What is your favourite budget M42 mount Lens?

[mshchem]

I love the Jupiter-9 85mm on my Nikon F.

That's beautiful. I have the camera. What's the story on the lens? New, old? I know the eastern bloc made some great glass in the day.

 

[ruilourosa]

A boring F3 ... a sad Alpa, a obcessive Hasselblad and a maniac Leica

I really do not find any particular diferences in 99,9 % of the time between the two (F3 and LX) but mind i´m taking pictures not really worried about the camera i´m using...

 

[Agulliver]

CZJ Tessar 50mm bought in the Channel Islands back in 1983. Sharp as anything. Reliable as you like. I don't remember how much it cost but it was purchased along with a Praktica MTL5 for a total of £60 if memory serves.

 

[wastelanded]

I love the Jupiter-9 85mm on my Nikon F.

Look at that, gorgeousness!

I'm looking for a cheapish M42 body to begin exploring the wonderful world of these lenses. Something like a Mamiya-Sekor I think?

 

[cooltouch]

Regular old Spotmatics are about as cheap as dirt, why not just go with one of them?

 

[dynachrome]

My favorite inexpensive M42 lens must be the 55mm f/2 SMCT. As far as I can tell, it's the same as the 55/1.8 but with a different marked f number. All of the 55/1.8 Takumars from the SMCT on are excellent and the older ones are also very good but have less advanced coatings. The 35mm f/3.5 Noflexar has the close focusing feature and used to be inexpensive but no longer is. Some other lenses in this category include the Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 Fixed Mount (62mm or 67mm filter size), Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Fixed Mount (Ser. 28XXX...) and 50mm f/1.8 Pentacon auto MULTI COATING.

 

[flavio81]

My favorite inexpensive M42 lens must be the 55mm f/2 SMCT. As far as I can tell, it's the same as the 55/1.8 but with a different marked f number.

That's something of a mystery to me. Are they really equal? Perhaps the 55/2 was built to lower tolerances.
I agree with your assessment of the 55/1.8. It is a classic.

50mm f/1.8 Pentacon auto MULTI COATING.

I did not like that lens. Cheap construction quality, diaphragm leaves shone like mirrors, and had some flare problems.

 

[elcabezagrande]

Any of the Sears branded lenses. But I think that it is hard to find any really bad M42 primes, especially in 50mm.

 

[Eric Rose]

These kinds of questions are like asking what's your favorite underwear. But if you must my favorite 50 of all time while not an m42 but was the Zeiss Tessar 50mm. Oh and I prefer boxers.

 

[Ryank]

Hi guys, first post on APUG

I want to get a super takumar 35mm 3.5 for my spotmatic and I have found one for a decent price. How do I tell if this is the multi coated or single coated version? (sorry about image quality, it's what the seller sent me)

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi guys, first post on APUG

I want to get a super takumar 35mm 3.5 for my spotmatic and I have found one for a decent price. How do I tell if this is the multi coated or single coated version? (sorry about image quality, it's what the seller sent me)

Fortunately, with the Takumar lenses, it is easy:
1. If the lens says Super-Takumar, it has single coating.
2. If the lens has Super-Multi-Coated or SMC, then it is multi-coated and approximately later then 1972 production.
The Takumars were well-designed, and the single-coated ones are not especially flare-prone, in my experience. A deep rubber hood is a good idea.

 

[Ryank]

Thanks @Kodachromeguy! Is it worth it to get the Super-Takumar or would I be better off finding another 35mm lens(like the SMC or another brand)?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Thanks @Kodachromeguy! Is it worth it to get the Super-Takumar or would I be better off finding another 35mm lens(like the SMC or another brand)?

In the 1960s and 1970s, tens of companies made or marketed M42 thread-mount lenses. For the most part, the Pentax Takumar versions were the best optically (with some exceptions) and usually were the best mechanically. Considering that the 35mm lenses are so inexpensive now, I'd recommend you look for a 35mm SMC version followed by a Super-Takumar version. Really, for most conditions, I doubt you would see much difference. Possibly with sun shining right on the front element, the older one will have more flare.

