[m42 ] Old timers, I need your help

[Bill Burk]

The SMC Takumar 15mm f/3.5 lens is rare, expensive, and very good considering it's 1970s design

The 17mm f/4 SMCT is a lot less expensive. When I was looking for a fisheye, I found one for $220

 

[Maris]

I absolutely admire and respect you people who doggedly chase sharpness while shooting 35mm format. Years ago I tried it too; copy film, critical exposures, fancy developers, legendary lenses, small camera on giant tripod, and so on.
Then I moved to roll film and large format to find that what is technically difficult and exacting in 35mm becomes easy and routine on bigger film. Admittedly my "lazy man" pursuit of sharpness delivers success but perhaps without the gratifying triumph of doing it on small film.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The 17mm f/4 SMCT is a lot less expensive. When I was looking for a fisheye, I found one for $220

The 17mm is a full frame fisheye. The 15mm is a rectilinear lens.

Maris above is right. Forget this sharpness stuff. Take photographs and enjoy. Use rigorous technique. Buy a larger format if you want more resolution and a different look.

 

[xkaes]

Admittedly my "lazy man" pursuit of sharpness delivers success but perhaps without the gratifying triumph of doing it on small film.

Sounds like it's time to check out a take-it-everywhere MINOX.

 

[MattKing]

I'm just entertained by how many here have no problem responding to a request to "Old timers" .
The "sharpness" you see in the examples you posted has more to do with technique and, in particular lighting and the nature of the subject - than it does with the lenses used. This is assuming that you are looking at the many contemporary lenses were of reasonable quality - easily found amongst the many offerings - and that the lenses themselves are in good condition.

 

[hankchinaski]

I'm just entertained by how many here have no problem responding to a request to "Old timers" .
The "sharpness" you see in the examples you posted has more to do with technique and, in particular lighting and the nature of the subject - than it does with the lenses used. This is assuming that you are looking at the many contemporary lenses were of reasonable quality - easily found amongst the many offerings - and that the lenses themselves are in good condition.

Matt,

We respect the wisdom and the experience of old timers!

 

[hankchinaski]

I absolutely admire and respect you people who doggedly chase sharpness while shooting 35mm format. Years ago I tried it too; copy film, critical exposures, fancy developers, legendary lenses, small camera on giant tripod, and so on.
Then I moved to roll film and large format to find that what is technically difficult and exacting in 35mm becomes easy and routine on bigger film. Admittedly my "lazy man" pursuit of sharpness delivers success but perhaps without the gratifying triumph of doing it on small film.

Maris,

I carry this super sharp setup:

- Rolleiflex 6008
- xenotar 80mm
- super-angulon 40mm
- tele-xenar 150mm
- second magazine
- tripod

IT’S 15KG. So forgive me for looking for something lighter to carry from time to time…

 

[hankchinaski]

Paul, you're thinking of a later Mamiya mount like ZE. Mamiya SX lenses are just M42 lenses with an extra little pin to allow open aperture metering, but only on a SX camera. Fujica had a similar-but-different extension to the M42 mount. Mounting these M42-plus lenses to other M42 are all in the category of "it will mount, unless in the rare case that it fouls something."

Most name brand fixed-focal length lenses are pretty good. You can spend a lot of time questing for the magical lens, or just get some Mamiya, Fujis, or Takumars and spend more time taking photos. Also, for all of these modern (postwar) SLR lenses from the 40s to the 70s, you get at least single-layer AR coating. This is needed in a modern lens with several groups to minimize reflections. Perhaps what the OP thinks they don't care about is multicoating, which arrives in the 70s to 80s and is more necessary for complex lenses like zooms.

Yes sir,

Multi coating is what I meant, and I took note of your advice…

 

[otto.f]

Not sure if that's a joke or just confusion.

OP is talking about M42 screw-mount camera, not Leica M4-2.

It’s as far from my bed as skiing in China

 

[guangong]

Although I don’t own one now, the great bargain camera, quite cheap considering quality, is a Pentax Spotmatic with any Takumar lens.

 

[Dali]

The great bargain is a fully working M42 camera with a pristine lens. After all this years, it is rarer than hens' teeth.

 

[ph]

If you crave resulution and contrast and do not mind m42 adapters entaling being slowed down by setting aperture manually after having found focus, both he most recent Zeiss C/Y mount and Leica R mounts as well as some of the manual Nikon AiS creations should serve well.

p.

 

[xkaes]

Hank has decided to "go M42", but he hasn't specifically said if that means M42 cameras, or M42 lenses, or BOTH.

If he includes M42 cameras (there are dozens to chose from), that pretty much means M42 lenses only -- and there's over 1,000 lenses to choose there: https://m42lens.com/

But if he just means M42 lenses, the field is wide open with possible cameras -- film & digital.

I hope he enlightens us.

