[m42 ] Old timers, I need your help

[xkaes]

I don't think Minolta made a MD to A mount adaptor.

Unfortunately they didn't. I suspect they knew that only a small percentage of Minolta SLR users would want to use their Rokkor lenses on Maxxum cameras, and Minolta wanted to sell Maxxum lenses, too. (When the Maxxum cameras & lenses hit the market in 1985, Minolta shifted its manual-focusing SLR camera and lens production to China (mainly, Seagull). There are several Rokkor-Maxxum converters made by other companies -- some without any glass, and some with (of varying magnification & quality). I've never seen a comprehensive comparison of all the options.

For my Rokkor-mount lenses, I have a glassless Maxxum converter that I use for close-up and macro work, and a 1.2X glass converter that works at long distances with my long lenses (300mm and up) that focus passed infinity. As with any tele-converter, the trick is to stop down to get the best quality -- and if the prime lens is top-notch, the results will probably be very acceptable.

 

[__Brian]

1976 Test of 32 Normal Lenses. The Pentax 55/1.8 stopped down to F2.8 has the better edge performance compared with the 50/1.4.

The 50/1.4 gets all the glory- but the 55/1.8 has better performance and is dirt cheap.

 

[__Brian]

Ok, so like the later Pentax lens for the F, will the 3rd pin cause any issues?

I use an SMC 50/1.4 Super-Takumar on my Argus Cosina STL1000 with no issues. Much later- picked up a Pentax Spotmatic F. I also have the older 50/1.4 Super-Takumar, 7-element. I cured the Yellowing in both by putting under a UV lamp. Do not use UV-C for this, does not penetrate the glass.

 

[xkaes]

The 50/1.4 gets all the glory- but the 55/1.8 has better performance and is dirt cheap.

That's not just the case for the Takumars. It's true for most (all?) similar optics. The Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.4 is a great lens, but the 50mm f1.7 is better stopped down, and the 50 f2.0 is better still -- and much cheaper, smaller and lighter.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

1976 Test of 32 Normal Lenses. The Pentax 55/1.8 stopped down to F2.8 has the better edge performance compared with the 50/1.4.

Interested test results. But the serial numbers they cite for the 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 are wrong. 1 million is for 1960s pre SMC lenses.

 

[titrisol]

Interested test results. But the serial numbers they cite for the 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 are wrong. 1 million is for 1960s pre SMC lenses.

I thought they restarted the numbering for the Kseries SMC lenses
Mine are all in the 13xxxxx to 16xxxxx

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Oh, these are the K series lenses? If so, my mistake. I thought the topic was the M42 thread lenses. In that case, the f/1.4 lenses were available as 8 and 7 element versions with different performances. The 55s also varied, with earlier ones containing a thorium element (superb!).

 

[Paul Howell]

The Pentax 55/1.8 stopped down to F2.8 has the better edge performance compared with the 50/1.4.

The 50/1.4 gets all the glory- but the 55/1.8 has better performance and is dirt cheap.

In the late 60s I bought a Konica T and a 52mm 1.2. The Konica rep was in the shop at the time, he told me that the 1.2 was for low light, in most situations the 50 1.7 was a better performer, the 1.4 is a compromise. I bought both the 1.2 which was used and part of the T package I bought but soon added the 50 1.7. I traded in the 1.2 when traded in my Konica gear for a Nikon F. There were time when I had to shoot in low light without a flash, the extras bit of aperture would have come in handy. When I bought a T and T3 I did not buy another 1.2, I got the 1.4 and 1.7. As before on very rare occasions I wished that I had a 1.2, but so rare it is not worth the money for a 1.2.

 

[titrisol]

Oh, these are the K series lenses? If so, my mistake. I thought the topic was the M42 thread lenses. In that case, the f/1.4 lenses were available as 8 and 7 element versions with different performances. The 55s varied also varied, with earlier ones containing a thorium element (superb!).

