. The Tomiokas (and ‘Tomiokas’) 55mm f1.4 and f1.2 are worth having for their speed, though they are also rather bulky (and expensive, at least the latter). The Zuiko 50mm f1.8 is as well-built as the Takumar, but is smaller and can focus down to 40cm (as opposed to 45cm); the 50mm f1.4 is supposed to be good too. The Orikkor 50mm f2 is not one of the fastest, but is smaller still and has 10 aperture blades (being preset). The Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is liked for its sharpness and rendering (and short minimum focussing distance), but mechanically it’s not the smoothest or the most reliable. The Zenitar-M 50mm f1.7 has good optics (from what I hear), but must be as heavy as the Helios 44M.

There are also two to four models in the f1.4–f2 range (not counting different generations) of each of Chinon, Cosinon, Rikenon, Yashinon and Mamiya/Sekor (probably others), some of which are occasionally claimed to equal or outperform the Takumars, as well as many others.

So, please share your thoughts on which fast fifty, mentioned or not, might have an edge over the Takumars, as either an all-around lens or for some specific application.

Lucius said:

Virtually all standard kit lenses are competent performers

Click to expand...

Well, you said it right there. Will 99% of people even notice? I'm skeptical. You're just going to get a lot of different opinions on this, not necessarily facts.

But w/ all the adapters today, sticking to m42 mount is pretty restrictive, since there are a lot of 50 lenses out there that could be made to fit. The problem, as I see it anyway, is that there aren't that many m42 mount cameras around that aren't very old and/or lacking a lot of modern features.

momus said:

Well, you said it right there. Will 99% of people even notice? I'm skeptical. You're just going to get a lot of different opinions on this, not necessarily facts.

But w/ all the adapters today, sticking to m42 mount is pretty restrictive, since there are a lot of 50 lenses out there that could be made to fit. The problem, as I see it anyway, is that there aren't that many m42 mount cameras around that aren't very old and/or lacking a lot of modern features.

Click to expand...

But if most standard kit lenses are good enough, what's the point of expanding beyond m42 (except for the sake of a more advanced body)?

I guess, realistically, I'm more interested in the second kind of comment I mentioned (so the post heading might be a bit misleading) - what lenses are there that can do certain things better than the Takumar? This may not affect a lot the artistic result (though the adjective hardly applies to my output), but it does contribute to the process.

It does not relate to image quality, but what camera(s) are you putting it on? An XKAES perhaps?

Bring the popcorn...

xkaes said:

It does not relate to image quality, but what camera(s) are you putting it on? An XKAES perhaps?

Click to expand...

I'm sticking to the m42 mount, at least for the time being: I have some Spotmatics, Fujicas and Chinons. At some point I might decide that I need a more advanced body, but I don't feel I've already mastered and exhausted all the possibilities these offer.

You've covered all the bases. The Takumars seem like the logical choice. I'd hold out for the Tomioka f1.2, but as you said that's pricey -- it was also sold under the Sears or Cosina label, or both.

Here are Yashica's offerings:

Auto Yashinon DX 50mm f1.7 M42 6/5
Yashinon DS 50mm f1.7 M42 6/5
Yashinon DS-M 50mm f1.7 M42 6/5
Yashinon-DX 50mm f1.4 M42 7/6
Yashinon-DS 50mm f1.4 M42 7/6
Auto Yashinon DS-M 50mm f1.4 M42 7/6

Auto Yashinon 55mm f1.8 M42 6/5
Auto Yashinon Tomioka 55mm f1.2 M42 7/6

The Takumar is damned hard to beat. It comes down to what you like, ultimately.
The 55mm 1.8 EBC Fujinon was my 1st 135 format lens back in 1974, and I admire it to this day.

xkaes said:

You've covered all the bases. The Takumars seem like the logical choice. I'd hold out for the Tomioka f1.2, but as you said that's pricey -- it was also sold under the Sears or Cosina label, or both.

Here are Yashica's offerings:

Auto Yashinon DX 50mm f1.7 M42 6/5
Yashinon DS 50mm f1.7 M42 6/5
Yashinon DS-M 50mm f1.7 M42 6/5
Yashinon-DX 50mm f1.4 M42 7/6
Yashinon-DS 50mm f1.4 M42 7/6
Auto Yashinon DS-M 50mm f1.4 M42 7/6

Auto Yashinon 55mm f1.8 M42 6/5
Auto Yashinon Tomioka 55mm f1.2 M42 7/6

Click to expand...

Of the Yashinons, I only have the DS-M version of the 50mm f1.4 - I was in fact just shooting with it today for the first time. It's distinctly heavy.

