M42 kit, zeiss glass the commoner's way [Archive]

shadowfox

11-08-2007, 12:21

Got this camera not long ago and fell in love instantly. This Chinon allows me to use the CZJ Biotar from the Praktica FX without snagging the mirror (which will happen if you try to use it on a Spotmatic, for instance).

And, I have a long forgotten Takumar 200/4 with a lazy aperture when used in Auto mode, but works just fine in manual mode. Guess, what, the Chinon will take it also.

Along with a very unassuming Promaster Spectrum 7 wideangle (28mm/2.8) that came with the body, I suddenly have an M42 kit. For not much TCO. Yaaay! :D :D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2161/1865165512_5603bbed76.jpg

This photo from the Biotar:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2321/1890185319_6cb1338788_o.jpg

Not bad, eh? ;)

Tell me about your M42 kit or experience.

KoNickon

11-08-2007, 12:27

Well, I'm strictly an SMC Takumar guy in M42. Absolutely first rate optics on these lenses, comparable with anybody's.

Uncle Bill

11-08-2007, 12:54

The only M-42 screwmounts for me are Pentax's are here are two of mine... and I am charter member of a small slpinter cult called the Sons of Takumar.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1357/532434083_d2eace5d1a.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/309426488_66c1682fca.jpg

peterm1

11-08-2007, 15:49

I have quite a few M42s - almost exclusively Pentax although I have one or two non Pentax lens. The main exception is a 21mm wide angle in M42 made by Panacor, a lens produced by the same company which made Tokina. While I have not found a review on this lens, this brand name appears to have been well thought of generally judging by the comments I have found on various forums. And I can confirm that the lens shoots nicelybased on my own experience. As for the Pentax screw mount lenses, in general I cannot speak highly enough of them. In some cases I even have two or three different versions of the same lens (eg a 105mm f2.8 in early preset version (46mm filter), a later preset version (49mm filter) and a late fully auto version in SMC designation.) How is that for obsessive? But I thought it would be nice to see what if any variation there is (not much in fact.) I am now thinking of getting the very nice and somewhat more rare auto Takumar version of the same lens. But you name it and I own it (well almost.) As a generalisation I would say that the Pentax lenses are sharp and contrasty although they usually need stopping down a little for best results. Some of the German M42s are even better judging by some pictures I have seen on various forums. if you have a taste for these, try this forum which has quite a few comparisons and test shots of a range of manual focus lenses including a lot of M42s.:
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewforum.php?id=2

I have recently bought a Panasonic digital body which will allow the use of M42 lenses with an adapter and am very keen to give it a try out. One problem with owning lots of old lenses if you only have film cameras is that you often do not use them enough and even if you do, by the time the film is printed, unless you are really into it, and well organised you will forget which lens took which shot.

Uncle Bill, I should add that I think the early pre Spotmatics are about the best Pentaxes you can buy. There is something in their design and functionality which reminds me of the old screw mount Leicas. (Think 111c in SLR ) and thats kinda how I feel about them. They are pretty to look at nice to hold and shoot damn fine.

Trius

11-08-2007, 17:12

peterm1

11-08-2007, 21:12

I like the Olympus FTL. I have seen one in my life and seriously kick myself in he ass for not buying it the moment i saw it.

Dr. Strangelove

11-09-2007, 01:56

;)

Tell me about your M42 kit or experience.
Well, where would I begin? I am an M42 user and abuser: bodies include Cosina 4000S, Praktica MTL3, Praktica Nova 1 (in need of CLA), Chinon CE-3, GAF EL-ES (Chinon CE Memotron) and Mamiya DSX 1000.

The Chinons are probably the best M42 cameras made. They may not have the fancy-pants finesse of Spotmatics, but for actual shooting they are very reliable, loaded with useful features and lack proprietary BS like open aperture metering that was never standardized on the M42 and therefore is of very limited usefulness, unless you manage to hunt down a meaningful selection of single manufacturer's lenses. They have very accurate SPD metering, accurate electromagnetic shutters, aperture priority AE with ALL automatic diaphragm M42 lenses, electromagnetically operated aperture stop down mechanism for manual metering (almost as good as open aperture metering in practice) and large & bright viewfinders. The CE-3 is very compact (inspired by the Olympus OM-1 no doubt). The CE has 1/2000 sec exposure time, very nice viewfinder and double exposure option.

