[m42 ] Old timers, I need your help

[hankchinaski]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

If your priority is sharpness, then you would definitely have a use for coating.

I'm not sure you'd find sharper lenses than Takumars, and there was a whole line of them. There are roughly a billion Spotmatics that sell for peanuts - the lenses aren't far behind. There are also Zeiss M42 lenses that might be what you're looking for.

Of course, you could always just get a Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL and Mamiya lenses.

 

[hankchinaski]

If your priority is sharpness, then you would definitely have a use for coating.

I'm not sure you'd find sharper lenses than Takumars, and there was a whole line of them. There are roughly a billion Spotmatics that sell for peanuts - the lenses aren't far behind. There are also Zeiss M42 lenses that might be what you're looking for.

Of course, you could always just get a Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL and Mamiya lenses.

Thanks for your help. Can you name names?

 

[TomR55]

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."

 

[brancaleone]

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.

Hi,
I love m42, too and have some lenses that I adore in the range you request, except for the wide side (15mm).
Sharpness is not my priority, so I can't give you reasonable advice in that regard but I would recommend some lenses that (for my taste) give excellent results in the final print.
Unfortunately there are not so many 28mm that stand out in my opinion, the only one I sometimes use is a Supertakumar 28mm 3.5mm
I understand you don't prefer 35mm, but in case I would absolutely recommend to get your hands on a Flektogon 35mm F2,4
50mm: you can't go wrong with any of the old Takumars, but one of my favourite (even if it's a 55mm) is the Helios 44. Usually it is used for its swirly bokeh, which I found interesting at the beginning but now it's getting boring....., but if you get a good copy (you know about the variability in quality between specimens) and stop down at 5.6 you'll get incredibly sharp and pleasing images.
135mm: the best portrait lens I own, even compared to Contax, Leica R, Canon, Nikon and Olympus equivalents, is a Pentacon 135mm 2.8, the one with 15 blades.

I am sure you will enjoy the sistem
Ciao

 

[titrisol]

Super o S-M-C takumar:
- 55/1.8; 105/2.8 are tack sharp ;
- 35/3.5 is very good
- the 28/3.5 might not be sharp enough for you

Fujinon 55/1.8

Tokina RMC 28/2.8 or Vivitar 28/2.5 are sharp

 

[M-88]

The M4-2 natively supports 35, 50 and 90mm M-mount lenses ... IIRC. It's an "M4" body equipped with an M2 finder.

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

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

 

[hankchinaski]

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

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

Thank you.

 

[TomR55]

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

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

My error ... apologies.

 

[hankchinaski]

Super o S-M-C takumar:
- 55/1.8; 105/2.8 are tack sharp ;
- 35/3.5 is very good
- the 28/3.5 might not be sharp enough for you

Fujinon 55/1.8

Tokina RMC 28/2.8 or Vivitar 28/2.5 are sharp

Hi,
I love m42, too and have some lenses that I adore in the range you request, except for the wide side (15mm).
Sharpness is not my priority, so I can't give you reasonable advice in that regard but I would recommend some lenses that (for my taste) give excellent results in the final print.
Unfortunately there are not so many 28mm that stand out in my opinion, the only one I sometimes use is a Supertakumar 28mm 3.5mm
I understand you don't prefer 35mm, but in case I would absolutely recommend to get your hands on a Flektogon 35mm F2,4
50mm: you can't go wrong with any of the old Takumars, but one of my favourite (even if it's a 55mm) is the Helios 44. Usually it is used for its swirly bokeh, which I found interesting at the beginning but now it's getting boring....., but if you get a good copy (you know about the variability in quality between specimens) and stop down at 5.6 you'll get incredibly sharp and pleasing images.
135mm: the best portrait lens I own, even compared to Contax, Leica R, Canon, Nikon and Olympus equivalents, is a Pentacon 135mm 2.8, the one with 15 blades.

I am sure you will enjoy the sistem
Ciao

Thanks guys, these lenses seem to be effectively brutal!
55/1,8:






135/2.8:




Helios 58mm:



The flektogon is also brutal but my brain cannot conceive images at 35mm focal length.

 

[xkaes]

There are lots of genuine Mamiya (Setagaya) M42 lenses in 28mm & 50mm. These are easy to find and very inexpensive. There are a few 15mm M42 lenses but these are not as easy to find and NOT cheap -- you might be better off settling for a 17mm/18mm/20mm etc.

