Best M42 Lenses

[robert_davis2]

"It seems that there are only a few lens manufacturers out there building lenses for companies like Pentax, Olympus and others. Is Chinon one of those lens manufacturers building lenses to different specs for the big guys and who else is doing the same?"

 

For M42 everybody almost built lenses and cameras. Other then Nikon and Canon didn't everybody else?

 

Ricoh built the Sears cameras.

 

Pentax allegedly built the early M42 Sears cameras before Ricoh took over.

 

There are likely other house brands that are really built by somebody else but it's unlikely anything with a big name was built by a contracter. It's likely in many cases all that changed was the name plate. Mayima built lenses for Rollei all that was changed was the mount.

[ed_berns1]

Hi there Robert . . .

 

FWIW, I've had some very nice results with the Super-Takumar 100/2.8. Excellent optics, small size, typical high build quality of screw mount Pentax lenses.

 

Yellowing, as discussed above, is a real concern with the faster Takumars if you plan to shoot color. The 50/1.4 has already been mentioned, but I've heard the 35/2 suffers from the same radioactive malady.

 

My experience is that with the price of M42 Super-Taks and SMC Taks being so low, it really doesn't pay to go with the "off" brands unless they offer something (speed or focal length) that would be too expensive to go with the Pentax branded lenses.

 

Have fun!

 

Ed B.

[robert_brady]

Thanks Robert. It's really interesting to hear that Mamiya built lenses for Rollei. I own two of the C330 Mamiyas lenses and they are excellent. Now I don't feel so bad about not owning a Rollei.

 

 

Thanks for the input ED. I'll add the 100 f/2.8 to my list. That's a focal length that I use quite often for portraiture.

[gib]

a number of people have reported success in curing the 50 1.4 yellowing....see the Spotmatic group on Yahoo for details...they have used sunlit window or certain special lamps. Worth checking out.

[silent1]

<i>a number of people have reported success in curing the 50 1.4 yellowing....see the Spotmatic group on Yahoo for details...they have used sunlit window or certain special lamps.</i><p>

 

Wow! And I though the 8 lb. hammer was the only solution... B)

[jay_.]

The SMC/Super Multicoated Takumars are by far the pick of the litter when it comes to M42 lenses. This is reflected in their price which is higher than most of the rest, but they are much more flare-resistant and of higher contrast than the rest.

[Jochen_S]

As far as I remember there were even Pentax lenses corrected for infrared without focus shift; surely a great thing, but I read no reviews or tests about them.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>There have been discussions on photo.net of clearing the yellow color (actually, brownish/tea color) from lenses with glass containing thorium: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0054IM">yellowish cast looking through 35mmf1.4</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005obo">Aero-Ektars: Does UV light remove the brown stain?</a>.</p>

 

<p>The Aero-Ektars of WWII were the first mass production lenses to use thorium glass. The 50 mm f1.4 Super-Takumar may be the most common lens containing thorium glass. This glass was used on some of the best lenses of the era: its optical properties of a high-index of refraction with a low-dispersion can lead to better lenses.</p>

 

<p>In the 50 mm f1.4 Super-Takumar, it is the rear element or one of the rear elements that contains thorium, not the front most element. One that I measured had a higher radiation level from the rear than from the front.</p>

[jeffpolaski]

FYI -- Cosina (under the Voightlander name) has produced a modern manual SLR that takes M42 lenses. Same basic body as the Bessa line for Leica lenses.

[skygzr]

Speaking of the eight-pound hammer, this guy has a slighly different take on repairing the radioactive Takumars......

 

http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html

[neil_walden]

The screw mount 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss Jena is wonderfully sharp, but it was the more flare prone lens I've ever used. Sidelighting caused it to sicken and backlighting put it into cardiac arrest. Its optical merits were apparent with frontlighting only. From my results, I doubt the lens was coated. Perhaps Jena made a later coated model. Can someone comment on that?

[richard_oleson]

I don't think there was ever an uncoated M42 lens, since the M42 mount began at Zeiss Jena in 1948, and lens coating was developed in the same place several years earlier. Early coatings weren't as effective as later ones though, and wide angle formulas are always a challenge.

 

There are also some excellent Russian lenses out there for cheap: the 85/2.0 Jupiter-9 is a heckuva nice fast/short tele ... i have 2, in M39 Leica and M39 Zenit mounts; the M42 model is the same lens and sells much cheaper than the M39s.

 

I can only think of one really rotten M42 lens i've run across - it was a 50/1.9 Yashica. Don't know if they put out some bad lenses in the 60s or if this one had been taken apart and reassembled wrong, but it was bad enough that it might have been....

 

:)=

[tim obrien]

I'm with the Jupiter 9 (85/2)crowd. Bought one, then found a body to use it on. The body is not top of the line (Praktica L) but the lens is great. I also have a Jupiter 8 in 39mm Zorki/Leica mount, it takes great pictures. I am sure the 42mm version would be as nice.

 

tim in san jose

[robert_davis2]

I went the other way. Took a 90mm MF soviet lens and a M42 adapter. Price for the lens was free [came with a Kiev I bought]. It's a slower then the other choices at F/2.8 but it works well.

