M42 mount.... desirable lenses

[wayne naughton]

i just got a hold of some m42 adapters for both minolta af and manual bodies and while i've been reading up on the different lenses, i'd be curious to get people's opinions and recommendations on what to look out for. my only experience with screwmounts has been with a spotmatic and a couple of takumars (and that was about 30 years ago...grin)

many thanks

wayne

 

[Ian Grant]

The Takumars & SMC Takumars are great lenses, I also have some Tamron SP lenses the advantage is I have ES/F M42 adapters as well as K/M mount so can use them on my Spotmatics or bayonet mount Pentaxs & Chinons.

There was a great f2.8 28-90 S1 Vivitar lens not strictly a zoom, also a 28mm f1.9 S1 and I'd like to get them in screw mount for my Spotmatics, they rarely seem to come up for sale. I had the early S1 f3.5 70-210 zoom which is every sharp and again worth buying.

Ian

 

[wayne naughton]

i'm specifically looking for portrait lenses, somewhere between 70 to 135. and a decent wide...don't really want to start collecting unless someone comes up with something too good to refuse...grin

 

[Ian Grant]

The f1.9 85mm Takumar or SMC version is a superb portrait lens but seems to fetch quite high prices, and the fast f2 35mm Takumar is a nice lens too.

I have a good 105mm f2.5 Tamron which is a nice portrait lens I think I paid about £8/$12 for it about 3 years ago.

Ian

 

[wayne naughton]

ok. i'll start looking

 

[Paul Howell]

Vivitar 90mm S1 and SMC 105 2.8, I have both along with the SMC 80 1.8 and of the 3 the 105 is my usal choice, but if you have Minolta bodies I would go for a Minolta 100 or 105. I had a Minotla 90mm in Leica SM, one of the best lens I ever owned.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

i'm specifically looking for portrait lenses, somewhere between 70 to 135. and a decent wide...don't really want to start collecting unless someone comes up with something too good to refuse...grin

The Schacht 90mm f/2.8 is an extremely sharp lens and has practically the same performance and signature as my Zeiss 85mm f/2.8.
You can probably pick it up quite cheaply, if you find one.

Unfortunately, like the Zeiss, it might be too sharp, incisive & unforgiving for many portraits...

Nice wides are the 35mm f/2.8 Schneider Curtagon (the Pentax Takumar 35mm f/3.5 has almost the same performance & look - very massive & solid imagry) and the Zeiss Jena Flektogons (35mm, 25mm & 20mm).

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 is a very cheap and nice lens, especially if you intend to use it wide open. It's a preset lens, so you need to stop down manually before you take the picture, but it has a very nice signature for a low price.

Also of interest, but shorter, is the Helios-44M 58mm f/2, a russian copy of the Zeiss Biotar. The "M" one has auto diaphragm. I've just started using it and will have pictures later on, but the construction is very good for the price.

Most of the Carl Zeiss Jena are worth checking too. I had a 50mm f/2.8 Tessar that really had a nice look, and I keep chastising myself for selling it. The 135mm Sonnar would probably be very cheap (nobody seems to like 135mm).

Otherwise, the Takumars are in many respects the cream of the crop in terms of bokeh, build quality, colour transmission, etc. My 135mm f/3.5 Takumar was incredible and cheap. The 105mm could be a good, albeit harder to find option, but the 85mm are impossible to get for a reasonable price.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Sonnar 180/2,8! Might be a bit longer than what you wanted, but an interesting optic nonetheless.
Can be found with MC (black version) or without MC (black-chrome).
Biotar 75/1,5 is also interesting, but expensive.
Greetz, Benjamin

 

[removed-user-1]

My 135mm f/3.5 Takumar was incredible and cheap.

Another vote for the 135mm f/3.5 SMC Takumar, I used to have a Spotmatic with this lens and a 55mm f/1.8 Super Takumar. These are sharp lenses, and they are not very expensive.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you are in a Takumar mood, the one Takumar I dont have is the 120, somewhat rare but a nice fit between the 105 and 135.

 

[Trond]

The Super-Takumar 35mm 2.0 (the later version) is a truly great lens. For longer lenser, you might look for the Jupiter-9 85mm 2.0 and perhaps Fujinon-T 100mm 2.8. I have been quite pleased with these myself.

The Super/SMC-Takumar 85mm is very expensive, but a Jupiter-9 in good shape can be just as useful.