I think so, the 1976 timeframe is for the K-series lenses
And the 1.2 didnt come until that seires
But yeah, the 55/1.8 (and 2.0) is a great lens and the best price/quality compromise of the series

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I think so, the 1976 timeframe is for the K-series lenses
And the 1.2 didnt come until that seires
But yeah, the 55/1.8 (and 2.0) is a great lens and the best price/quality compromise of the series

Oh, you are right. I forgot that there was no 1.2 Takumar. I was thinking of the famous f/1.2 Tamioka lens in thread mount. It's become somewhat of a cult item.

 

[Jeremy Greenaway]

The M4-2 natively supports 35, 50 and 90mm M-mount lenses ... IIRC. It's an "M4" body equipped with an M2 finder. Unlike the M4 and the M2, it was most likely made in Canada (not a bit deal, IMHO), and it has an active hot shoe; unlike the M2, it has a "quick-load" film mechanism. I used some combination of M2, M3, M4, and M4-P cameras for thirty plus years in a variety of settings. I currently use:

28mm Elmarit, 35mm Summicron, 35mm Sumaron, 50mm Sumieron, and a 90mm Rokkor (manufactured by Minolta?) for those rare instances where I need something tighter than 50mm.

I doubt that many Leica "purists" on this and other forums would consider any of these lenses 'superstars.' I've found them adequate for what I do. I am also pretty sure that the "modern" Aspherical lenses are sharper than those that I am using. I'm also told that the Apochromatic lenses might provide additional "sharpness" for color film users.

During the many years that I've made photographs, I have found that "sharpness" is often the result of more than the particular lens used, but is also a matter of composition, processing, enlarger type and lens used, and, of course, individual skills. I think that others on the forum will be more helpful to you in this regard.

In closing, I would only observe that many so-called 'classic' street images, such as those made by Eugene Atget, Walker Evans, Henri-Cartier Bresson, to Gary Winogrand, and some contemporaries., were not "clinically sharp."

I think you'r confusing Leica cameras with Pentax's M42 bodies - screw mounts.

 

[Jeremy Greenaway]

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

In particular, the SV - last of the non-meterd Penti before the introduction of the Spotmatics. It was the best of all the screw-mounts. And as for hen's teeth, I fortunately have about a dozen, all in full working condition, from an Asahiflex to the last of the M42's and then on to M-bayonets from Spotty 1s to ESIIs and on to later K's including world's first autofocus camera and lens combination, the Pentax ME-F. Onwards and upwards, to the MX and the superb LX - my working camera. Then there's my digital K-5 - not bad, but LX is the best!

 

[Film-Niko]

I decided to go m42…there is a romance, an aura to these photos that is out of this world…
So I ask the people that were there (maybe it’s too late now…) to help me out.

My usual setup in 35mil, on the street is:

- 15mm (not so important)
- 28mm (fundamental lens)
- 50mm (fundamental lens)

When doing portraits, I use anything in the range from 85 to 135 (fundamental lens), provided the lens is the sharpest I can find.

Can you name lenses for these focal lengths? My ABSOLUTE priority is sharpness, even at the expense of all other parameters, especially coating which I have no use for. I am looking for super stars, lenses that make your images pop out of paper and punch you in the nose.

I do this as a tribute to my late father and his glorious Mamiya-Sekor, which gave us indelible memoirs of childhood.

As you say your absolute priority is the optical performance, then the perfect solution for you is to go for the latest and most modern lenses for M42.
And that are the lenses Zeiss introduced for SLRs in 2006 with mounts for Nikon F, Canon EF, Pentax K and M42. AFAIK the production of these lenses for M42 and the K bayonet lastet only some years (EF ad F bayonet has continued and is still in production as the amazing Milvus lens line).
So it could be difficult to find them on the used market.
AFAIK the following lenses were offered in M42: Dstagon 3.5/18, Distagon 2.8/21, Distagon 2.8/25, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 2/35, Planar 1.4/50, 2/50 Makro-Planar, 1.4/85 Planar, 2/100 Makro-Planar.

Another option would be the Voigtländer SL line produced at the beginning at this century. For a limited time it was also available in M42 and Pentax K.
Four lenses were offered in M42: 2/40 Color Heliar, 2.5/75 Color Heliar, 3.5/90 Color Heliar, Macro APO Lanthar 2.5/125.

