M42 close up lens

[Jagoda]

Hi, Im a beginner in analog photography. I already have two lens- helios 44m and soligor f2.8. I wanted to get myself another lens, something that would let me to take photos with very short focusing distance (to take a photo of an eye that would fill most of the photograph for example). What kind of m42 lens should I look for to give me this effect? Thanks for your help!!
Jagoda

 

[Paul Howell]

A macro, there were a number made, not sure about old Soviet glass, but Pentax, made a 50mm macro, Chinon made a 50 1.7 under the Alpa brand, Alpa was a Swiss company that made a very expensive 35mm camera but used lens from a number of manufacturers including Kern which made the Kern Swiss 50 1.7 Macro, As sales failed Alpa either had made or licensed their name to Chinon who made a M42 body and 50 1.7 Macro labeled Alpa, a very good lens but in the same league as the Kern. Other options are extenstion tubes or a bellows. I have both extension tubes and a bellows in M42. I use the extension tubes with a 105 MM lens. The bellows has it own 100 mm lens with a very short barrel, but you can use any lens on it. With so many lens made in M42 there must be many more.

 

[cooltouch]

My favorite M42 macro is the (Pentax) SMC Takumar 100mm f/4. Sharp as a tack. Another very excellent performer is the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro. You'll need a M42 Adaptalll-2 mount for it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi, Im a beginner in analog photography. I already have two lens- helios 44m and soligor f2.8. I wanted to get myself another lens, something that would let me to take photos with very short focusing distance (to take a photo of an eye that would fill most of the photograph for example). What kind of m42 lens should I look for to give me this effect? Thanks for your help!!
Jagoda

Did you know that enlarger lenses make for excellent close-up lenses.a thread adapter ring should allow you to mount it to an M42 camera. You will have to close the lens to working aperture for light metering since the camera won't be able to close the aperture automatically.

 

[ic-racer]

Many macro lenses only go to 1:1 with extension tubes. For an eye closeup a micro lens with focusing bellows might be needed.

 

[BAC1967]

Get a reversal ring adapter that allows you to put the lens on backwards. M42 reversal rings are easy to find.

 

[btaylor]

Don’t forget about diopters that screw into the front of the lens like a filter. They are cheap and effective. No need for exposure compensation either. Some will complain about optical quality, but for my uses they have been fine.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The silver barrel lens at lower left is a Kilfitt 40/2.8 Makro-Kilar D in M42 mount; it focuses to 1:1 (the E version is 1:2).

I've used this lens on my Pentax SP500 - the optical quality and bokeh (at lower magnifications) is astounding. Several photos made with this lens decorate my wall.

On my SP500, I have to limit the distance it will focus - at infinity the mirror will hit the lens. At very close distances, there's no danger. So, I've put a paper "stopping point" on the barrel. On the Spotmatic, this isn't an issue. People having this lens should check for interference (I can explain how to do that safely).

Kilfitt lenses have amazing optical quality.

https://www.cameraquest.com/mackilar.htm
https://www.cameraquest.com/kilzoom.htm

 

[AgX]

-) your lens fitted by means a bellows (lens best mounted in reverse); scale is variable
-) your lens fitted by means of several extention tubes (lens best mounted in reverse), scale is fixed
-) your lens fitted by means a bellows plus extension rings(lens best mounted in reverse); scale is variable

-) the advised macro-lenses would not yield a scale greater than 1/1. You would in addition have to resort to bellows/extension rings

-) a 35mm loupe lens fitted on a bellows


The for you likely cheapest way would be acquiring extention tubes. You easily could mount your lens in reverse by adhesive tape. Otherwise you would need a rather rare reversion-ring to mount it.
The reversing of the lens enhances image quality, especially flatness of fied, which of course only makes senses with a flat object.

 

[AgX]

Don’t forget about diopters that screw into the front of the lens like a filter.

Meant here are close-up attachment lenses, typically consisting out of a single lens element, looking like kind of a filter.
"Diopter" actually is a optical unit, but especially in the US the term is used for a variety of lenses.