Lenses: Cosina 50/1.8, Cosina MC 135/2.8, Cosina MC 28/2.8, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Pentacon (Meyer Oreston) MC 50/1.8, Pentacon (Meyer Orestor) MC 135/2.8, Hansa 35/2.8, Helios 44M-2 (58/2), Porst (probably Chinon or Cosina) MC 35/2.8, Rikenon 24/2.8 & Sun 70-210/4 Zoom. Tamron Adaptall 2 28-70/3.5-4.5 with M42 adapter.

And I almost forgot: Super Takumar 50/1.4. It's a good lens for low available light shooting, but I am not a very religious person and I don't worship the Takumars. :rolleyes:

The Cosina lenses on the other hand are pretty good for their very low price and the same is true with the Pentacon / Meyer lenses. The CZJ Tessar is not that great. As far as Tessars go, the Industar-61L/D (which I don't have in M42 but in LTM) is considerably better. It's quite light though and combined with the Chinon CE-3 it makes a nice light and compact SLR kit. The Rikenon is good like most Rikenons. The Hansa 35 mm f/2.8 is very prone to ghosting without a hood (no MC), but surprisingly sharp even wide open. Corners are pretty soft of course. The Sun zoom is big and heavy, but very decent for a discount brand lens both optically and mechanically and the constant aperture is of course nice.

zuikologist

11-09-2007, 02:22

shadowfox

11-09-2007, 08:38

There are screwmount Leica SLRS? Whaaaa??? OK, time to do some serious Google work.

I'm in the market for an Olympus FTL. I only have two M42 lenses -- the Helios M44/2 & the Zeiss Jena 135. They need a body. Since I'm a serious Zuiko guy, I thought an FTL would be appropriate. Can someone help (enable) me?

Earl, I may be mistaken, but I think the M42 mount on the FTL is slightly modified to only accept Zuiko lenses. I hope not, but there's a nagging thought in my mind that I've read about it somewhere, maybe the biofos' site.

Also, your Helios M44 is supposed to be the same design as the Biotar that I have. I'd be curious to see how it performed compared to the Biotar :)

shadowfox

11-09-2007, 08:46

The Chinons are probably the best M42 cameras made. They may not have the fancy-pants finesse of Spotmatics, but for actual shooting they are very reliable, loaded with useful features and lack proprietary BS like open aperture metering that was never standardized on the M42 and therefore is of very limited usefulness, unless you manage to hunt down a meaningful selection of single manufacturer's lenses. The CE-3 is very compact (inspired by the Olympus OM-1 no doubt). The CE has 1/2000 sec exposure time, very nice viewfinder and double exposure option.
Exactly, I personally don't get what's so special about the Spotmatics, I've seen, handled, and shoot with them. No offense to those who are big fans (Bill, love your pictures of the spotmatics, very classy) :)

The Chinon CM-3 is the manual version of the CE-3. It is exactly like my OM-1, albeit without the Mirror Lock-up, and not as smooth. But it has the simple, precise operation just like the OM-1. And the viewfinder shows 95% of the frame.

The lenses are the ones that blew my mind, the Biotar is first class.

Dr., no flektogons? :p

VictorM.

11-09-2007, 10:56

Trius

11-09-2007, 14:16

Victor: Thanks. I have an FTL search set up, but it didn't catch that one. I'll have to revise my search terms to make sure it catches all eBay sites. This is a bit pricey, although with lens I suppose it's not bad. Or maybe I'm just cheap! ;)

Will: I think all M42 lenses will mount, it's the open aperture metering that won't work on other lenses. I could be wrong, though.

Here's a shot with the Helios. I used a Mamiya-Sekor 1000DTL.

rpinchbeck

11-09-2007, 17:47

I have a Helios 44M-4 and a CZJ Biotar. The Biotar right now suffers from an extremely stiff focus helical so the Helios gets to go out for walkies. Sample shot from Helios... surprisingly nice lens.

Russ

Trius

11-09-2007, 18:15

Yeah, it has a really interesting signature. All my Helios shots were handheld under less than high EV levels. I'd love to get it on a tripod and really see how sharp it can be. Not that sharpness is the be all/end all, but it seems to have a bite that is really good. And colour rendition is good ... really good.

willie_901

11-11-2007, 11:52

My first "real" camera was a M42 Mamiya-Sekor 500Tl SLR. Just for fun (and because they are inexpensive) I recently picked up M/S 35/2.8 and 28/2.8 lenses. These lenses perform very well. My original M/S 50/2.0 is a keeper too.

One great thing about using a M42 body is the number of interesting lenses to choose from. Don't overlook the Mamiya-Sekor M42 lenses.

