Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2007 · m-42 mount lens

Freemont
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · m-42 mount lens

I'm looking for some cheap, highly reguarded m-42 mount lens that i can adapt to my canon eos 350d. I am already planning on purchasing a carl zeiss jena flektogon 35mm f/2.4, what are some other relatively cheap m42 lens? Something along the lines of canon's 50mm 1.8, as in comparably cheap and well respected.

Nov 30, 2007 at 01:52 AM

Guest

Guest

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · m-42 mount lens

Look for Takumars
according to my own experience: SMC Takumar 28/3,5 - wonderful lense, very sharp even wide open
SMC Takumar 35\3,5 - the same! But harsh boke on the close distances

SMC Takumar 135\3,5 - compact, sharp, nice boke

Takumars 50/1,4 55/2,0 55/1,8 - are needed to find specimen without yellow glass

All of them not more $50-100 per item

Nov 30, 2007 at 03:15 AM

Javier Munoz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · m-42 mount lens

I second the takumar advice and I would add the SMC Takumar 50 f4 macro (only1:2) to the list, I think that the older non-auto version of this lens could go to 1:1.

Nov 30, 2007 at 10:39 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · m-42 mount lens

I'll also recommend the Takumars, especially the 50/1.4 which is one of the finest 50mm lenses ever made.

I beg to differ with Maxim on the yellow glass, which is due to the existence of thorium in one of the elements, which yellows over time. Many people agree (and others disagree, of course) that this radioactive version has a special signature. I own this version and I bought it specifically because of that thorium element. If the yellowing is not desirable, it is easily removed by setting the lens in a window sill for a few weeks.

Most of the Auto-Taks and Super-Taks are single-coated and, as such, have lower contrast and less flare resistance, but a more earthy, "vintage" feel to them. Another reason why I specifically chose the Super-Tak version. If you are a contrast freak, go for the Super-Multi-Coated or SMC versions.

I also disagree with Maxim on the 135/3.5. While I own one and love it for its spectacular sharpness and colour (even wide open), the bokeh is most certainly its weakest aspect. Some of the harshest bokeh I've seen.

An interesting read:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml

Also, head over to http://forum.manualfocus.org/ and join up. Lot's of MF alternative users over there who tend to be much more budget oriented...

Nov 30, 2007 at 01:10 PM

jandrewyang
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · m-42 mount lens

Posted a while back on my little experiment with my 50/1.4. Never got around to posting my results though, seems as good a time/place as any.

I was reticent to leave my lens on the window sill for several weeks, so I did a bit of research into a faster method. Turns out lamps for terariums (dry "aquariums" for reptiles, turtles and the like) are typically lit by a combination of IR lamps (for heat) and high UV lamps to simulate desert conditions. Most sizable pet stores will carry a collection of UV lamps. I picked up a high UV CFL bulb (to avoid buying a specialty fixture) and put the lens under the lamp for a couple days. This managed to bleach most of the yellow out of the lens. As is typical for any asymptotic decay, it actually ended up taking another week and a half or so to get the lens to the point where there is no longer any colour cast. I checked this by shooting a reference grey card with a few different lenses in the same lighting and checking the RGB values of the card. Not the greatest check but better than holding it up to a piece of paper and squinting through the lens.

All this trouble could have been a waste but the lens is as great as its reputation. No pictures posted yet... post-processing is a bit more grueling for me than shooting... I guess it's like that for most of us.

Nov 30, 2007 at 02:52 PM

Michael Tucker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · m-42 mount lens

Do you lose infinite focus with the Tak 50/1.4 on an m42-eos adaptor? This lens might be something I want to get for portraits.

Nov 30, 2007 at 02:53 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · m-42 mount lens

Michael Tucker wrote:
Do you lose infinite focus with the Tak 50/1.4 on an m42-eos adaptor? This lens might be something I want to get for portraits.

No. Infinity focus is maintained. I buy the cheapest brass (chromed or black anodized) adapters and they always work perfectly. I buy mine from Roxsen on e-bay. Just bought another, in fact.

Nov 30, 2007 at 03:50 PM

Freemont
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · m-42 mount lens

I'm very interested in the Takumar 50/1.4 lens, can you tell me more about it (or give me some links) ? I'm interested in price, where to get it, what versions of this lens were made, etc.

Nov 30, 2007 at 07:29 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · m-42 mount lens

The Luminous Landscape link I posted previously explains all the variations of the lens. You'll have to go to e-bay to find one, once you decide which version you want. You shouldn't have to pay any more than $80 for one.

In the meantime, here's some more temptation. A full version of my avatar, which was taken with the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 (radioactive version) wide open:

http://www.cogitech.ca/photos/STak_50/snail4.jpg

Nov 30, 2007 at 09:04 PM

Javier Munoz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · m-42 mount lens

beatiful photo Cogitech.

Lately I am looking for a SuperTak 50 1.4 too and so far I have seen them going consistently under 50USD. The supermulticoated and SMC are close to 75 USD. You can also look for them in ebay hidden under a Spotmatic camera but to have a good copy in these cases is a little bit riskier.

The zeiss Pancolar 50 1.8 are also cheap but I dont have any experience with them

Dec 01, 2007 at 06:51 PM

Daniel Goller
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · m-42 mount lens

Once you have your flektogon, go and try it on a 2x TC, if you like close ups especially.
This thread makes me think I might go bleach my Super-Tak 50/1.4 now.I
think i keep only my "steals", (also 135/3.5 and 200/4) and am considering selling my better but too expensive for my budget (CZJ 35/2.4 and CZ 50/1.4)
The Takumars are an amazing value.As is my Zuiko 28/3.5, it will stay around too.
i Might buy me focus confirm chips to add to my well fitting Kawamall/Kawaphoto M42-EOS adapters instead of risking more Haoda disappointments. I'd stay clear of Haoda M42-EOS adapters, amazing how loosely they fit, the C/Y-EOS of is is better, not as snug as the cheaper kawamall ones, but better than the M42-EOS he sells.

I guess i always get carried away, all i wanted to do is agree on the Super-tak 50/1.4 and 135/3.5 performance and add the 200/4 as a long option. And mention the under tolerance machined Haoda adapters :/

Aside from ebay, keh.com is a good source, some of my nice looking lenses i got there as "BGN" rated, which for me meant clean lenses at a great price. Takumars are scarce there lately, but values are good if they are there.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

This link explains Flange to focal plane distances, which explains why you can have an adapter between lens and flange and still maintain infintiy focus.

Hope any of this helps.

Daniel

Dec 03, 2007 at 01:16 PM


FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.