 

[AgX]

M42 reversal rings are easy to find.

Over several years I have come across locally only 1 reversing ring at all, and that even was for a strange bayonet.
Of course the world-wide-web offers any kind of stuff...

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd,look for aTamron 90mm f2.5 Macro lens and M42 Adaptall mount. But as Ralph suggests an enlarger lens works well it's easy to find a cheap set of M42 bellows. You can also use your Helios reversed on the bellows, you'd probably need an M39 to M42 adapter. Reversal rings used to be easy to buy in a camera store but these days you'd need to look online.

Close up lenses are the cheapest and simplest option as exposure isn't affected, image quality isn't as high as a macro lens but with your Helios stopped down a bit may well be good enough. It's how I started with a Zenit,E & 58mm Helios before getting extension tubes, then later bellows and a reversing ring.

There's no reason why you couldn't use extension tubes as well as a close up lens.

Ian

 

[BAC1967]

I shot this with a Pentax K1000 using an M42 reversal ring and an M42 to PK adapter.

Clematis by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Theo Sulphate]

These are phone-camera photos (through glass) of prints made from the 40/2.8 Kilfitt Makro-Kilar D I mentioned above. The prints are 4" x 6" and the images are larger than life-size, but I wasn't using the 1:1 ratio the lens is capable of. These phone-photos don't do the actual prints justice in terms of sharpness and color saturation.

 

[alanrockwood]

Why not start with closeup filters? Sometimes called diopters or closeup lenses or supplementary lenses, they have been mentioned by a couple of posters. These are useful for getting moderate closeups, which is a good way to get your feet wet.

They are inexpensive ($10-$15 on ebay for a +1, +2, and +3 or +4 set of closeup lenses), easy to use, and compact. Some people claim about a loss of image quality, but if you stop the lens down (which you are going to want to do anyway to get maximum depth of field in closeups) you may find image quality to be good enough to satisfy you. I have only found one direct one-to-one comparison between photos taken with a closeup filter vs. a high quality macro lens, and if the lens was stopped down the difference was less than one might have expected.

If you want to bump up to the next quality level using diopter lenses then buy an achromat supplementary lens. They are much more expensive, but people report excellent image quality using them.

Other approaches (extension tubes, bellows, reversed prime lenses, macro lenses) are also possible. Macro lenses are the most expensive approach but are probably the preferred approach if you have the money to spend on them.

For extreme closeups you can try using an enlarger lens on an extension tube, or a cine lens on an extension tube, or a microscope objective on an extension tube. The last approach will probably give you the best image quality for extreme closeups, and the cost can be modest. For example, you can get a 4X aplanat microscope objective corrected for 160mm tube length for about $20. You will need a few additional components to adapt it to your camera (extension tubes and a couple of other components), but you can get outfitted for about $50 or less.

 

[Steve Roberts]

My application of close-up photography was for small mineral specimens. I originally started with the standard 50mm SMC Takumar lens and extension tubes, but later experimented with 50mm and 100mm Macro Takumars. I also tried using bellows and various lenses. Overall, the best results obtained in the most convenient and cost-effective way were with the extension tubes and standard lens. This was partly down to the facts that the macro lenses have rather small maximum apertures (f4 IIRC) which didn't help with focussing and bellows always had the infernal rack poking out the front that either stopped me approaching the subject, cast a shadow or both. The macro lenses, especially the 100mm, did come in handy for copying old postcards, where focussing was relatively easy, but the bellows I could cheerfully live without.

I'm reminded that in my earlier experiments I needed to go in closer than the usual set of three 42 x 1mm extension tubes would allow. A friend who worked as a fitter and turner in the local naval base made me an extension tube of a little over the combined length of the usual three that more than doubled the extension. He didn't go as far as making the auto diaphragm mechanism, but with the Takumar lenses' manual stop-down facility that wasn't a problem.