 

[RichardJack]

What focal length?
I like the SMC Takumars they are all well built and sharp.

 

[cooltouch]

Yes, one aspect of Pentax-made lenses I've always appreciated is just how sharp and contrasty they are. So with regard to a 35mm lens, I too would be looking for an SMC Tak. One aftermarket lens well worth considering is the older metal-collared Vivittar 35mm f/1.9. I have one that I bought for cheap several years ago. It is very sharp. It has also been "discovered" so prices on eBay for this optic have gone through the roof. But it's still possible to find good deals oin it if you're patient. But this is more typical:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NICE-Vivita...943512?hash=item3ae61fbf98:g:Nw4AAOSwtGlZMDYo

Hardly a budget lens. An SMC Tak 35/2 will cost less.

 

[Ryank]

In the 1960s and 1970s, tens of companies made or marketed M42 thread-mount lenses. For the most part, the Pentax Takumar versions were the best optically (with some exceptions) and usually were the best mechanically. Considering that the 35mm lenses are so inexpensive now, I'd recommend you look for a 35mm SMC version followed by a Super-Takumar version. Really, for most conditions, I doubt you would see much difference. Possibly with sun shining right on the front element, the older one will have more flare.

Thanks for the advice, I'm going to carry on looking for an SMC version.

 

[MarkVII88]

The Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 is fantastic. A must-have.

I could not agree more.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Not really an active M42 user, but the one I enjoyed the most was a Praktica LTL3. Light, reliable and simple camera that let you enjoy a good Takura lens.

Marcelo

 

[MarkVII88]

I went with as budget of a M42 setup as possible. I started with the cliche Helios 44-2, which I bought for $30. I also bought a CZJ 50mm f/2.8 Tessar for $30, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 for $45, and Vivitar Auto 135mm f/2.8 for $10. I wanted a fully manual, mechanical SLR that had a light meter, so I bought a cosmetically challenged Chinon CM-1 for $20. All my cheap lenses are immaculate and my budget SLR works very well and even meters accurately.

I based my purchase of this incredibly cheap, but capable, M42 gear off online reviews and YouTube videos published by Zenography, Simon's Utak, and Cheap Shots Lens Reviews. There are certainly "better" lenses and cameras out there, but for under $150 I got a perfectly functional and decent 4-lens M42 setup. I also adapt all these lenses to my Fuji mirrorless digital camera.

 

[MarkVII88]

Hi guys, first post on APUG

I want to get a super takumar 35mm 3.5 for my spotmatic and I have found one for a decent price. How do I tell if this is the multi coated or single coated version? (sorry about image quality, it's what the seller sent me)

If it was the multi-coated version, wouldn't it be an SMC Takumar lens? I have the Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 myself and it's definitely single-coated.

 

[AgX]

I like the Industar due to its short built, by this making it unique between my many lenses. Though it makes all SLRs look kind of ugly.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 is fantastic. A must-have.

I agree, also. Here are some Tri-X snapshots:
https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2017/03/testing-35mm-super-takumar-lens-in.html

Mine was an inexpensive 'bay purchase. So far (early 2022), the thread mount Pentax lenses are still cheap. When will photographers "discover " Takumar lenses?

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Also, for budget lens, I suppose I would vouch for Takumar 17mm f4. A cheap fish eye that performs pretty well. Sometimes I use it on my Canon 6d.

 

[BobD]

Vivitar 135/2.8 w/serial # 37...

 

[Paul Howell]

When I first posted in 2017 I glossed over budget, although only a few rare Pentax lens are expensive, for the budget minded Yashica, I have a 50mm 1.9 as sharp as my Pentax versions, I have several Chinon lens, 35mm, 135 and 200, quit good as well.