And an option from recent production: Meyer-Optik-Görlitz Biotar 58mm f.1.5 II and Biotar 75mm f1.5 II.
At open aperture they offer dreamy swirley bokeh, but stopped down excellent overall performance:

Biotar 58 f1.5 II

Biotar 58 - the classic among the Biotars Launched in the mid-1930s, the original Biotar 2/58 was offered for approximately 25 years, making it the…

www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com

Biotar 75 f1.5 II

One of the most famous lenses in history In the 1930s, the ingenious designer Willi Merté developed the original Biotar 75 f1.5. In no time, the…

www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com

 

[Jeremy Greenaway]

Why, if you're shooting with a Pentax, don't you use Asahi Takumar glass? Used lenses are much cheaper but generally as good as, if not better, than modern. The Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 first version of 1964 had 8 elements, the 2nd version 7 elements. That was followed by the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar and finally the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4. These were all in M42 fit, as well as M bayonet in the latter two. These are regarded as among the best of all 'standard' lenses ever made. Wide angle lens choice is between 35mm and 28mm, although 24mm might be considered for a slightly more dramatic aspect. The M42 lenses by Takumar in these categories start with the excellent and quite large Super-Takumar 35mm F2, either model 1 or model 2; there were several 28mm Takis but arguably the best of these was an early model first version, Super-Takumar 28mm F3.5. For 24mm the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:3.5, which has a certain personality that I liked for photojournalism with more impact on the appropriate subject than a 28mm. Ultra wide, the 1975 SMC Takumar 1:3.5 15mm includes an aspherical lens element. It is VITAL to try before you buy this lens, which sells at upwards of £800 to £1,000 as there are, for some reason, variations in quality. I have - or had - two, one with astonishingly sharp and superb all-round results at full aperture but at its best around f5.6. My other one is soft throughout, which may suggest there is an internal fault. It's a waste of time and money for a digital cropped sensor camera. This is for FULL FORMAT 35mm cameras, and isn't that brill on a full-frame dslr. Other lenses which have that 'classic' pre-digital feel come from Voigtlander - nowadays produced in Japan by Cosina but remaining exceptionally fine optics. The Color-Skopar 20mm f4 is a tiny gem of a lens for 35mm film, and comes in Leica screw-thread or other mounts - best info and axcquirability for the full range is CameraQuest in the US. You might care to note that since 1999, Zeiss photographic lenses have been made in Japan - by . . . Cosina!

 

[hankchinaski]

Why, if you're shooting with a Pentax, don't you use Asahi Takumar glass? Used lenses are much cheaper but generally as good as, if not better, than modern. The Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 first version of 1964 had 8 elements, the 2nd version 7 elements. That was followed by the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar and finally the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4. These were all in M42 fit, as well as M bayonet in the latter two. These are regarded as among the best of all 'standard' lenses ever made. Wide angle lens choice is between 35mm and 28mm, although 24mm might be considered for a slightly more dramatic aspect. The M42 lenses by Takumar in these categories start with the excellent and quite large Super-Takumar 35mm F2, either model 1 or model 2; there were several 28mm Takis but arguably the best of these was an early model first version, Super-Takumar 28mm F3.5. For 24mm the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:3.5, which has a certain personality that I liked for photojournalism with more impact on the appropriate subject than a 28mm. Ultra wide, the 1975 SMC Takumar 1:3.5 15mm includes an aspherical lens element. It is VITAL to try before you buy this lens, which sells at upwards of £800 to £1,000 as there are, for some reason, variations in quality. I have - or had - two, one with astonishingly sharp and superb all-round results at full aperture but at its best around f5.6. My other one is soft throughout, which may suggest there is an internal fault. It's a waste of time and money for a digital cropped sensor camera. This is for FULL FORMAT 35mm cameras, and isn't that brill on a full-frame dslr. Other lenses which have that 'classic' pre-digital feel come from Voigtlander - nowadays produced in Japan by Cosina but remaining exceptionally fine optics. The Color-Skopar 20mm f4 is a tiny gem of a lens for 35mm film, and comes in Leica screw-thread or other mounts - best info and axcquirability for the full range is CameraQuest in the US. You might care to note that since 1999, Zeiss photographic lenses have been made in Japan - by . . . Cosina!

