Rarest 50mm m42 lenses?

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
Some time ago I enquired about the ‘best’ fast-fifties in m42, and had my impression confirmed that the Takumars 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 are (universally believed to be) hard to beat, at least as all-rounders. But I also wanted to know what lenses are there that may not be able to compete with the Takumars in every respect, but might outperform them for some specific application or effect. There are obvious candidates like the Helios 58mm f2 (swirly bokeh) or the Macro-Takumar 50mm f4 (close focusing), but I’m not sure the topic has been exhausted. Let me rephrase: what are the rarest and/or the most unusual/interesting 50(-ish)mm m42 lenses you know and like? Alas, usually these also happen to be the most expensive, but let’s ignore that for now.

Rarity is of course a relative concept, but a list of the most ‘desirable’ would probably feature the following near the top: the Pancolar 55mm f1.4 (almost mythical), the Tomioka 55mm f1.2 (in various guises), and the early eight-element Takumar 50mm f1.4 (not that rare, but pretty hot). Being ultra-fast, these are primarily valued for their wide-open bokeh. Another ultra-fast, mentioned less often, is a preset Tamron 58mm f1.2. Not as fast, but a possible contender for the best all-rounder is the original Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8: rare and expensive.

At the opposite end come macro lenses: the Macro-Takumar 50mm f4 (esp. the preset version), the Fujinon Macro 55mm f3.5, the Tomioka 60mm f2.8, the M-Travenar 50mm f2.8, and the Alpa 50mm f1.7 (with a few Chinon derivatives). I’m probably omitting a few models, but this is at least a well-defined category with an obvious application.

Finally, there’s a less coherent group of mostly early designs, which seem to be valued for their unusual rendering (at least some have formulas other than the later-standard double-Gauss) and for the number of aperture blades (many are presets). I’ve seen the following mentioned, though this is probably not a complete list: Biotar 58mm f2, Primoplan 58mm f1.9, Quinon 55mm f1.9, Takumar 58mm f2, Mamiya 58mm f1.7, Soligor 55mm f1.8, Petri Orikkor 50mm f2. (I'm limiting myself to f2 and faster, there'll be a lot more if including slower ones.)

Now, these are mostly praised by people shooting digital, who value their rendering for being distinctively unlike that of modern lenses, but I have the impression that these effects are less sought-after in analogue photography — mostly because such effects require a lot of experimentation and adjusting, which, especially given the current prices, are far less suitable for film. Am I right? I’d love to hear what you think on this and what experience you have with such lenses, mentioned or not, as well as whether you have ‘unusual’ favourites of your own!
 
Last edited:

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,520
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I'm not a Yashica/Tomioka expert, but it seems there are some very hard to find, early Yashinon 50-ish lenses where very few were made. This is probably true of other lenses makers too -- in the early years when they were still trying to "get it right". (The same is true of several early cameras, as well) A lens (or camera) would be produced for a month or two, and then a change was made -- typically minor, but sometimes not. Sometimes obvious -- a change to the name (ex., Yashicor to Yashinon) -- and sometimes not -- a change to the optical design.

So if you want to dive into this type of rabbit hole, there is probably a lot to work with -- same lens with a different label, same lens with a different optical design, filter thread........
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,523
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I have several that are really good performers, not that any are rare or expensive, one of the advantages of the M42 mount is there were many excellent lens that go for not much money. Many years ago, maybe 18 or so I tested my lot of 50mmish lens including a number were M42 lens. The Petri, 50, I think it is a 2.0 the same lens as the Petri in the Petri breech mount, Mamiya, Yashica, Soligair made for the Miranda 42mm body, all could resolve Tmax 100, the coating are pretty good. I just cannot think of any that rare, well maybe the Cosnia Voitlander 50mm for the M42mm body. It only made for few years and might be rare.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
Lucius, you covered it pretty well! Some lenses from Olympus, Zeiss, Schneider all in M42? Let us know please if you find some new gem?
I was hoping people would tell me!

From Olympus, there are in m42 the Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and f1.4: the f1.8 is perhaps the smallest in its class, and the f1.4 has I think the closest MFD at 40cm for an 1.4 lens. There's also a pretty rare Sears / Rikenon 50mm f1.4.