Dr. Strangelove

11-12-2007, 06:42

Nice collection. Does the Hansa 35/2.8 have an old fashioned, low contrast look? It might be interesting on a DSLR.

FWIW I like the colour rendition of the Takumars/Super Takumars better than most lenses.
Not the ultra-low contrast of 1950s lens designs. Lower than modern lenses of course. It's somewhat out-of-the ordinary lens design for a non-brand name lens: it has .25 meters minimum focusing distance, which was pretty close for a 35 mm focal length lens in those days. I think it's a six element design similar to the CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35; most likely a copy of it (albeit the Flektogon 2.8/35 focuses even closer) .

Dr. Strangelove

11-12-2007, 06:58

The Chinon CM-3 is the manual version of the CE-3. It is exactly like my OM-1, albeit without the Mirror Lock-up, and not as smooth. But it has the simple, precise operation just like the OM-1. And the viewfinder shows 95% of the frame.

The lenses are the ones that blew my mind, the Biotar is first class.

Dr., no flektogons? :p
No Flektogons as of yet. They seem to sell for almost as high prices as the Takumars these days. I will probably try to get either one of the 20 mm Flektogons when a suitable offer appears though. The Rikenon 24/2.8 and the Hansa & Porst 35/2.8 are good enough for those focal lengths unless I get a really good deal for a Flektogon. I'm always on a budget and can't buy gear at any cost, or else I don't eat lunch AND dinner :D I once won a bid for a Pentacon (Meyer Orestegon) MC 29/2.8 with 11 euros, but the seller disappeared off the face of the Earth before I could purchase it... So I got the Cosinon MC 28/2.8 instead, which is by no means not a great lens, but not p*ss poor either.

David Murphy

11-12-2007, 07:15

Biotars are fantastic lenses. They were made in a few mounts, but still command pretty good $$. They are probably least expensive in Exakta and Praktina mount. Exakta bodies can be hellishly unreliable -- Praktina's are a little better.

shadowfox

11-12-2007, 09:09

Got around to scan some of the shots from the 200/4 Takumar on the Chinon CM-3:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2287/1986472769_64e2ae9199_o.jpg

Check out the bokeh :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2046/1986472369_88274be34a_o.jpg

can you tell this is a church? :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/1986471041_4772171e26_o.jpg

Avian Armageddon :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2281/1987282040_1df593807b_o.jpg

Unfortunately, unless you're using Safari browser from Apple, this particular picture will look very *blah* color-wise. :(

Diomedes

11-12-2007, 11:04

I'm a big Biotar fan. :)

Exakta VX1000 + CZJ Biotar 58/2 + Konica VX100 f5,6
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/112/287026787_486ccc172c_o.jpg

Canon Elan II + CZJ Biotar 58/2 + Fuji Superia 400 f2
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/148363053_ee2e141bbe_o.jpg

Exakta RTL1000 + CZJ Biotar 58/2 + Ilford Pan F+
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/233978505_0d013acb3a_o.jpg

Exakta RTL1000 + CZJ Biotar 58/2 + Ilford Pan F+ f2,8
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/239095541_1b34328f04_o.jpg

Exakta VX1000 + Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2 + Kodak T-Max 100 f2,8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2260/1522168819_24f03c3b14_o.jpg

erikhaugsby

11-12-2007, 11:14

Unfortunately, unless you're using Safari browser from Apple, this particular picture will look very *blah* color-wise. :(
You're not kidding, but why is that? Even Firefox on a Mac renders it pretty low in contrast and saturation.

shadowfox

11-12-2007, 13:15

Abbazz

11-13-2007, 00:22

Lots of gorgeous Biotar pictures on this thread. Thanks for sharing.

Some of the German M42s are even better judging by some pictures I have seen on various forums. if you have a taste for these, try this forum which has quite a few comparisons and test shots of a range of manual focus lenses including a lot of M42s.:
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewforum.php?id=2

For German lenses in particular, I find this forum very interesting (and more image oriented):
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewforum.php?f=3

Cheers!

Abbazz

photobizzz

11-13-2007, 01:08

I have a 300/4 Takumar, CZJ 135/3.5, and Jupiter-9 85/2 in M42 all are used on a Pentax K10D. Gottal love a 300/4 image stabilized for $150!

oftheherd

11-13-2007, 01:10

...

