Favorite M42 lenses

I've just started with some vintage lenses - with the exception of a Bokina I just bought.

I'm trying to stay for now in M42 because adapters will add to the cost.

I've got:

1) A set of takumars I've had forever from older relatives but didn't really use until lately ( 4 50mm 1.8 8 elements, 135 f2.5, 100 2.5, some others.

I've got on order

2) A MIR-IV 37mm

3) A industar 69 28mm

4) A helios 77 M4 1.8 50mm

5) A 'blue helios' just because the glass looked interesting.

What are your favorite M42 lenses?

nice selection/thread.

from my own experience and owning quite some legacy lenses:

for M42 ranked from my personal observation, I also use them for IR or UV nr behind :

except for nr 0 I own and use the other lenses

0. IF I could find one... Tomioka made 55mm f1.2, took some pictures with it... wow.

1 Sears/Porst/Revuenon etc Tomioka made 55 mm f1.4 (also nice when tilted), IR great

2 Helios 44M II 58mm f2, IR great

3. vivitar 28mm f2.8 close focus, cmpact nice , mechanical top IR great

4. Takumar 55 mm f1.8 nr 1 with tilt adapter great bokeh transition, mechanics top

5. Fuji 55 mm f2.2 , soap buble bokeh and great for close up and UV--> 1 rank

UV rank 1 goes also to the TT Artisans Trioplan 100mm f2.8, great soap bubble is a modern lens though but its in the top 4.

6. Pentacon 50 mm f1.8 , great close focus, wild bokeh

7.Takumar 35 / 135 single coated, great for UV (rank 2)

8 . Helios 85mm f1.5

9. meyer 180mm f5.6 UV + Soap buble

10. Miranda 50mm f1.8 UV quite good, swirly

>>> IF I could find one... Tomioka made 55mm f1.2,

Only 1500 on ebay for a yashica style one - or is this a #1 kind?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2045301806...LnEpnNaLXvdSsTZL3YrWKZJw==|tkp:Bk9SR-r39PCRZA

--
See my work at https://billfrische.com

I really like the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, both the Pancolar 50 1.8 and the 135/3.5 are really nice. The 135 can lose contrast a bit shooting into low light and both of mine have slightly stiff focus rings in places (which I gather is common) but the produce really great images.

The only thing I don’t like is that due to the screw mount the don’t properly centre with the aperture at 12 o’clock on any of my KF adapters…

bfrische said:

>>> IF I could find one... Tomioka made 55mm f1.2,

Only 1500 on ebay for a yashica style one - or is this a #1 kind?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2045301806...LnEpnNaLXvdSsTZL3YrWKZJw==|tkp:Bk9SR-r39PCRZA

Click to expand...

You pay a hefty premium for rare value and branding. Although your existing lenses are "interesting" they are basically all made and sold in considerable numbers and are hardly rare but obviously give better value per dollar invested.

If you are into Russian M42 lenses the Mir-20 20/3.5 is an excellent lens and not quite as common (or well known) as many of the other lenses. In good condition it will cost a bit more than many of the other Russian lenses similar presentation (if it is ok to buy one these days). Failing that Zeiss effectively makes the same lens (a Flektogon - and the original?) in 20/4.0 and 20/2.8 versions - also in M42.

Chinese manufacturers are making MF lenses in ever more exotic specifications brand new but in oem ML mount specifications (not M42). They are arguably much better value even if they don't have the same aura as a rare exotic lens from the past which usually commands collector-level prices. Bought and stored for the long-term further increase in value.

Olympus G.Zuiko Auto-S 1.4/50 (yes, in M42, for the short-lived FTL)

Kuribayashi C.C. Orikkor 2/50

Auto-Alpa 1.4/55 MC (apparently a Chinon)

Mamiya/Sekor SX 1.8/55

Fujinon 1.6/55

Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 2/58

EBC Fujinon.SF 4/85 (soft focus)

Steinheil Auto-D-Tele-Quinar 2.8/135

I have no wide angle in M42 that I like. Looking at the Flektogon 2.4/35, but cannot justify the price.

This beauty and lightweight:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Takumar-Tele-Takumar-200mm-F5.6.html

On this forum you can see the ratings of many other M42 Pentax lenses:


RemcoR

bfrische said:

I've just started with some vintage lenses - with the exception of a Bokina I just bought.

I'm trying to stay for now in M42 because adapters will add to the cost.

I've got:

1) A set of takumars I've had forever from older relatives but didn't really use until lately ( 4 50mm 1.8 8 elements, 135 f2.5, 100 2.5, some others.

I've got on order

2) A MIR-IV 37mm

3) A industar 69 28mm

4) A helios 77 M4 1.8 50mm

5) A 'blue helios' just because the glass looked interesting.

What are your favorite M42 lenses?

Click to expand...

Looks like a great list. only got the Helios-77-M4 from that one. I like it so far, but haven't tried it enough to give a final verdict. Certainly prefer it tot the Helios-44M I've tried before.

One of my favorites (which I always mention when the topic comes up) is the Meyer Primoplan 58 mm f/1.9


Catch light



Unassuming... but in high demand!



Rain: embrace with grace



Light … outside and inside


The Meyer Orestegor/Pentacon 135 mm f/2.8 is a great lens in terms of price for money:


Life always finds a driveway


That being said, a majority of my favorite lenses don't have a native M42 mount, but can be easily adapted to one, so I don't think you should limit your search for interesting alternative lenses to M42, but include some others like Exakta, M39/LTM, c-mount etc.



--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.

ooooo...that look sweet. adding to my list!