[robert_brady]

It took a while but I knew that I'd get some input on lenses other than Pentax Takumars. I always thought that anything with the Zeiss name on it would probably be worth having and using but had no idea about the Russian lenses. Now that the cold war is over, were seeing stuff out there in the past 10-15 years or so that we never seen before. How well do the Russian cameras and lenses compare to the German and Japaneese brands that were all use to?

 

You gotta wonder if products that came out of a Socialist country had the same build quality. Don't mean to turn this into a political discussion but one has wonder if the people sitting on the assembly line put their hearts into their work.

 

In my experience, the best products seemed to come out of the Industrial "Super Powers" such as the US, Germany, Japan etc. I'd like to think that the Russian products are right up there bacause there's a good supply out there at reasonable prices.

 

Hope I didn't offend anyone with my comments, it's not my intention to do so. I'm just in search of information.

 

As far as cost is concerned, there are plenty of Pentax lenses out there at good prices but there are quite a lot of others with the M42 mount at even better prices. So, which ones give you the best bang for your buck?

[gib]

maybe I am stupid but you have received a helluva lot of response to your question, what more do you want.

[robert_brady]

I seemed that most of the responses were relating to Pentax lenses. It was nice to see more posts on some of the other brands.

I'm not complaining, actually I'm quite pleased at the response I've received. I appreciate the info offered from you and others who have contributed. I've learned a lot thus far!

Thanks to all!

[robert_davis2]

The Zeiss lenses are from a socialist country. Or I guess more correctly a communist country. I think all the Zeiss Jena lenses you're looking at are from East Germany. I'm not sure if Zeiss west ever made any M42 lenses.

[robert_davis2]

Bang for the buck is something you need to define. Does the time to find stuff count? I think for most things the Pentax are the best bang for the buck. They aren't that much more expensive and are easy to find. The difference in price for most of the lenses is fairly small.

[kenny_c.]

The Pentax S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 and Rikenon 50/1.4 EE (no A/M switch) are pretty good and produce very unique look and feel photos.

[ivo_miesen]

There is a special e-mailing list for M42 lenses on Yahoogroups. It's called ClubM42. During the last weeks I've been following a few auctions on German ebay regarding M42 lenses. Some examples of prices payed by people (sometimes me):

Asahi (Super) Takumar 1.4/50mm: � 33,50 (2 offers, I bought the Super-Tak)

Asahi Super Takumar 2/35mm: � 51,-

Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35mm: � 43,50 - � 57,- Zeiss Pancolar 1.8/80mm: � 202,99 (!)

Pentacon 2.8/100mm: � 32,50 Pentax Super-Takumar 2.8/105mm: � 82,-

Jupiter 9 2.0/85mm: � 24,01 (I was very lucky with this one, it's a good year, '69) Vivitar 1.9/35mm: � 25,50.

And I bought last friday in a local camerashop a Vivitar 2.8/135mm for � 15,-

So prices are mostly low to moderately low. Some exceptions excluded.

 

Ivo

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

"The Zeiss lenses are from a socialist country. Or I guess more correctly a communist country. I think all the Zeiss Jena lenses you're looking at are from East Germany."

 

It does not depend on the political systems whether a country can manufacture good or bad lenses. Ever heard of any outstanding lenses from US except the Kodak Ektars and the Zoomars (which actually were manufactured in West Germany)? Of course everything marked with Carl Zeiss Jena was made in their plant in the city of Jena in (former) eastern Germany.

 

I think there are some Zeiss (West Germany) lenses with M42 (or modified M42) for some late Voigtlaender SLRs. But some of them actually were made in the Voigtlaender lens plant and were made after Voigtlaender designs although they have a Zeiss label.

[Brian1664876441]

>As far as I remember there were even Pentax lenses corrected for infrared without focus shift; surely a great thing, but I read no reviews or tests about them.

 

I have such a lens, the Pentax 85mm F4.5 Ultra-Achromat. It uses all Calcium Fluoride elements, is Uncoated, and can be used from UV to far Infrared. It was not a cheap lens, listed for $1,400 in 1973, and was often used on scientific equipment like streak cameras. You may check surplus houses for streak and other scientific equipment for them. I doubt that anyone buying surplus lots would recognize this lens on the equipment unless they really knew Pentax lenses.

 

 

One axample shot with the Pentax 85mm F4.5

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1906103&size=lg

 

My little "presentation" on the Pentax 85mm F4.5

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=227337

[robert_davis2]

"Ever heard of any outstanding lenses from US except the Kodak Ektars and the Zoomars (which actually were manufactured in West Germany)?"

 

Goerz,B&L. Even the other US firms made some good lenses. The problem with US made lenses is they tend to have a cult following that keeps the prices up. Lets also be honest. The only reason Kodak post war made lenses in Germany was that it was cheaper to take advantage of German workers. It's no different then how companies are currently moving production to places like China.

[jimdesu]

Although I don't worship at the church of Zeiss, their Flektogon 20mm lens is outstanding. Also, you can find a (not as good) tilt-shift lens made by Arsat for cheap. The optics aren't as good as the Zeiss (though they're not bad), but it's amazing what you can do with tilts.