Trond

 

[wayne naughton]

the list is starting to grow.....grin. FWIW, just before christmas, i bought the zeiss af 85mm 1.4 and i've been wrapped with the results, it's a beauty. are there older manual versions of this one?

never heard of a 120mm, sounds like a bit of an oddity.

is there any difference between Super-Multi-Coated and SMC designations? same with takumar, super takumar and pentax? same glass, different names?

 

[Ian Grant]

SMC + Super Multi Coated, the Super Takumars are coated, can't remember but I thing the Takumars didn't had fully auto irises for the aperture, the stopped down as you made the exposure the a lever opened it again. All my Takumars have been Super or SMC.

Ian

 

[xzulx]

In my collection i have 3 M42 lens which is Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 and Carl Zeiss Jenna Tessar 50mm f/2.8.
Super Takumar is a single coated lens and SMC is a multi coated lens.

 

[Anscojohn]

I had a manual click stop (not pre-set!) diaphram 100mm 2.8 Meyer Orestor a buddy bought in East Berlin with "smuggled" Ostmarks which, thereby, cost a princely 10 dollars at the time. I loved the lens, especially for portraits at f/4.0 (which precluded needing to stop it down before releasing the shutter); gave it to a friend when I acquired a "better" lens. She still has it and will not part with it. Drat! Auto versions now run over a hundred bucks used in Europe.
I now have a pre-set Jupter 85 2.0, but have not yet used it. I have a TM Spotty and can also use it on my Nikon with an adapter.

 

[wayne naughton]

ok, now what's the story with these 'yellow' coated smc's... you know, the one's that glow in the dark.....or is that another urban myth....grin

w

 

[Trond]

ok, now what's the story with these 'yellow' coated smc's... you know, the one's that glow in the dark.....or is that another urban myth....grin

Well, they don't actually glow in the dark but the Super-Takumar 35mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4 do have radioactive lens elements. I believe it has to do with some of the minerals they used to create the glass in the rear elements in these two lenses.

The lenses will unfortnunatly turn yellow over time, but this is easily cured with strong UV light.

Trond

 

[Woudschim]

I ocassionaly use a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 on my Nikon body. A great and very sharp lens!

 

[2F/2F]

I was very partial to the two 105mm f/2.8s that I had for a short while. I got them both for free and sold to raise money to invest in FD equipment. Very small, a nice FL, and good quality prints (I did only do 6x9s from those negs, however). As it turns out, I ended up with a Spotmatic body and a 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 3.5 (again for free). Now I wish I had kept one of the 105s.

 

[Paul Howell]

never heard of a 120mm, sounds like a bit of an oddity.

Pentex made 42mm lens from 35mm to 150, for the most part, in 15mm increments, although from some reason they jumped to 105 rather than 100: 35, 50, 85, 105, 120 135, and 150. The 120 is somewhat rare, the 150 is easy to find. I find the 150 to be a better fit than the 180, I have a sologair 180 in 42mm as well, fast but just close to a 200. I dont think the 120 and 150 were carried over in the K lineup.

 

[wayne naughton]

Well, they don't actually glow in the dark but the Super-Takumar 35mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4 do have radioactive lens elements.

Trond

just those 2, trond or the whole range of super-takumars?

 

[wayne naughton]

Pentex made 42mm lens from 35mm to 150, for the most part, in 15mm increments, .

they must have had an enormous catalogue. then, i suppose all the manufacturers did. i read somewhere that minolta had made 53 different versions of the standard lens by the time they went to af....grin

wayne

 

[Ralph Javins]

never heard of a 120mm, sounds like a bit of an oddity.

Pentex made 42mm lens from 35mm to 150, for the most part, in 15mm increments, although from some reason they jumped to 105 rather than 100: 35, 50, 85, 105, 120 135, and 150. The 120 is somewhat rare, the 150 is easy to find.

Good morning, Paul;

The "15 mm increment" lilsting has some other anomalies in addition to the 105 mm. The 50 mm to 85 mm is another.

There seems to be many curiousities in the way lenses were chosen.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Anybody wants a Pentax Takumar lenses brochure? I got that hanging around somewhere in my bookshelf.

In M42, you could go from 17mm fisheye to 1000mm Big-Macho-Tele, with everything in between. That's:

17, 20, 24, 28, 35 (f/2 & f/3.5), 50, 55, 85, 105, 120, 135, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 1000.

Add to this the 50mm Macro, the 100mm Bellows (focuses from infinity to damn close on a bellows unit), some zooms, and two Ultra-Achromatic taks (85 and 300; focusing both infrared, visible, and UV light equally).