Lenses: Cosina 50/1.8, Cosina MC 135/2.8, Cosina MC 28/2.8, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Pentacon (Meyer Oreston) MC 50/1.8, Pentacon (Meyer Orestor) MC 135/2.8, Hansa 35/2.8, Helios 44M-2 (58/2), Porst (probably Chinon or Cosina) MC 35/2.8, Rikenon 24/2.8 & Sun 70-210/4 Zoom. Tamron Adaptall 2 28-70/3.5-4.5 with M42 adapter.
...

_________________________________
Tell me about your M42 kit or experience.
_________________________________

I know you don't mean that. :D :D :D

I believe the Porst was a German rebranded Fujica line. I used to follow them on ebay as a way of increasing my Fujica equipment..

Dr. Strangelove

11-13-2007, 01:46

Erik, Safari has something that other browsers don't. It uses the right colorspace when rendering the picture that has the necessary information embedded (as a part of Color Profile info).
Which of course is why you never should post anything on the web with any other color profile than sRGB. In the future that might change, if Microsoft ever decides to support embedded color profiles in the IE*, but as of now sRGB it is. Now I had to save the picture and have an image editor (I use Paint Shop Pro) convert it to sRGB in order to see anything like the intended colors.

* I don't use IE, but many people do, and Firefox 3 is still in alpha stage in any case

Dr. Strangelove

11-13-2007, 06:11

I know you don't mean that. :D :D :D

I believe the Porst was a German rebranded Fujica line. I used to follow them on ebay as a way of increasing my Fujica equipment..
It doesn't look like Fujinon EBC to me, but of course it is possible that it was made to spesifications ordered by owner of the Porst brand. Porst certainly was a West German brand associated with one of the large camera shop chains in West Germany.

The markings look quite similar to Cosinon lenses as does the multicoating, but the markings are not identical by no means. The lens only has "Lens made in Japan" written on it. The mechanical feel is quite good, but then again many Cosina lenses are not worse in that regard, for example the 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 are very robust mechanically. I have only taken a few shots with this lense and none of them wide open, so I can not say much about the optical quality.

shadowfox

11-13-2007, 07:10

Which of course is why you never should post anything on the web with any other color profile than sRGB.
Dr., I knew that :) , but this way, more people are made aware of this. A simple picture "sacrificed" for the benefit of spreading the knowledge and awareness.

Besides, sometimes the picture look blah even with sRGB. AdobeRGB has bigger gamut and in my experience, better colors.

mr_phillip

11-13-2007, 07:19

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/356299745_5df4cd074d.jpg

The main reason I keep a couple of M42 SLRs around is the 35mm Zeiss Flektogon and the 50mm/1.4 Super Takumar – both absolutely awesome optics. I've got a bunch more Takumars, some Soviet stuff (the 85mm/2.0 Jupiter's nice) and a 135mm Zeiss. Nice cheap way to get some special glass into your life.

Abbazz

11-13-2007, 18:59

Which of course is why you never should post anything on the web with any other color profile than sRGB. In the future that might change, if Microsoft ever decides to support embedded color profiles in the IE*, but as of now sRGB it is. Now I had to save the picture and have an image editor (I use Paint Shop Pro) convert it to sRGB in order to see anything like the intended colors.

* I don't use IE, but many people do, and Firefox 3 is still in alpha stage in any case

If you use Firefox, you might want to read this thread:

http://nelsonfoto.com/v/showthread.php?t=12573

Cheers!

Abbazz

peterm1

11-13-2007, 19:04

Up to now I have pretty much stuck with Pentax and Takumars. But after reading this thread and also looking at the following site over the past few weeks I think I need to consider getting some M42 glass from other manufacturers - including Russian ones.

http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewforum.php?id=2

You should check out this site. Lots of M42 information and pictures. I am particularly interested right now as I have just bought a Panasonic L1 which is a 4/3 camera and takes adapters that handle both M42 and Nikon lenses and am very keen to try them on this body. Up to now I have had a D70S and while its a a nice camera it is not effective with older glass - no metering and will not accept non AI lenses. Plus the Nikon register pretty well precludes using any other manufacturer's lenses as they will not focus to infinity. The Panasonic on the other hand takes a wide range of lenses including Nikon non AI ones and will allow centre weighted metering with them. (In your face, Nikon!) Of course the Panasonic requires stop down metering with thrid party lenses and that can be a pain but at least the Takumars have a stop down lever and this make it reasonably painless.

shadowfox

11-15-2007, 08:13

Exactly, Peter, the beauty of M42 system is the various lenses and bodies out there. Pentax Takumar lenses are only the tip of the Iceberg.