I should have mentioned the Schneider Xenon 50mm f1.9 (along with the -- at least nominally faster -- SL Xenon 50mm f1.8, which apparently exists in m42 too), the Isco Westromat / Westagon (etc.) 50mm f1.9, the Schacht Travelon 50mm f1.8, and the Ennalyt 50mm f1.9. They are all fairly rare and well-respected, but I haven't quite figured out (from reading) if they really stand out in any ways from the more usual models.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
I'm not a Yashica/Tomioka expert, but it seems there are some very hard to find, early Yashinon 50-ish lenses where very few were made.
The 'semi-auto' Yashinon 50mm f2?

That's very true even for the later and better-known models. It's quite likely, for instance, that the Takumar 55mm f1.8 had not only coatings changed as it developed, but also the formula adjusted.

While it's fun hunting down rare and old models for its own sake, what I'm really interested to know if unusual designs with their special effects do find a place in film photography?
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm

The Petri Orikkor 50mm f2 is pretty rare, at least in m42. But besides them being good performers, would you prioritise some over others for specific purposes?
 

AnselMortensen

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
2,277
Location
SFBayArea
Format
Traditional
Not rare.
Just not frequently seen on a Nikkormat.
 

Attachments

  • 20230330_170939.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 79

BobD

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,113
Location
California,
Format
Analog
I have a Fujinon 50/1.4 in Fuji's version of the M42 mount. It is a fine lens and pretty scarce.
 

Kodachromeguy

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,023
Location
Olympia, Washington
Format
Multi Format
That's very true even for the later and better-known models. It's quite likely, for instance, that the Takumar 55mm f1.8 had not only coatings changed as it developed, but also the formula adjusted.
I can attest to this. I have a 1971-vintage 55mm ƒ/1.8 Super-Takumar with thorium glass. I placed it under the Jansjo lamp to clear it. The coating still has a mild gold tone. My mid-1970s 55mm ƒ/1.8 SMC Takumar is clear internally. There is no sign of any elements developing the thorium tobacco color, so the glass is different. Also, of course the SMC coating is more complicated. I think the older Super-Takumar is marginally higher resolution, but it would be hard to prove that.
 

gorbas

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,266
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Format
35mm Pan
I was hoping people would tell me!

I start playing with vintage lenses on mirrorless digital cameras maybe 11-12 years ago when Sony Nex-7 hit the market. I tried (mostly bought) many lenses you mentioned in your original post. It was nice bonus to shoot them at around 75 mm effective focal length on APSC sensor. My conclusion is, wide open, at minimum focusing distance (especially if you have lens adapter with helicoid build in), almost all lenses I tried are phenomenal. They are simply gorgeous. Haven't seen bad one.
But when you start using them at further distances, let say after 2 metres, they all become very, very similar and boring.
Now, I'm ducking for cover, but you can save yourself a lot of effort and money. Pick just one and enjoy taking pictures.
If you have great picture, nobody cares what lens did you use for it.
On that note and one of your later post, I finally found afortabile Schneider Xenon 50mm f1.9 in DKL mount. I tried it yesterday on FF digital and it's also stunning lens wide open. Never before I have seen it in M42, but they must exist.
 

markjwyatt

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
2,414
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I do have the "rare and expensive" Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron, I have had it for almost 47 years now. I got it pretty inexpensively in the 1970s. I believe it is really a Voigtlander lens (Carl Zeiss just happened to own Voigtlander at the time it was designed/manufactured), and that makes it interesting to me. I built my main SLR kit (M42) around the Ultron. I like M42, probably for the same reason you do- there is a huge amount of lens variety available in M42. The only other mount that is close (for SLRs) is the Exakta (and I am kind of starting an Exakta kit also). I really like the older German lenses (50s especially, but into the 80s and even pre-war. A lot of Japanese lenses of course are also quite good, and I have a number of them. I do buy adapters for my Fujifilm XT-2, but mainly use film cameras these days, and I use the vintage lenses.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
I have a Fujinon 50/1.4 in Fuji's version of the M42 mount. It is a fine lens and pretty scarce.
Yep. And there's an earlier full-metal version with radioactive glass, which is scarcer still. And then a somewhat unusual (and rarish) 55mm f1.6 model.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
Basically what you are saying is that wide open and at minimum focusing distance these lenses produce distinctive bokeh, but at longer distances there's less blur and different lenses behave more similarly? That kind of makes sense.
Now, I'm ducking for cover, but you can save yourself a lot of effort and money. Pick just one and enjoy taking pictures.
I guess that's one conclusion to make, or one can stick to shooting wide open and at minimum focusing distance

