M42 Macro Lens Recommendations?

I'm considering using my Spotmatic II for in-the-field macro photography, but I

am not familiar with the macro lenses available for the M42 mount.

 

The subjects will be small embedded fossils, geological formations, and

seedling-sized flowering plants.

 

Any advice on M42 macro photography will be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Don E

Probably there are the 50 and 100mm f4 Takumars. You could also pick a Tamron 90mm adapt all lens. Some ravish about them, my own produces internal reflections visible in the image center if stopped down to f11 or smaller. Besides that it's a great lens and fast enough for general purpose too.

I used with very good results a 50/1.8 Pentacon lens on a m42 body with extension tubes, both with the lens normal facing and reversed. For your kind of work (static subjects) I think is the cheapest solution (you can find extension tubes for M42 almost for nothing and a good 50mm lens at a very low cost). You'll still need a very good tripod and mirror lock-up if your camera has one, it's a very very usefull feature. Mine (a Porst made in Japan) has some kind of mirror lock-up (the mirror locks when you activate the self-timer - very usefull, actualy this is the reson I still have this camera).

With one set of tubes (1:1 magnification) I can say the results are comparable with the Canon 100 macro USM. I used even 3 sets of extension tubes combined (which will give you up to 3.5 magnification with the lens reversed), but in this case is very hard to focus and also you will need more light.

Generally, it's preferably to work with the lens reversed because of the greater lens to subject distance. Also, reversing the lens you can put any normal lens (with different mount I mean) and you can have better resaluts, depending of your lens. I tryed a Carl Zeiss Planar 50 lens via a filter adapter 55 to 49 (that is the size of mine reversing ring) and worked very well.

Costas

You have different options. IMO the handiest (especially to use in the field) is a macro lens combined with a good achromatic diopter adjustment; a loupe could be useful for precise focusing. AFAIK Pentax made at least 3 macro lenses on the normal range (50/4 macro-takumar, super-macro-takumar, smc-macro-takumar) and 3 on the tele (100/4 Bellows-Takumar , SMC Bellows-Takumar, SMC Macro Takumar).

 

<p>The cheapest is a combination of a normal lens and a set of *auto* extension tubes (avoid older not auto tubes), however in this way you lose at least 2 stops which could be a pain. Extension tubes also work with macro lenses.

 

<p>Bellows and inversion rings for M42 are cheap but very difficult to use in the field.

 

<p>I personally use a tamron 90/2.5 (model 52B) and nikon 4t macro lens. Tamron also made two special accessories for the 90/2.5 to reach 1:1 magnification: a special extension tube (model 18F) and a tele-converter (model 01F). Maybe the extension tube is nothing special except for the tamron mount (see this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FBOf">thread</a> ). I dimissed the tele-converter when I got the macro lens.

I have the SMC 100 f4 Macro, M42. I use it on an istDS digital. It is excellent both as a macro lens and as a short telephoto; it is very sharp, even wide open, both as a macro and at infinity, with minimal if any chromatic aberration, and excellent colors and rendition generally. Out of focus areas are rendered very smoothly. Downsides: it is large and heavy for its focal length and speed, and only 1:2 rather than 1:1, though inexpensive extension tubes can correct that. Bought mine at Keh as a "bargain" (the glass was flawless, there was a scuff or two on the barrel of the lens) for somewhat over $100.

M42 mount has a great selections of top macro lens. For what you want to do (from mural size rock formation to 3:1 seedling), I would choose a 50-60mm macro lens for better hand hold ability and for the magnification ranges. Some example are: Fujica 55mm/f3.5 M42, Tomioka/Mamiya/Yashica 60/2.8, Vivitar 55/2.8 and Takumar 50/4. As others also said, you do need a better camera with Mirror lock up at the higher magnifications. That plus a set of extension tube and a reverse mount. You will also need a right angle finder and may be a light weight tripod with focus rail.

I do like the Tamron Adaptol 90mm f2.5/2.8 lenses. At least my wife's lens has been fantastic.

I just listed an excellent M42 Super-Macro-Takumar 4/50 on eBay. If you'd like to take a look it's here:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=013&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=230073527333&rd=1&rd=1

I have used all of the Takumar macros mentioned above with success. I believe that of those, only the older preset Macro-Takumar (not the automatic Super-Macro-Takumar) actually goes to a 1:1 ratio. Also I have a 60mm Macro-Yashinon, a preset, which works fine but is big and heavy because it is f2.8.

There are a lot of M42 lenses available at a very good price.

Practically any lens with extension tubes can be used. The normal recommendation is to select a slow medium telephoto lens (135/3.5 is a good choice). The long focal length helps in maximizing the shooting distance and small aperture keeps the weight low and optical defects small. The brand of the lens is not important because you stop down to f:22 in normal macro shooting anyway. For 1:1 magnification you need a long extension tube (around 100 mm) or a bellows system. There is a cheap Russian Zenith bellows on the second hand market.

 

A few corrections to previous responses:

Extension tubes or bellows do not decrease the aperture more than a macro lens when the magnification is the same.

Reversing the lens does not give optical improvement until the magnification is 1:1 or larger.

One of the best macro lenses ever made -- the original Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 -- is available

in M42 mount. This is the metal bodied lens that comes with an optical adapter. Without the

adpater the lens is 1:2. With the adapter, it achieves 1:1. The adapter includes a tripod mount

as well. The lens is frequently mentioned in discussions of classic glass. It's optically

outstanding.

Paul

I now have a good list of macro lenses to research. Stephen, I was not aware of the older preset Macro-Takumar. Paul, the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 sounds interesting, too.

 

I've done an extensive search on the web for information about M42 lenses. It is mostly specs available from the manuals. Are there any good M42 or Spotmatic user groups or forums?

 

Regards,

 

 

Don E

I have a Spotmatic II and several macro and near macro lenses which fit it. I would say that it's not my favorite camera for macro work. It has a microprism focusing aid in the center. The microprism gets very dark as you get close to your subject and the light level falls off. I believe that when this model was made in the 1970s some left the factory with a grid type or plain matter type screen. These would have been used with telescopes, microscopes, bellows etc.

 

My favorite cameras for macro work are the Canon F-1 with the 'L' type D (grid) screen and the Minolta X-700 with a grid screen. I had two Konica bodies modified so they now have Nikon "E" (grid type) screens. The X-700 has a very bright viewfinder. If the light is really low or the magnification is very high I use a second X-700 body which has a plain matte screen. The F-1 has mirror lock-up and this is handy for some macro work. The X-700s have TTL flash and this is handy for other things.

 

I also enjoy using my many Micro Nikkor lenses but if I have to get very close I use them on an old N2020 because the center of the focusing screen is clear.

Had excellent luck with the 50mm smc takumar m42 lens. My subjects were often moving(bees) so hand holding was very important - I wasn't afraid of being stung. This lens renders amazing fine detail. I purchased at KEH for like 50 dollars roundabout. SethL<div></div>