Hmmm.. M42 to 4/3rd eh? maybe when I have the E-3... drool!

titrisol

11-24-2007, 03:37

Spotmatics are great cameras, I just love them.
I have used it for all my life years (my fathe rhad one brand new in '73) so I guess that is why
I have used/owned some other M42 bodies, Fujicas, Yashicas, Vivitar but always come back to the solid and yet smooth Spotmatic.

I have currently several takumars (super and SMCs) in
50/1.4, Fantastic lens, with a nice OOFA and final feel
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/289773490_4e8253ce31_s.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/89853469@N00/289773490/in/set-72157600687133322/)
55/1.8, so sharp it hurts
28/3.5, Amazing lens, maybe a tad soft in the corners for some but good for me
135/3.5, Very good tele, sharp
17/4, the fisheye
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2052777154_c03eaf5e6b_s.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/89853469@N00/2052777154/)

and have also used the 200/4 which was unfortunately stolen and I think it made an awesome portrait lens, specially outdoors and wide open or at f/5.6

I have also Fujinon lenses and Sekor lenses (aka sears) are good buys great quality.
The Skor 135/2.8 is very nice, and produces lovely images

I have also many off-brand lenses that are good enough, from KMart, JC Penney, Soligor, Spiratone, etc.
Recently, the lens that was a pleasant surprise was a 35/2.8 Hanimex HMC I picked up at yard sale for cheap. Nice sharpenss and rendition of color, almost no flare

peterm1

11-24-2007, 17:51

Recently I have been researching m42 lenses. Motivated partly by this thread. I have been a long term user of takumars and have been long impressed with their quality and the quality of the results they produce. I have recently (Friday) received two adapters for use with my Panasonic L1, one for M42 lenses and one for Nikon. It si early days yet but I think I am having more fun with the M42s. Yesterday I tried the SMC Macro Takumar 50mm f4 and found that it works superbly as a standard lens. Likewise the 50mm f1.4. My personal favorite is the 85mm f1.8. Wow the bokeh on this is awesome but I have a hell of a problem focusing it wide open. Others I have tried to date are the 135mm f 2.5 (I always regarded this as a lovely lens, and now I am sure of it) the 24mm f3.5 and the 28mm f 3.5. Both of these are great too. I will soon post some shots. Love to hear more stories from those using M42 lenses on a digital camera.

Now I am beginning to consider the possibility of extending my range of lenses to encompass the German M42 mount ones. I frankly never took much interest before partly because I thought that some of them looked a bit strange (to someone who grew up with Japanese lenses.) OK shallow I know, but now I am putting that to rights, There seem to be a lot of very high quality German lenses at reasonably good prices (well compared with anything with a Leica mount.)

wlewisiii

11-24-2007, 18:06

I, too, have become inclined to picking up a M42 adaptor for my Canon T90. This thread reminds me of all the wonderful stuff from CZJ & all the rest. I'm especially in the mood for a nice CZJ 50/2.8 Tessar on my Canon ;) although the Biotar shots in this thread make it look pretty sweet too.

William

David Murphy

11-24-2007, 19:24

I love many of the M42 lenses (who couldn't), but I just can't stand the faint viewfinders on most of the M42 bodies bodies I've seen. The Spotmatics are marvelous as mechanisms, but viewfinders are dim and most of the bodies need light seals. The Bessaflexes were cool, but are now gone and were expensive. The Fujica's, Mamiya Sekors, Praktica's, Yashica's and most other classic M42 bodies just seem to break or are already broken and have pretty marginal viewfinders compared to the best of Olympus and Nikon. Voigtlander, Rollei, and Zeiss Icarex may be the way to go, but that's calling up big $$'s again. I wish Cosina would make a basic M42 body -- I'd happily pay $200 for a good one!

shadowfox

11-25-2007, 17:48

The Chinon CM-3 has 95% coverage and I think 0.87x magnification. But it looks bright to me, not OM-1 bright, but the dimness of the viewfinder hasn't been a problem in the 10 rolls I ran through it (can you guys tell I like this camera a lot? ;) )

tedwhite

11-25-2007, 18:31

Cosina did make a good basic one, as you know: The Bessaflex TM. Why they quite production is anyone's guess as the entire lot sold out in short order.

Maybe we could talk the bartender into putting a bug in Mr. Kobayashi's (sp?) ear?

I had one and stupidly sold it. Although it didn't have the solid feel of the Spotmatic, the viewfinder is quite bright, noticeably brighter than the Spotties, and the whole camera worked like a charm.