Any advice on the f1.7 and f1.8 models?

lxdude said:

The Takumar is damned hard to beat. It comes down to what you like, ultimately.
The 55mm 1.8 EBC Fujinon was my 1st 135 format lens back in 1974, and I admire it to this day.

Click to expand...

It definitely makes a great combo with the Fujica ST801.

I have the Takumar 50 1.8 and 1.4, the 1.4 seems to be sharper wide open while the 1.8 is better at F8 to 11. Another sleeper is the Chinon copy of the Alpa Swiss Kern 1.7 macro. It is in M42 mount, been told but never been able to verify that it was made with left old elements of the Kern. In terms of practical matters, I think all of the late model multi coated 50s will resolve Tmax 100.

These vintage lenses are like painting brushes + some mixed-in color + a tuning knob.

Which one of those would be 'best'?

It is the variety of those -- accessible to a 'painter' -- is what's great.



I tend to get Yashica (Yashinon) DX 1.4 (the yellowish tint) for slightly worm colors, dark/under-exposed blury backgrounds kind of compositions, where sharp yet not 'brutal' details are needed.

I tend to pick Fujinon 55 2.2 for compositions that use good light, expect natural skin tones, with creamy bokeh background.

I do not know of a M42 mount lens for 50mm landscapes -- although I am sure after some testing, I would find one. for those today, I use Konica 1.4 57mm at f/8. For me, it was difficult to find a 50mm M42 lens that produces sharp details while at infinity focus.

The 50mm f/4 SMCT Macro makes s good “standard” M42 lens.

But I like the 50mm f/1.4 SMCT both the metal knurled and rubber knurled versions. They still go for a bit more than I would like to pay for them, but they are what I would pair with any Pentax-branded M42 body given the chance. Other brands of bodies may look best with their own brand of normal lens though.

Lucius said:

It definitely makes a great combo with the Fujica ST801.

Click to expand...

Yep. I still have my first ST801. It's very well worn, and retired. I took it out to exercise it a bit, as I do occasionally. The meter is still dead accurate.

Paul Howell said:

I have the Takumar 50 1.8 and 1.4, the 1.4 seems to be sharper wide open while the 1.8 is better at F8 to 11. Another sleeper is the Chinon copy of the Alpa Swiss Kern 1.7 macro. It is in M42 mount, been told but never been able to verify that it was made with left old elements of the Kern. In terms of practical matters, I think all of the late model multi coated 50s will resolve Tmax 100.

Click to expand...

I looked the Alpa lens up the other day, it's selling in the vicinity of £400... And apparently there are at least three Chinon macro models (50mm f1.9, 50mm f.17, 55mm f1.7), all with some Alpa connections, as well as a Porst version. I'm confused!

ts1000 said:

These vintage lenses are like painting brushes + some mixed-in color + a tuning knob.

Which one of those would be 'best'?

It is the variety of those -- accessible to a 'painter' -- is what's great.



I tend to get Yashica (Yashinon) DX 1.4 (the yellowish tint) for slightly worm colors, dark/under-exposed blury backgrounds kind of compositions, where sharp yet not 'brutal' details are needed.

I tend to pick Fujinon 55 2.2 for compositions that use good light, expect natural skin tones, with creamy bokeh background.

I do not know of a M42 mount lens for 50mm landscapes -- although I am sure after some testing, I would find one. for those today, I use Konica 1.4 57mm at f/8. For me, it was difficult to find a 50mm M42 lens that produces sharp details while at infinity focus.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's the kind of recommendation I'm looking for! My DS-M f1.4 seems yellowish too, I wonder if that's the coating or thorium.

I'll have to try out the f2.2 Fujinon. Somehow I assumed it was only good for onion-rings bokeh. Their plastic construction is a disaster though, they tend to shatter to pieces.

Simon's utak on Youtube is recommending the SMC Takumar f1.4, the Helios 44M-7, or the Pancolar for landscape shots, but apparently infinity shartpness is indeed a weakness of most 50mm m42 lenses.

Bill Burk said:

But I like the 50mm f/1.4 SMCT both the metal knurled and rubber knurled versions. They still go for a bit more than I would like to pay for them, but they are what I would pair with any Pentax-branded M42 body given the chance. Other brands of bodies may look best with their own brand of normal lens though.

Click to expand...

I too tend to prefer keeping lenses (at least the standard ones) on their "native" bodies, though this sort of belies the idea of m42's universality!

Bill Burk said:

The 50mm f/4 SMCT Macro makes s good “standard” M42 lens.

Click to expand...