Thanks

 

[hankchinaski]

As you say your absolute priority is the optical performance, then the perfect solution for you is to go for the latest and most modern lenses for M42.
And that are the lenses Zeiss introduced for SLRs in 2006 with mounts for Nikon F, Canon EF, Pentax K and M42. AFAIK the production of these lenses for M42 and the K bayonet lastet only some years (EF ad F bayonet has continued and is still in production as the amazing Milvus lens line).
So it could be difficult to find them on the used market.
AFAIK the following lenses were offered in M42: Dstagon 3.5/18, Distagon 2.8/21, Distagon 2.8/25, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 2/35, Planar 1.4/50, 2/50 Makro-Planar, 1.4/85 Planar, 2/100 Makro-Planar.

Another option would be the Voigtländer SL line produced at the beginning at this century. For a limited time it was also available in M42 and Pentax K.
Four lenses were offered in M42: 2/40 Color Heliar, 2.5/75 Color Heliar, 3.5/90 Color Heliar, Macro APO Lanthar 2.5/125.

And an option from recent production: Meyer-Optik-Görlitz Biotar 58mm f.1.5 II and Biotar 75mm f1.5 II.
At open aperture they offer dreamy swirley bokeh, but stopped down excellent overall performance:

Biotar 58 f1.5 II

Biotar 58 - the classic among the Biotars Launched in the mid-1930s, the original Biotar 2/58 was offered for approximately 25 years, making it the…

www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com

Biotar 75 f1.5 II

One of the most famous lenses in history In the 1930s, the ingenious designer Willi Merté developed the original Biotar 75 f1.5. In no time, the…

www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com

Excellent advice, thanks!

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok, so like the later Pentax lens for the F, will the 3rd pin cause any issues?

The third pin hangs up on many lens mounts. If you have one of these, like a Zenit, you can probably mitigate it by dropping some hot glue in the screwhole and pressing it flat to give a smooth lens mount. At least carry a small brass shim you can fit in the thin gap

 

[markjwyatt]

I have a nice M42 kit. For 50mm, my sharpest is the Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron (really the enter of my M42 kit). I have a generic 28mm, which is sharp enough for me, but I prefer to use my 35mm f2.4 Flektogon or the Pentacon 30mm f4.5 (Meyer Optik Görlitz 30mm f3.5 Lydith). I just like the German lenses. I do have some Takumars 50mm, 35mm, 105mm, and they are quite good ( I really like the 105mm f2.8).

Here is the generic 28mm

house by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[xkaes]

You might care to note that since 1999, Zeiss photographic lenses have been made in Japan - by . . . Cosina!

I was unaware of this. I'm familiar with some of the Zeiss Contax T* lenses being made my Yashica/Tomioka. Did Zeiss move to Cosina due to problems/issues/disputes with Kyocera?

 

[xkaes]

Speaking of M42 lenses, I just nabbed a Isco-Gottingen Westromat 50mm f1.9 -- for next to nothing, much to my surprise. It was on a Ricoh Singlex -- but the lens was never mentioned!!! It should arrive in a couple of days.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ladenla/albums/72157625518175398/​

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

By the way, can I mount a Mamiya SX lens on any m42 camera?

No idea but do NOT mount non Mamiya lenses on an Mamiya SX camera ; I did and it jammed up my camera .
FWIW; My Mamiya 135mm f 2.8 images looked as good as my Nikon 105 F 2.5.!

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

FWIW.
Mamiya screw mount lenses were mounted to the Rolleiflex 35mm format and renamed Rolleinars.
Praise indeed..

 

[markjwyatt]

I think there can be some issues with Mamiya M42 lenses on other M42 cameras. I would do some research before ordering one. I remember I bought one on e-bay, then ended up canceling it after I started researching, but do not remember the issues(s).

 

[markjwyatt]

Here you go, and right on Photrio: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pentax-screwmount-lenses.203844/

I think the seller is an upstanding person, also, pretty active on the Rangefinder site.