Having said that, after two cataract surgeries I now find my Spotmatics much brighter and therefore far easier to focus.

I have many Super Takumar and SMC Takumar lenses - ranging from 28mm to 300mm and there's not a dud among them.

The absolute stunners, if I had to choose, are the 55/1.8, the wonderful 105/2.8 and the knockout 135/2.5.

My one non-Takumar lens is the Vivitar 200/4 (or is it 3.5? Can't remember). It is a damn good lens and if you want an M42 in that focal length you can't go wrong.

Ted

shadowfox

11-25-2007, 19:00

Ted, I hopeI still can talk about my cameras when I'm 79 ;)

The only Takumar I have is the 200/4 and I must say it's an excellent lens. It's even better than the OM Zuiko 200/4 which is saying a lot.

I am now keeping half an eye for the 105/2.8, do you have any samples from it? also from the "knockout" 135/3.5?

tedwhite

11-25-2007, 20:09

Abbazz

11-26-2007, 00:52

I am now keeping half an eye for the 105/2.8, do you have any samples from it? also from the "knockout" 135/3.5?

Will,

You have to be careful with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5 lens, because there have been two different types (http://emmanuel.correia.free.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=59&lang=en) of this lens. The first one was a 5 element 5 group lens, while the second (Pentax part number 43812) was a 6 element 6 group lens offering better sharpness and enhanced contrast. To complicate things even further, Pentax has later released a Takumar 135/2.5 in K bayonet mount, which was an economy lens with 4 elements, no multi-coating and rather low performance.

Several other Takumar lenses have been made in different types with varying performance over the years (like the 135/3.5 or the 85mm portrait lens) but not many people are aware of this fact. It's fascinating to read all the posts about these Takumar lenses on certain Internet forums, where people are debating endlessly over minute differences in lens performance, without even specifying which version of the lens they are referring to :p

Cheers,

Abbazz

shadowfox

11-26-2007, 07:42

I hope so, too.

Actually, Will, it's a 135/2.5. Yeah, I'm sure I do. Just a sec.

OK, in my photos the following few: "I am Not a Well Man," "Elderly Gentleman Walking," "Rainy Day," and "Young Woman with Hat." All with the 135/2.5.

I'll have to fish about for the 105/2.8 stuff.

Ted

Ted, I can only find the "Young Woman with Hat" in your gallery, but that's enough to convince me.

Actually I was just lost in your gallery, you have so many cool and groovy stuff in there ;)

shadowfox

11-26-2007, 07:44

Will,

You have to be careful with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5 lens, because there have been two different types (http://emmanuel.correia.free.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=59&lang=en) of this lens. The first one was a 5 element 5 group lens, while the second (Pentax part number 43812) was a 6 element 6 group lens offering better sharpness and enhanced contrast. To complicate things even further, Pentax has later released a Takumar 135/2.5 in K bayonet mount, which was an economy lens with 4 elements, no multi-coating and rather low performance.

Several other Takumar lenses have been made in different types with varying performance over the years (like the 135/3.5 or the 85mm portrait lens) but not many people are aware of this fact. It's fascinating to read all the posts about these Takumar lenses on certain Internet forums, where people are debating endlessly over minute differences in lens performance, without even specifying which version of the lens they are referring to :p

Cheers,

Abbazz

Yikes! thanks for the tip, Abbazz, so how can I distinguish the 5/5 from the 6/6? is the part number imprinted on the lenses themselves?

Abbazz

11-26-2007, 15:47

Yikes! thanks for the tip, Abbazz, so how can I distinguish the 5/5 from the 6/6? is the part number imprinted on the lenses themselves?

The part number is engraved on the lens barrel below the "AUTO/MAN" (or "A/M" on certain lenses) switch. Just look for part number 43812 and you should be OK, provided that the lens is in good shape.

By the way, I made a mistake in my previous post, the 135/2.5 first type had 5 elements in 4 groups and not 5 elements in 5 groups.

Cheers,

Abbazz

tedwhite

11-26-2007, 18:02

Will, sorry about the clutter.

Rainy Day is on p.6; I am not a Well Man & Elderly Gentleman Walking are both on p.9. Young Woman with Hat you found, and I think that was on p.1.

Rainy Day and Young Woman were the only posed shots; the rest were grab shots.

Ted

tedwhite

11-26-2007, 18:40

I just posted another 135/2.5, "Retired Pirate," and it's on page 1 so you don't have to go on a journey.