I'd been debating with myself whether I should get a 50mm macro lens or a longer one. The preset 50mm Takumar would be nice, and there's a fast-ish (f2.8) Schacht Ulm model that might be interesting...

lxdude said:

Yep. I still have my first ST801. It's very well worn, and retired. I took it out to exercise it a bit, as I do occasionally. The meter is still dead accurate.

Click to expand...

I got lucky to buy one from (I think) the original owner. It was clearly well looked after, the meter is spot on (it's one of my go-to bodies for slides), and the only issue is slight drag in the rear curtain at top speeds, but it only produces a thin white stripe at the right edge, which can be easily cropped out.

Lucius said:

I looked the Alpa lens up the other day, it's selling in the vicinity of £400... And apparently there are at least three Chinon macro models (50mm f1.9, 50mm f.17, 55mm f1.7), all with some Alpa connections, as well as a Porst version. I'm confused!

Click to expand...

Alpa stopped making cameras in the late 70s, Alpa did not make its own lens but selected lens from a large number of lens makers. One of the best, some claim the best, 50mm was made by Kern, the Swiss Kern, so good that Leica owns have them converted to M mount. Chinon bought the rights to the Alpa brand and rebranded the Chinon 2000 as Alpa. They also made a copy of the Swiss Kern. Alpa used a priortiety mount, Chinon used M42 and later K mount for their rebranded Chinon, nothing to do with the last models Alpas, other than the lens with is a copy of the Swiss Kern, some claim that it it was made with left over Kern glass elements, I don't know. Many claim that the Chinon version the 50mm macro is a pretty good copy of the Kern, not as good but as good as other 50mm of the day. And it is a fast Macro.

Paul Howell said:

Alpa stopped making cameras in the late 70s, Alpa did not make its own lens but selected lens from a large number of lens makers. One of the best, some claim the best, 50mm was made by Kern, the Swiss Kern, so good that Leica owns have them converted to M mount. Chinon bought the rights to the Alpa brand and rebranded the Chinon 2000 as Alpa. They also made a copy of the Swiss Kern. Alpa used a priortiety mount, Chinon used M42 and later K mount for their rebranded Chinon, nothing to do with the last models Alpas, other than the lens with is a copy of the Swiss Kern, some claim that it it was made with left over Kern glass elements, I don't know. Many claim that the Chinon version the 50mm macro is a pretty good copy of the Kern, not as good but as good as other 50mm of the day. And it is a fast Macro.

Click to expand...

It seems there were two Switar macro-lenses by Kern for Alpa: a 50mm f1.9 and a 50mm f1.7, both existing in m42 with an Alpa adapter (there are two copies of the former on Ebay, one for a mere 4,200 Euros, the other for 6,300 bucks). Apparently at some point Chinon repackaged Kern glass for the f1.9 version, but I seem to remember reading that the Chinon f1.7 version has a different formula than the Alpa one (or could there be more than one iteration?). And then there apparently is a 55mm f1.7 macro Chinon (also in m42), which is yet another different formula (also coming as Porst -- is there a 50mm f1.7 Porst version? [UPD: Yes, there is: one selling on Ebay right now.]). But even the Chinon versions sell for hundreds of bucks -- are they really worth it, given the not so impressive 1:3 magnification ratio (which is only slightly better than the Pentacon's)? I'm sure it would be nice having one, but buying a true macro lens for a fraction of the price might make more sense.

I would not pay hundred for a Chinon Copy, there are just too many fine 50 mm in M 42 mount. It has been years that I've looked at prices for the Chinon Kern copy, at one time you get one for under 50.00 U.S. Of those I have, Pentax, Yaschica, Mamiya, Chinon and Cosina, my Fav is still the Pentax 50 1.4 with the radioactive element. The Chinon F 1.9 is a fine lens as well and inexpensive, at least in the U.S. Although off topic, about 12 to 13 years ago I tested all my 50mm lens with the few rolls of microfiche film I had. Using the U.S Air Force test chart and my sons old high school microscope to count LPM. Of the lens I tested the 2 that out resolved the others were the Konica 50mm 1.7 followed by the Miranda 57 1.9. All of the lens I tested could resolve Tmax 100. The Pentax 1.4 out performed the Konica and Miranda 1.4. I was somewhat surprised as to how well Chinon and Cosina did.

Lucius said:

I too tend to prefer keeping lenses (at least the standard ones) on their "native" bodies, though this sort of belies the idea of m42's universality!


I'd been debating with myself whether I should get a 50mm macro lens or a longer one. The preset 50mm Takumar would be nice, and there's a fast-ish (f2.8) Schacht Ulm model that might be interesting...

Click to expand...

