Pentax Screw Mount Lenses

[cao]

But weren't the 2.8 wides bayonet mount rather than M42?

 

[Paul Howell]

But weren't the 2.8 wides bayonet mount rather than M42?

I think both. I had the 2.8 M42 at one time as well as the 3.5, but it turned up missing a few years ago, may have left last time I was in Italy.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think both. I had the 2.8 M42 at one time as well as the 3.5, but it turned up missing a few years ago, may have left last time I was in Italy.

I may be misrembering, I need to check my insurance list, the 28 2.8 may not have been a Pentex, may have been a Yashica.

 

[waynecrider]

Ok I figured it out. I was wrong; Doh. Both were 3.5's. One with 49mm and the other with 55mm filters. Does anybody know any comparisons or a page that compares them?

 

[cao]

If they are indeed super Taks with condition equal, I'd go for the later 49mm version.

 

[toadhall]

Ok I figured it out. I was wrong; Doh. Both were 3.5's. One with 49mm and the other with 55mm filters. Does anybody know any comparisons or a page that compares them?

Check this Italian Asahi site (in English). It doesn't compare, but lists every possible model of Pentax M42 lenses.

http://www.aohc.it/lense.htm

It doesn't list any 28mm other than the f3.5, but does show two different filter sizes: 49mm and 58mm. The 49mm matches most of the screw mounts, but several, including the 135/f2.5 and the 24mm/f4.0, use the 58mm.

 

[Paul Howell]

Great site, I check my records, the 28mm 2.8 that I had was a Yashicha not a Pentex.

 

[mabman]

Just a note, if the OP is in fact looking for manual M42 lenses generally, a source that shouldn't be overlooked are the Russian/Soviet lenses.

In particular the Jupiter series of lenses comes highly regarded (largely Zeiss clones/derivatives via WWII spoils), and "new old stock" or lightly used models are highly available in the former Soviet Union (Russia and Ukraine in particular). The original question was about 200mm lenses - a quick search turns up the Jupiter-21M (200mm f/4) with a few sellers on the auction site.

Personally, I bought a Bessaflex (M42-mount modern Spotmatic clone), as I was looking for a new(ish) manual SLR that could take these lenses directly (and eventually I may upgrade to an EOS with an adapter for some additional features). I bought a Jupiter-9 (85mm f/2 - well regarded as a portrait lens) and a Volna-9 (50mm macro) from a seller in Moscow for a combined total of just over US$200. A couple of weeks later they arrived in near-mint/almost new condition as promised. I also picked up a Super Takumar 35mm locally while waiting for my other lenses to arrive - all are great performers - the limitations in my photos is definitely me and not my equipment

 

[Roger Hicks]

- the limitations in my photos is definitely me and not my equipment

Would that more of us were honest enough to admit this -- though I have to say that the only 'magic' Super-Takumar I own is the 85/1.9 ex-WD, and that I've never had a good 50/1.8.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[waynecrider]

I think I may give up on getting the 28mm. After shooting another brand lens in that focal length, I find that the FL is just a little too short for around town work. I consistently wanted something wider.

 

[mcgrattan]

To be honest, my favourite M42 mount lens isn't a Pentax. It's Rikkenon 50mm f1.7, which has a really beautiful look to its images. It's also a beautifully made lens. Quality easily up there with the SMC Takumars and Super Takumars.

Downside, the rear element protrudes a lot, and, when used with an adapter, it catches the mirror on both my Pentax K-mount cameras and my film EOS body, when focused all the way to infinity.

 

[titrisol]

Just tried a 55/1.8 Fujinon
Not bad at all!

Not as sharp as the Super-Tak but nice anyways

 

[John Koehrer]

I think I may give up on getting the 28mm. After shooting another brand lens in that focal length, I find that the FL is just a little too short for around town work. I consistently wanted something wider.

wanted wider=need shorter. Or too short=need longer