On the other hand, I've seen people complain that it's difficult to find a 50mm lens in m42 that gives outstanding performance at infinity, so I guess that might be a more important consideration in choosing the best all-rounder.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
Now that you mention it, I think you are right. The 50mm f1.8 Ultron seems to be a redesign of an earlier Voigtlander 50mm f2 Ultron for rangefinders. I wish I had one!
I like M42, probably for the same reason you do- there is a huge amount of lens variety available in M42.
That, and they are also appealing as mechanical objects (esp. the earlier all-metal ones), more so than some later and more technically advanced systems.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
Having looked into the 50mm f1.8 Ultron, I should perhaps add one other category of "rare and expensive" -- m42 lenses produced by Cosina in the early 2000s under other brands. One is the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2 (along with the Voigtlander Color-Heliar 75mm f2.5 and a number of other wide and tele lenses). Another is the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f1.4. And the third is the Auto-Topcor 58mm f1.4. All were made in different mounts, including m42, but in very low numbers.

UPD: And there's a new edition of the Primoplan 58 f1.9, currently sold by Meyer Optik Görlitz for a mere €899.
 

Kodachromeguy

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,023
Location
Olympia, Washington
Format
Multi Format
On the other hand, I've seen people complain that it's difficult to find a 50mm lens in m42 that gives outstanding performance at infinity

What does that mean? Recall this experiment with Technical Pan film?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/from-the-archives-test-of-a-55mm-f-1-8-super-takumar-lens-with-technical-pan-film.144720/

I have used 1950s to 1970s 50 and 55mm lenses, and on film, most look pretty similar. Even my 50mm f/3.5 Color Skopar lens on a modest little Voigtlander BL holds up amazingly well.
 
Last edited:

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,520
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format

I won't thumb my nose at this. I'll add to it. The m42 lenses can also be used on full-frame digital cameras -- AND lots of other lenses from the m42-era as well.
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm
Thanks for sharing the test -- hadn't seen it before.

Not sure if it's the distance per se, but I guess for landscape photography three qualities are required that are less important for object shots: (1) consistent sharpness across the frame; (2) good coatings; (3) low CA. But, again, that's what I've read/heard, rather than based on my own experience.
 

gorbas

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,266
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Format
35mm Pan
Well, Lucius, your previously mentioned lens Pancolar 1.4/55 perfectly fits in your search. It's absolutely ridiculous priced for any lens, ever made, especially with so much yellowing from the radioactive elements.Yellowing on Takumars 1.4/50 was "joke" comparing with those. And there are 2 of them for sale right now with very similar coloration. Is it even curable? Takumars cured easily after relatively short time (a few weeks under Ikea LED lamp).
 
OP
OP

Lucius

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
227
Location
London
Format
35mm

The Takumars do seem to cure fairly well (I got good results after 48 hours under a cheap UV lamp), the yellowing in the early Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is more persistent (after a few days, there still remains some tint). I can imagine the 1.4 Pancolar being even worse. If only I could afford one!
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,523
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
The Petri Orikkor 50mm f2 is pretty rare, at least in m42. But besides them being good performers, would you prioritise some over others for specific purposes?

Although I did many of my normal primes I did not test the Petri as that came later. Of all the lens I tested all the Konica 57 1.7 and Miranda 55 1.9 out performed all of the M42 lens I tested with Microfiche film. Saying that, all of the 42mm could resolve 200PLMM which is Tmax100. I did not test for color correctness as I did not a correct color chart, so in my thinking a later M42 with better coating such as the Fuji with BBC coating Super coated Pentax might be the reason to pick one of these 2 over the others. Then again my Petri both in breech mount and 42mm mounts do a fine job with color film.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…