There’s a dinged up 50 mm f/4 Macro Takumar pre-set on eBay for a pretty good price. Good value for the purpose.

One reason I like macro 50mm is that I can leave the other 50mm home on a backpack trip and use the Macro for everything, including rocks, flowers and insects, etc.

The Takumar 50/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses ever. It’s just so good at so many things regardless of price. In the past 4 years or so after getting back into film I’ve bounced around between different camera brands, cheap lenses, expensive lenses, speed demon lenses… and the Tak that was sitting in a shoebox for 25 years still holds up.

Maybe there is copy variation, but mine is good at infinity. I’ve looked at a few prints with a magnifier and found surprising little details hidden among the trees. Mine is the Super-Multi-Coated with metal barrel and aperture indexing tab.

It’s great wide open at close distances as well. Beautiful rendering. I seriously cannot fault this lens for anything. Pentax really nailed it with this design.

I mostly shoot black and white now, but still have a few Kodachrome 64 slides taken with the Tak back in the 90s. Color balance and contrast were excellent. Oh Kodachrome…

Lucius said:

What is the best fast fifty (-ish) lens in m42? Two answers are commonly given. (1) The Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f1.8, period. (Or alternatively the 50mm f1.4.) (2) Virtually all standard kit lenses are competent performers, most models in good condition will be more than enough (especially if shooting film).

What’s good about the Takumar? It has excellent optics: both the optical formula (sharpness, control of aberrations) and the coatings (contrast, flare-resistance), as well as the more elusive features of rendering and bokeh. It’s well-built, light and ergonomic. It’s plentiful and affordable (the 50mm f1.4 somewhat less so).

Whether or not you agree that one of the Takumars is the very best m42 fast fifty, it makes sense to take it as a point of comparison. So I’m looking for two kinds of comment. First, I’m interested to hear if you think some other lens equals or ideally outperforms the Takumar(s) as an all-around fast fifty — and why. Second, do suggest lenses that may not be on a par with the Takumars in all (most) respects, but still have a feature in which they are superior. For instance, the Helios 44 can make swirly bokeh, while the Pentacon 50mm f1.8 has the minimum focussing distance of one foot (compared to the Takumar’s 1.5 feet).

What else is out there? The (EBC) Fujinons 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 are sometimes entered as contenders for the best all-around fast fifty, and in any case they stand out for their open-aperture-metering capability with the Fujicas; the 55mm f1.6 and f2.2 are at least unusual. The Tomiokas (and ‘Tomiokas’) 55mm f1.4 and f1.2 are worth having for their speed, though they are also rather bulky (and expensive, at least the latter). The Zuiko 50mm f1.8 is as well-built as the Takumar, but is smaller and can focus down to 40cm (as opposed to 45cm); the 50mm f1.4 is supposed to be good too. The Orikkor 50mm f2 is not one of the fastest, but is smaller still and has 10 aperture blades (being preset). The Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is liked for its sharpness and rendering (and short minimum focussing distance), but mechanically it’s not the smoothest or the most reliable. The Zenitar-M 50mm f1.7 has good optics (from what I hear), but must be as heavy as the Helios 44M.

There are also two to four models in the f1.4–f2 range (not counting different generations) of each of Chinon, Cosinon, Rikenon, Yashinon and Mamiya/Sekor (probably others), some of which are occasionally claimed to equal or outperform the Takumars, as well as many others.

So, please share your thoughts on which fast fifty, mentioned or not, might have an edge over the Takumars, as either an all-around lens or for some specific application.

Click to expand...

When considering the "best", one must consider the weakest link in the chain.

For instance, I bought some super cheap lenses K mount lenses of local CL. So cheap it came in plastic grocery bags. For so cheap - condition unknown, I couldn't believe the results I was getting from the Pentax M 50mm f4 macro lens was so sharp I got curious and tested it using Kodak Techpan at ISO25 processed in Kodak Technidol. I then scanned results using my Coolscan 4000dpi as well as 36MP Nikon D800 and got the results below.

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

The 1:1 crops on the left show the results from each method and the large 1:1 crop on the right is about a 4.5X optical enlargement of the center area and clearly shows the information captured on the 35mm frame of film that cannot be fully resolved by the various methods I used.

I don't know what you mean when you state, "especially if shooting film" but obviously the results you get on film will depend on the film as well as the subject, tripod, lighting, speed and lens used. At this point I know scanning this film is a major limitation and not the film nor the lens. I am not even sure if the lens, film, setup or target is the weak link.

I have a few 50mm M42's. I have taken many pics with each and these are all very good performers. Even that 55mm f2.2 preset that came with my original AP.

M42 50s by Les DMess, on Flickr