For lighting, I used two Photofloods in a series/parallel circuit to eek out as many hours from them as possible. One provided a general illumination and the other a roving light that could be moved to highlight particular crystal characteristics, lustres, etc..

Steve

 

[AgX]

Why not start with closeup filters? Sometimes called diopters or closeup lenses or supplementary lenses, they have been mentioned by a couple of posters. These are useful for getting moderate closeups, which is a good way to get your feet wet.

Basically close-up attachment lenses are a good idea.
However the common ones are plain single meniscus lenses, which in fact have to substitute a complete lens. (That "primary" lens actually only serves a relay lens.)
The OP asked for a lens yielding scale of about 1/1. With a common, strong close-up lens of 4 diopters and his Helios lens, he only will yield a scale of 1/3

Yes, one may stack close-up lenses, but the image quality will deteriorate even more.
Yes, close-up lenses are a great way of experimenting within the nearby/macro range. And with many, non-flat, flat objects image quality may be acceptable.

 

[dynachrome]

In addition to the 50/4 SMCT I have a Vivitar 55/2.8 Macro, a Soligor 55/2.8 Macro and 55/3 Panagor and Promaster lenses. The Panagor and Promaster lenses are the same as the 55/2.8 Vivitar but with slightly different cosmetics and the poetic license of f/3 instead of f/2.8. They all focus to 1:1 without any additional tubes. The Soligor goes to 1:2 by itself. I also have a few of the old Sigma XQ 55/2.8 lenses. These use the YS system of interchange able mounts. I don't remember whether the Sigma 50/2.8 manual focus macro lens was ever made in M42 mount. That's a completely different lens and goes to 1:1 without additional tubes. It's sharper than the XQ. My memory is that the XQ only goes to 1:2 by itself. I don't have a 100/4 Takumar (yet). I have the later 100/4 SMC Pentax-M (K mount). The Tamron 90/2.5 SP Adaptall II lenses are very nice but only go to 1:2 by themselves. If you can find a Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 lens in M42 mount, that would be nice. The 1:1 adapter for this lens has glass elements and produces very high quality 1:1 images. There were non-Series 1 90mm f/2.8 and f/2.8 Vivitar macros which went to 1:1 without extra tubes. These were also sold under the Panagor and Rokunar names. They are both excellent. A lens which goes to 1:2 and is worth looking into if you can't get as close to some subjects as you might want to, is the 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. It's also a good general purpose 135. Panagor sold a device which looks like a teleconverter and was called an Auto Macro Converter. It fits between the lens and the camera and has a ring for varying the magnification. Results with a 55/1.8 Super Takumar or SMCT are surprisingly good if you close down enough.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Don’t forget about diopters that screw into the front of the lens like a filter. They are cheap and effective. No need for exposure compensation either. Some will complain about optical quality, but for my uses they have been fine.

if optical quality is a priority,specialized micro/macro lenses are hard to beat but close-up filters or extension rings can suffice otherwise.

 

[cooltouch]

It is possible to get very high magnification levels by reverse mounting a lens. Especially if working with extremes. Here's a rig I put together a while back:

I have an old Wollensak 1/2" f/2.5 Cine-Raptar lens in 8mm cine (D-mount) that I probably pulled off a dead camera some 20 years ago.

To use this lens for macro work, all you need is an extra lens cap for the lens you intend to use, a means to drill a 1/2" hole, and some glue. In my case, the lens I've selected to use is a Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro. I had an extra cap that fit the lens, so I drilled a 1/2" hole dead-center in the middle of it, then set the Wollensak lens atop the cap, reversed, and ran a bead of medium Super Glue gel around the edge. This particular lens's barrel is wider than 1/2" so I just had to make sure as best I could that it was accurately centered.

I got the idea to do this from a John Shaw book I bought back in the 1980s -- in his The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques he explains how. He was showing how, if one reversed a normal lens in front of a tele, it would increase magnification by a factor found by this formula: (focal length of "prime" lens)/(focal length of reversed lens) -- the "prime" lens being the one actually mounted to the camera.

