Best 50mm m42 lens?

[Paul Howell]

From I read, the Macro versions of most 50s although slow tend to the sharpest of 50s. I have a Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro it is tack sharp. I got after I did my testing, but I would rate it up with any other normal lens I have. In terms of M42, unless going back the 50s or 40s it is hard to find a poor lens.

 

[xkaes]

Any macro lens is going to be "tack sharp" in the magnification range it is designed for -- i.e., very close-up. Outside of that range, it's resolution will be less than spectacular. So don't wet your pants. Macros can be used for "distance" photography, but it probably won't be what you expect. This is exactly like using a normal 50mm lens for macro work. You can do it, but the results won't be as good as with a lens designed for macro magnification.

 

[Les Sarile]

Any macro lens is going to be "tack sharp" in the magnification range it is designed for -- i.e., very close-up. Outside of that range, it's resolution will be less than spectacular. So don't wet your pants. Macros can be used for "distance" photography, but it probably won't be what you expect. This is exactly like using a normal 50mm lens for macro work. You can do it, but the results won't be as good as with a lens designed for macro magnification.

Just to be sure, my test target was an arrangement of 4 high of 11"X17" tabloid prints so clearly not macro. It may not be the ideal use of this lens but still very good.

 

[Lucius]

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.

Can't seem to find the listing - but I'm in the UK. They do pop up from time to time though, I might try getting one.

 

[Lucius]

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…

Mine is a Super-Takumar version with yellowed thorium glass. Haven't shot it for a while though, need to rectify that.

 

[Lucius]

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

That's an impressive demonstration! Well, "especially if shooting film" wasn't so much my own opinion as what's often said, but in my case it seems largely to be true -- I mostly shoot expired film which is visibly grainy. And the scanner I'm using isn't the most advanced either.

With expired film (unless it's been miraculously well preserved, which happens sometimes), I guess it makes even less practical sense to look for the very best lens, but still why not.

 

[AZD]

Mine is a Super-Takumar version with yellowed thorium glass. Haven't shot it for a while though, need to rectify that.

Same thing happened to mine while sitting in the box. A few weeks sitting in the window frame during summer made it as good as new.

 

[GaucheA2]

Fujinon ebc 55mm 1.8 lens is very good

 

[Lucius]

Same thing happened to mine while sitting in the box. A few weeks sitting in the window frame during summer made it as good as new.

I don't mind the yellowing that much, and I'd rather not risk putting it out in the sun, as it can produce oil condensate on the glass (happened to a Chinon lens). A uv lamp could do the trick, but I don't have one.

 

[Paul Howell]

Fujinon ebc 55mm 1.8 lens is very good

All of the EBC in M42 are outstanding.

 

[xkaes]

You can expose a yellowed lens to natural UV light without baking it in direct sunlight. Let's not be ridiculous. I have a Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 without any yellowing.

 

[Lucius]

You can expose a yellowed lens to natural UV light without baking it in direct sunlight. Let's not be ridiculous. I have a Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 without any yellowing.

Will gie it a try once I have a windiw that's not facing south!

 

[xkaes]

First, depending on how yellow the lens is, it might not be an issue at all -- in terms of photographic results. Some people will try to make a big deal about it suggesting, for example, that yellowing will mess up your exposures. If you are using a TTL meter, it won't -- even if it is severe. And if you are shooting B&W, yellowing will probably help your results -- no matter how much yellowing there is.

In addition, you don't need a north-facing window to solve the "problem". Any window will work, but you don't want the lens in a hot window that gets direct sunlight on the lens.

Depending on how much yellowing there is, it might take a while for it to "resolve".

 

[Lucius]

First, depending on how yellow the lens is, it might not be an issue at all -- in terms of photographic results. Some people will try to make a big deal about it suggesting, for example, that yellowing will mess up your exposures. If you are using a TTL meter, it won't -- even if it is severe. And if you are shooting B&W, yellowing will probably help your results -- no matter how much yellowing there is.

In addition, you don't need a north-facing window to solve the "problem". Any window will work, but you don't want the lens in a hot window that gets direct sunlight on the lens.

Depending on how much yellowing there is, it might take a while for it to "resolve".

Some people even seem to keep it on purpose, because of the golden glow it can impart. To be honest, I don't really see any impact, not last because I tend to shoot expired film which often already has significant colour shifts. I also have a Pancolar that's got more yellowing, but I haven't shot with it enough to see how it affects the result.

 

[Les Sarile]

That's an impressive demonstration! Well, "especially if shooting film" wasn't so much my own opinion as what's often said, but in my case it seems largely to be true -- I mostly shoot expired film which is visibly grainy. And the scanner I'm using isn't the most advanced either.

With expired film (unless it's been miraculously well preserved, which happens sometimes), I guess it makes even less practical sense to look for the very best lens, but still why not.

I find no reason for why not nor would I look for one!

 

[markjwyatt]

What is the best fast fifty (-ish) lens in m42? ...

The Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron is a candidate. You did not say cheapest, right? (watch out for bayonet mount models that only work with the Zeiss Icarex 35S and related cameras).

 

[Lucius]

The Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron is a candidate. You did not say cheapest, right? (watch out for bayonet mount models that only work with the Zeiss Icarex 35S and related cameras).

And then there is the 55mm f1.4 Pancolar...

 

[markjwyatt]

And then there is the 55mm f1.4 Pancolar...

The Ultron is not that expensive. It appears the Ultron is also somewhat rare, but seems to be more available.

 

[xkaes]

The Beat Goes On.