 

[Bill Burk]

My all-time favorite M42 lens is the 35mm Super Takumar with 67mm filter ring. It’s a large and heavy lens and doesn’t couple with the Spotmatic F or ES open aperture metering, which makes it a bit slower to work with. You can often get it for under $200.

I like to think it is “rectilinear” so you don’t get barrel distortion that belies the fact you’re using wide angle.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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."

Tom, I think he is referring to the M42 lens mount, meaning cameras like the Pentax Spotmatics.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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

The Takumar 28s are compact and very nice. I can't comment on the "sharp" criteria. Of course they are "sharp." Some examples:

Old Railroad Machine Shop, Levee Street, Vicksburg, Mississippi

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

The Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens, both 8 and 7 element versions, were considered among the finest 50s of the 1960s and 1970s. Mike Johnston wrote about them in his blog. The 55mm f/1.8 is a similar superb optic.

 

[hankchinaski]

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

The Takumar 28s are compact and very nice. I can't comment on the "sharp" criteria. Of course they are "sharp."

The Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens, both 8 and 7 element versions, were considered among the finest 50s of the 1960s and 1970s. Mike Johnston wrote about them in his blog. The 55mm f/1.8 is a similar superb optic.

Thanks

 

[hankchinaski]

There are lots of genuine Mamiya (Setagaya) M42 lenses in 28mm & 50mm. These are easy to find and very inexpensive. There are a few 15mm M42 lenses but these are not as easy to find and NOT cheap -- you might be better off settling for a 17mm/18mm/20mm etc.

Thanks, nice advice.

 

[hankchinaski]

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

 

[chuckroast]

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."

Perceived sharpness is affected by:

• Lens performance
• Film, developer, and development method
• Negative size and magnification required to get to final image size
• Contrast of final image
• Viewing distance

 

[ic-racer]

I am looking for super stars, lenses that make your images pop out of paper and punch you in the nose.

In my experience, images pop out of paper and punch you in the nose can be made with any lens.
(Example: Nancy Rexroth, Boys Flying, Amesville, Ohio, 1976)

 

[Paul Howell]

SX will not mount on a M 42 body, the SX like K mount diameter is larger than the 42 mount diameter. In terms of quality, the Pentax 50 1/4 with radioactive element is likely the sharpest 50mm with really good contrast. Any of the Fuji with EBC coating are just as good as any lens made by Pentax. An ultrawide will be expensive. The Pentax 105 2.8 is a sharp lens. the 85 has always been considered a great portrait lens. Yashica also made excellent as did of all folks Petir.

 

[hankchinaski]

SX will not mount on a M 42 body, the SX like K mount diameter is larger than the 42 mount diameter. In terms of quality, the Pentax 50 1/4 with radioactive element is likely the sharpest 50mm with really good contrast. Any of the Fuji with EBC coating are just as good as any lens made by Pentax. An ultrawide will be expensive. The Pentax 105 2.8 is a sharp lens. the 85 has always been considered a great portrait lens. Yashica also made excellent as did of all folks Petir.

Thanks - you mean Petri right? I found this incredibly sharp image:

 

[hankchinaski]

In my experience, images pop out of paper and punch you in the nose can be made with any lens.
(Example: Nancy Rexroth, Boys Flying, Amesville, Ohio, 1976)

View attachment 351117

Looks like medium format

 

[Paul Howell]

Perti, it is, Petri made a propriety breech mount then towards the last of their camera business a M 42 version of their basic camera, just as every one else was moving to K mount. The Petri brand was bought and Cosina made K mount were sold under the Petri brand. Petri started as a telescope maker, might still make telescopes. Their bodies were bottom feeders, lens were quite good. My breech mount 300 is the sharpest 300 I own. I have Perti 50, 35 and 135 in M 42, fine lens, stacks up well with Pentax.

 

[reddesert]

SX will not mount on a M 42 body, the SX like K mount diameter is larger than the 42 mount diameter. In terms of quality, the Pentax 50 1/4 with radioactive element is likely the sharpest 50mm with really good contrast. Any of the Fuji with EBC coating are just as good as any lens made by Pentax. An ultrawide will be expensive. The Pentax 105 2.8 is a sharp lens. the 85 has always been considered a great portrait lens. Yashica also made excellent as did of all folks Petir.

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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