So it occurred to me I could do the same thing with a cine lens and a lens cap. In this case, I have: 90mm/0.5" (about 13mm) = 7x.

The flash always accentuates dust, and it doesn't look very special, but it works. This lens cap had a metal cover on the front, which popped off when I drilled the hole, exposing its inner workings.

The drawback to using a lens like this is the distance from the subject to the front edge of the lens is about 1 cm. I had to position the camera/lens about that distance from the subject, then I was able to fine-tune the focus using the Tamron. I tried to take pictures of a couple of flowers, but finally gave up because the wind kept blowing them in and out of focus. So I decided on a box with some small print instead. It was an easier subject: stationary and flat.

Here's the box, from an old Lexmark printer. Its outer dimensions are probably about 25 cm x 40 cm or so. Note the Wollensak lens sitting on top of the box. I used the Tamron 90 @ f/5.6 for this shot.

And a 100% crop of the above image, showing the general area where I was focusing with the Wollensak. Note the "XP" text.

And here's the image taken with the Wollensak. I didn't do any PP to the image other than resize it for here:

Here's the same image with some contrast and a bit of high-pass sharpening done to it.

I was also surprised to get a full frame of view on my APS-C-sized camera from this tiny lens. It's inner diameter is only maybe 4mm.

The above Wollensak image was taken with the Wollensak wide open at f/2.5 and the Tamron also wide open at f/2.5. You can see that there's quite a bit of sharpness fall off toward the edges. I suspect that, if I were to stop both lenses down to at least f/8, this softness would be substantially reduced. John Shaw recommends leaving the reversed lens wide open, however, and just controlling aperture and hence exposure with the prime lens.

John Shaw mentions in his book that his favorite lens pair is a 105mm reverse mounted onto a 200mm, which yields him 2x magnifications. The working distance isn't much better, though -- only 3, maybe 4 cm from the edge of the front lens to the subject.

Yes, the above examples were made using a digital camera, but there is no reason why this same technique can't be used with a film camera, which is why I bothered to stretch the rules here and show results from a digital camera. It isn't the camera, after all, that is the subject of this post. It is the combination of two lenses that can be used in such a way to achieve a high level of magnification.

So anyway, my point is that you don't necessarily need bellows or lots of extension or special macro lenses to do high-magnification work. You can use a cheap cine lens like I've done, or buy a reversing ring for not much money to reverse mount a wide angle lens, which Shaw doesn't mention, but which I know from experience also works well. Or you can get a special reverse mounting ring, with filter threads on both sides, for mounting lenses nose-to-nose. With a tele for the prime and a wide angle for the reversed lens, nice hi-magnification images can be the result.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think your best bang for the buck is the 55mm f2.8 Vivitar (Komine made lens). Goes 1:1 without extension tube and is very sharp wide open. Of course contrast isn't as good as some of the later super multi coated lenses, but it's very close. I think one of the best M42 macro lenses I have used is a 60mm f2.8 Yashica macro, but those command fairly high prices. There are hundreds of ways to get super-close-up photos. Some are very cheap and some very expensive. Even the cheapest route can deliver surprising results and it's so much fun exploring all the alternative out there. Just search Micro and Macro photography. I have John Shaws book and he gives some very good advice for taking Micro/Macro shoots on a very tight budget. That said, I sold my Yashica 60mm Macro for a very good price and bought a Tamron 90mm f2.8 since I like working just a little further away from my subject. JohnW

 

[KenS]

My favorite M42 macro is the (Pentax) SMC Takumar 100mm f/4. Sharp as a tack. Another very excellent performer is the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro. You'll need a M42 Adaptalll-2 mount for it.

I'll 'second that suggestion/recommendation.. I have the 100mm macro..while it don't get used that much these days BUT....it provides for a much 'better'/convenient" working distance.

Ken

 

[Bill Burk]

Hold your Helios backwards on a toilet paper tube and walk up as close as you want.