This was a bitch to scan as it's dry mounted, so it's stiff and the image is too large for the scanner - which is why the top of his head is cut off. I put a heavy dictionary on the scanner's lid, but it's the best I could do.

The actual image is, of course, much sharper.

Unfortunately the serial # of the lens is 43801

Ted

shadowfox

11-26-2007, 21:10

The part number is engraved on the lens barrel below the "AUTO/MAN" (or "A/M" on certain lenses) switch. Just look for part number 43812 and you should be OK, provided that the lens is in good shape.

By the way, I made a mistake in my previous post, the 135/2.5 first type had 5 elements in 4 groups and not 5 elements in 5 groups.

Cheers,

Abbazz
Amazing, I didn't even know there would be a number under there :)

Out of curiosity, I searched and found a picture of the number, see attached images.

This particular sample is the Super Takumar, which is 43801, not the one you mentioned.

Ted, I bet yours look like this also.

Kim Coxon

11-27-2007, 01:07

They did!. It was called the Bessaflex. ;)
http://cameraquest.com/voigtFlexTM.htm

Kim

I wish Cosina would make a basic M42 body -- I'd happily pay $200 for a good one!

Kim Coxon

11-27-2007, 01:14

Actually the first version was a 5 element 4 group lens. ;)

Ooops, just read your later post. However, the AOHC site is to M42 what Boz's is to K mount.

http://www.aohc.it/indexe.htm

Will,

You have to be careful with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5 lens, because there have been two different types (http://emmanuel.correia.free.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=59&lang=en) of this lens. The first one was a 5 element 5 group lens, while the second (Pentax part number 43812) was a 6 element 6 group lens offering better sharpness and enhanced contrast.

Several other Takumar lenses have been made in different types with varying performance over the years (like the 135/3.5 or the 85mm portrait lens) but not many people are aware of this fact. It's fascinating to read all the posts about these Takumar lenses on certain Internet forums, where people are debating endlessly over minute differences in lens performance, without even specifying which version of the lens they are referring to :p

Cheers,

Abbazz

Kim Coxon

11-27-2007, 01:55

I thought I might add some general thoughts on M42 having played a bit with it.

In many ways, Fujica dealt with it is a better way than Pentax and is a very undervalued syatem. The EBC coating on the lenses is on a par with the SMC coating from Pentax. The 701 bodies had one of the brightest finders going until the Bessaflex. The open aperture metering was better thought out than the Pentax system. They also managed the transition to bayonet mount with more compatibility. Their basic adapter allowed auto stop down of all M42 lenses and the better one also allowed open aperture metering! There were some very fine lenses in their line up. There are more difficult to find but are generally cheaper than the Pentax ones.

As far as Pentax is concerned, a couple of points to note. The SMC Takumars as opposed to the Super Multi Coated Takumars can be a problem on non Pentax bodies. These are the ones which could be used for open aperture metering on the SPF and for Auto operation on the ES series. There is a small pin on the face of the mount which "locked" the AM switch. If you try to put any of these on an M42 body with screws in front face of the lens mount such as all the Fujicas after the 601/701 they will jam and it will be almost impossible to then remove the lens witout damage. Because of the ready availability of M42 adapters for most cameras, the price of the better Pentax lenses has grdually crept up recently and some lenses are getting very difficult to find in decent condition at a sane price. The 85/1.8 6 element lens springs to mind. In many ways the K mount lenses now offer better value as well as better functionality. The early SMC Pentax lenses were K mount versions of the SMC Takumars with identical performance. There are now looking far better value than the M42 ones and can easily be used on nearly all the Pentax bodies including the dSLRs. ;)

I was very tempted by the Bessaflex and Ffordes still have the black ones available new. However, sense has prevailed and nearly all of my M42 stuff is shortly going, both the Pentax and the Fujica. The LX with the early K mount lenses gives me at least the same performance and better usability and there are some RF items beckoning.

Kim

tedwhite

11-27-2007, 16:37

Hi, Kim:

Who/where is Ffordes and how much are they? (If it's in England and in pounds could you convert it to dollars for me? I'm hideous at maths but do tie my shoes reasonably well).

Ted

Kim Coxon

11-27-2007, 23:45

There are the UK equivalent of KEH or B+H and are in Scotland. Double the UK price in £ to get the rough cost in $. So not cheap especially with the exchange rate at the moment. I personally think a good condition Fujica or Pentax would be a better buy. https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm

Voightlander Page here https://secure.ffordes.com/shop/Store/StockList.asp?Type=new&Sub=0&code=VL

KimHi, Kim:

Who/where is Ffordes and how much are they? (If it's in England and in pounds could you convert it to dollars for me? I'm hideous at maths but do tie my shoes reasonably well).