 

[Xylo]

I've read all this and thought it would be funny to talk about an experiment I did years ago. I wanted to know if an old SMC Takumar 35mm could be as sharp as a Nikon DSLR kit lens. So, I put them to the test. The Takumar got mounted on the Nikon using a very cheap lensed adapter. Big surprise, the Takumar was actually as sharp if not sharper than the kit lens.

So that says a lot about this piece of glass.

 

[xkaes]

I'm sure there will be a barrage of "that's because you didn't test them this way or that......"

The important thing is that you tested them to meet your needs.

Many people POO-POO "old glass" -- whatever that is. That's fine with me because that means that I can get it cheap!

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Mamiya M42 lenses were good enough for Rollei to use them with a Rollei mount and name them Rolleinars!
My issue with Mamiya 35mm MX etc is the poor focus screen, hence my change, many years ago to Nikon.
Back then my Mamiya 135 f 2.8 and a Mamiya 50mm f2 were as good as the competitive camera systems.

TB

 

[Paul Howell]

I've read all this and thought it would be funny to talk about an experiment I did years ago. I wanted to know if an old SMC Takumar 35mm could be as sharp as a Nikon DSLR kit lens. So, I put them to the test. The Takumar got mounted on the Nikon using a very cheap lensed adapter. Big surprise, the Takumar was actually as sharp if not sharper than the kit lens.

So that says a lot about this piece of glass.

Many of the older manual focus primes are as sharp as any of the AF kit zooms, what a newer zooms offer are improved coating. New AF primes, including Sigma are just as good if not sharper than the legacy lens, top of the line such as Canon L, Minolta G, Nikon ED, Pentax limited edition, Sigma Art zooms are just as sharp as most primes. When shooting film bottom line is that if a lens can resolve Tmax 100, 200 LPM, well unless you are shooting microfiche film, it is as sharp as if needs to be.

 

[grain elevator]

I decided to go m42…there is a romance, an aura to these photos that is out of this world…

My ABSOLUTE priority is sharpness, even at the expense of all other parameters,

How do these two things go together? Eigher you're looking for sharpness above all else OR for romance and aura, I think. And if you're looking for sharpness above all else, something more modern than m42 might be better, especially wides that you seem interested in have improved in sharpness since the m42 era. If you're in fact not looking for sharpness above all else, or your standard for that is low enough that small digital pictures from the internet and thus most lenses fulfill it, and the aura or romance plays a role, perhaps we should investigate what that is and what lens selection can contribute? Can you describe that part of your goal a bit more? I think you might be chasing a illusion if you think all m42 lenses share some characteristic like that.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

How do these two things go together? Eigher you're looking for sharpness above all else OR for romance and aura, I think. And if you're looking for sharpness above all else, something more modern than m42 might be better, especially wides that you seem interested in have improved in sharpness since the m42 era. If you're in fact not looking for sharpness above all else, or your standard for that is low enough that small digital pictures from the internet and thus most lenses fulfill it, and the aura or romance plays a role, perhaps we should investigate what that is and what lens selection can contribute? Can you describe that part of your goal a bit more? I think you might be chasing a illusion if you think all m42 lenses share some characteristic like that.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

The best lenses are made and sold by the manufacturers that have the biggest advertising budget!!!

TB

 

[Xylo]

Many of the older manual focus primes are as sharp as any of the AF kit zooms, what a newer zooms offer are improved coating.

Definitely. But for such an old lens to hold-up so well when compared to something modern even when using an adapter that is known to degrade the image really drives the point that these old Takumars aren't anything to sneeze at even today.
I know I was really surprised by this result as I was expecting it to be a bit inferior, but it definitely wasn't the case.
And mechanically it is tons nicer to use than than a plastic zoom.

 

[GregY]

The Pentax M42 35mm 3.5 lens is very sharp & unbelievably inexpensive

 

[Paul Howell]

Definitely. But for such an old lens to hold-up so well when compared to something modern even when using an adapter that is known to degrade the image really drives the point that these old Takumars aren't anything to sneeze at even today.
I know I was really surprised by this result as I was expecting it to be a bit inferior, but it definitely wasn't the case.
And mechanically it is tons nicer to use than than a plastic zoom.

Pentax lens designers came up with really sharp lens, considering that the single pin lens were designed with slide rulers. If the film to flange distance is correct I don't see how an adaptor will degrade an image. True, some adaptors like an M42 to Nikon with a correction lens that acts as a teleconverter will degrade an image. I have M42 to Minolta A and Sigma SA/D, film to flange is the same as with M42, Images are just as crisp as shooting with an M 42 body.

 

[Xylo]

Nikon with a correction lens that acts as a teleconverter will degrade an image.

That's exactly what I was using... Lets say that a 14$ eBay adapter is not what I would consider precision optics. But it works...

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't know of any optically corrected adaptors that were precision optics, then just as I wrote this I recall the Canon made a matched FD to EOS F mount for a few of the high end FD L telephoto. I don't think Minolta made a MD to A mount adaptor.