Domiplan 'stuck' - need alternative - Macrotak?

[Neil Grant]

... so, it's done what they all do. I'll try to repair - optically it was great. I started to think about a Tessar and then maybe something more interesting like a multicoated one (except the m42 Zeiss ones never are!). Then I saw a macro-Takumar 50f/4. Tessar and MC. Who can tell me about these? Do they work well at infinity, can they suffer from sticky diaphragms like the 55 f/2.8 micro Nikkors is prone to?

 

[Paul Howell]

I had a Takumar 50 F 4, very sharp, nothing bad to say, only reason I sold it was that I have a 50 1.7 and 1.4 and a couple of sets of extension tubes which I generally use with a 105 2.8 or 85 .18. I also have a Chinon 50 1.7 macro. It was made by Chinon and sold under both Alpa and Chinon in M42. Story is that was made to Alpa Kern Swiss sepcs for the Chinon Alpa M42 version and even used Kern glass. I have never been able to confirm this. I have used a Kern Swiss 50 macro and while the Chinon is good lens is not up Kern standards, and for that matter is not as good as the Takumar 50 F4. I need to have it repaired, a internal ring that the pin pushes down to stop the lens down is bend so the lens will stop down.

I had my 50 F 4 for over 20 years and other having to have cleaned an lubes due to disuse and living a desert, no issues with diaphragms sticking. On the other hand if you have a good 50 prime any reason not use extension tubes or a bellow?

 

[Neil Grant]

I had my 50 F 4 for over 20 years and other having to have cleaned an lubes due to disuse and living a desert, no issues with diaphragms sticking. On the other hand if you have a good 50 prime any reason not use extension tubes or a bellow?[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I don't have a good 50 - it's diaphragm is stuck. I'm not a professional repairer - so it will take some time if at all. The Domiplan worked well on a tube but there was always a 'gap' in the focusing range.

 

[Fixcinater]

I have had the Super Macro Tak 50/4 and the SMC Macro 50/4. The later version has better coatings so holds contrast better. Worked fine at all distances for me but I haven't used it with slow film and taken a loupe to the negs or slides. But, with non-film cameras, it has been excellent as is the Minolta 50/3.5 and Canon FD 50/3.5 macros. The Nikons I've had have been excellent but prone to mechanical issues as you pointed out.

I generally prefer the 100mm length for macros but if I was looking to replace the SMC Macro, I would look at the Vivitar 55/2.8 and Contax 60/2.8.

 

[Neil Grant]

Thanks. The proposed lens is for an m42 film camera. The Domiplan was fun while it worked - though close-ups were a bit of a pain. I liked the idea of an optically simple lens to replace it while I try a 'fix'. I'm thinking of a Zeiss Tessar (DDR), but they are only single coated. Then I stumbled across the Supertak 50 - a multicoated Tessar. I just don't want a really modern lens - as I've got these in abundance in F-mount.

 

[Helios 1984]

... so, it's done what they all do. I'll try to repair - optically it was great. I started to think about a Tessar and then maybe something more interesting like a multicoated one (except the m42 Zeiss ones never are!). Then I saw a macro-Takumar 50f/4. Tessar and MC. Who can tell me about these? Do they work well at infinity, can they suffer from sticky diaphragms like the 55 f/2.8 micro Nikkors is prone to?

May I ask what is the issue with your Domi?