I was hoping people would tell me!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?
The 'semi-auto' Yashinon 50mm f2?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.
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.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........
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.
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.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 was hoping people would tell me!
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.I have a Fujinon 50/1.4 in Fuji's version of the M42 mount. It is a fine lens and pretty scarce.
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.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.
I guess that's one conclusion to make, or one can stick to shooting wide open and at minimum focusing distanceNow, I'm ducking for cover, but you can save yourself a lot of effort and money. Pick just one and enjoy taking pictures.
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 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.
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.I like M42, probably for the same reason you do- there is a huge amount of lens variety available in M42.
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
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.
Thanks for sharing the test -- hadn't seen it before.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 Voigtlander BL holds up amazingly well.
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,
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).
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?