Ted

Dr. Strangelove

11-28-2007, 00:37

I love many of the M42 lenses (who couldn't), but I just can't stand the faint viewfinders on most of the M42 bodies bodies I've seen. The Spotmatics are marvelous as mechanisms, but viewfinders are dim and most of the bodies need light seals. !
The best viewfinders I have seen on M42 bodies are the Chinons (CE/CM series). The later Prakticas are not bad either, starting from the MTL-3. The LTL series has pretty dim viewfinders, but the MTL-3 and MTL-5 have much better ones. The stop down mechanism of the Prakticas is also the best mechanical one there is. Only the Chinons with electronic shutter have a better stop down mechanism, since it is electromagnetically operated as well. The Prakticas are not the most reliable M42 bodies, but I don't find them particularly unreliable and they are so cheap now that you can always get another one. They of course feel a lot more 'clunky' and not as smooth as the Japanese mechanical bodies, but who cares as long as they work.

Dr. Strangelove

11-28-2007, 00:56

shadowfox

11-28-2007, 07:52

Ok, I think I have my eyes on my next M42 lenses. It's a MIR-24M.

The thing is, this lens used to cost almost nothing, but it certainly has picked up a weird inflation in price. :(

Anyone has this lens? any experience to share? samples? ... wanna trade? :p

tedwhite

11-29-2007, 05:59

Will, what's the focal length on this lens?

I think there is a MIR in 20 or 21mm. Would love to have one of those.

Ted

shadowfox

11-29-2007, 08:16

The Mir-24 is a nice 35/2 lens. From the samples I've seen, the sharpness and the bokeh matches the flektogons easily. And it's one full stop faster.

shadowfox

11-29-2007, 10:36

Another one from the Biotar, wide-open, heavy overcast day, zero sharpening:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2066976992_ad11c12926_o.jpg

Seele

12-12-2007, 04:57

I agree, but in general the biggest shortcoming of the whole M42 camp was not to get on the same table and agree on common standards. There were four different ways of implementing open aperture metering (Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya and Praktica) for Pete's sake! That lead to serious market fragmentation, which was one of the reasons for the demise of the M42. Admittedly not the only one, but with common standards there could have been some chance of M42 surviving the onslaught of bayonet mounts until the age of electronic data transfer and zooms, which would have made most of the both real and imaginary shortcomings of the M42 moot points.

On a similar note, the only really well though out open aperture metering system for the M42 was the Praktica electric. It was 100% compatible with older bodies and was much cheaper to implement on bodies than the mechanical aperture coupling systems of the Japanese companies. Unfortunately it was also the last one to appear, which took away all chances of it becoming a common standard.

Sorry for coming in late.

There had been more than four aperture indexing and simulation for full-aperture metering with the M42 mount, the Pentacon Super and Voigtänder VSL1 TM both used mechanical linkage moving parallel to the optical axis and they're a bear to manufacture. Pentacon got sick of it and devised the electric system and Voigtländer/Rollei just dropped the M42 mount and standardized on the Rollei QBM.

After all, the Chinon Memotron was a mean to get over these incompatibilities by using the lowest common denominator: the aperture actuating plunger for stop-down metering. This made the shutter release button stroke somewhat longer than normal but in reality works very well. Back then when the CE-3 and CM-3 were current I bought a CE-II when it was being remaindered at a big discount, and I used all sorts of M42 lenses very effectively. But the rewinder shaft snapped which was far from expected: instead of a solid shaft it was hollow, more like a thin metal tube and I was a little surprised. Still, if a clean Memotron CE-3 turns up at a sensible price I do think that I would not mind acquiring it.

dee

12-16-2007, 08:18

Some Porst cameras of the 70s were Chinons - like my Prinzflex Super TTL in UK , jioned by a Praktica Super TTL .
It was my 1st real camera , back then I traded it for an Olympus OM1 - too fiddly ! That became a Minolta SRT ...
I have recently bought several Prinzflex / Chinon cameras at around £25 with Chinon / Auto Reflecta 50 F 1.7 lenses - and remember just how good they were !
i bought the Prinzflex 'cos it was cheaper than a Spotmatic - but I did not realise just how solid and well made it was ... working well , even today .

dee