Tom Caldwell said:

Chinese manufacturers are making MF lenses in ever more exotic specifications brand new but in oem ML mount specifications (not M42). They are arguably much better value even if they don't have the same aura as a rare exotic lens from the past which usually commands collector-level prices. Bought and stored for the long-term further increase in value.

Click to expand...

Yea... i'm not likely. to drop 1500 on an old lems.

I'm pretty sure I've got 4x 50mm lenses for the stick it in storage factor.

I've tried a few of the chinese lenses - they haven't excited me much. I've got - still - a brightenstar 35mm 0.95. I tried a few tt artisians and laowa and mitakon lenses too.

-b-

bfrische said:

1) A set of takumars I've had forever from older relatives but didn't really use until lately ( 4 50mm 1.8 8 elements, 135 f2.5, 100 2.5, some others.

Click to expand...

The 50/55mm versions and the 135mm f/2.5 are all ones I use a fair bit. The 35mm f/2 and f/3.5 are also both goodies.

bfrische said:

I've got on order

2) A MIR-IV 37mm

Click to expand...

Meh. Mine isn't M42, but it's basically yet another nice 35mm.

bfrische said:

... What are your favorite M42 lenses?

Click to expand...

I'll take the easy way out and just point you at MYLENSES page , which summarizes my opinions on a few hundred lenses (which I disturbingly enough own). Each is marked with the mount type, so it's easy to find the M42 ones.

BTW, don't assume that only the brand name ones are interesting. There are plenty of Vivitars, Spiratones, etc., that are excellent choices... and there are plenty of brand name lenses that are not good.

bfrische said:

I've just started with some vintage lenses - with the exception of a Bokina I just bought.

I'm trying to stay for now in M42 because adapters will add to the cost.

I've got:

1) A set of takumars I've had forever from older relatives but didn't really use until lately ( 4 50mm 1.8 8 elements, 135 f2.5, 100 2.5, some others.

I've got on order

2) A MIR-IV 37mm

3) A industar 69 28mm

4) A helios 77 M4 1.8 50mm

5) A 'blue helios' just because the glass looked interesting.

What are your favorite M42 lenses?

Click to expand...

My favorite M42 lenses can be a little bit odd or very odd. Here is a possible list:

• CZJ SpiegleObjektiv 500mm 1:4
• CZJ SpiegelObjektuv 1000mm 1:5.6
• CZJ Sonar 180mm 1:2.8, the M42 version
• CZJ 80mm 1:1.8
• CZJ 135mm 1:4 Sonar, the first version or the 1:3.5 last version
• Zenit Helios-40-2 85mm 1:1.5 the early version

As for the Asahi/Takumar lenses, I like the following:

• The doublet 500mm 1:5 -- its quality is really not great but it is interesting
• The triplet 1000mm 1:8 -- an OK lens but definite not a great one.

These are what came to my mind. A short but definitely not an exhaust one.

CK

Some beautiful images there. That lens is definitely going on my list…

bfrische said:

bfrische said:

Chinese manufacturers are making MF lenses in ever more exotic specifications brand new but in oem ML mount specifications (not M42). They are arguably much better value even if they don't have the same aura as a rare exotic lens from the past which usually commands collector-level prices. Bought and stored for the long-term further increase in value.

Click to expand...

Yea... i'm not likely. to drop 1500 on an old lems.

I'm pretty sure I've got 4x 50mm lenses for the stick it in storage factor.

I've tried a few of the chinese lenses - they haven't excited me much. I've got - still - a brightenstar 35mm 0.95. I tried a few tt artisians and laowa and mitakon lenses too.

-b-

Click to expand...

A lot of the exotic film era lenses were borderline unaffordable when launched a sold in small quantities to a world that was generally much poorer than it is today.

Hardly surprising that those better ones are still in short supply today.

If the super-fast Chinese ones of today don't excite then there is every chance that many of the exotic specification film era lenses also will not excite either as modern computer assisted design allows exotics to be designed and marketed quicker and cheaper.

Cheaper film era lenses of exotic specification could be an expensive disappointment. Canon made at least three different FD lenses of 50/1.2 specification in various stages of quality optics. But they would all be worth having. But the very best is more rare and expensive.

Therefore you are safer to stick with the known quality of those old lenses that were made in huge quantities and are much more affordable.

ProfHankD said:

I'll take the easy way out and just point you at MYLENSES page , which summarizes my opinions on a few hundred lenses (which I disturbingly enough own). Each is marked with the mount type, so it's easy to find the M42 ones.

Click to expand...

Wow what a body of work! I need a bigger screen to consume it, I certainly will do, thanks for publishing / organizing your assessments and info so well! Are you maintaining / enriching with new ones?

Ching-Kuang Shene said:

bfrische said:

I've just started with some vintage lenses - with the exception of a Bokina I just bought.

I'm trying to stay for now in M42 because adapters will add to the cost.

I've got:

1) A set of takumars I've had forever from older relatives but didn't really use until lately ( 4 50mm 1.8 8 elements, 135 f2.5, 100 2.5, some others.

I've got on order

2) A MIR-IV 37mm

3) A industar 69 28mm

4) A helios 77 M4 1.8 50mm

5) A 'blue helios' just because the glass looked interesting.

What are your favorite M42 lenses?

Click to expand...

My favorite M42 lenses can be a little bit odd or very odd. Here is a possible list:

• CZJ SpiegleObjektiv 500mm 1:4
• CZJ SpiegelObjektuv 1000mm 1:5.6
• CZJ Sonar 180mm 1:2.8, the M42 version
• CZJ 80mm 1:1.8
• CZJ 135mm 1:4 Sonar, the first version or the 1:3.5 last version
• Zenit Helios-40-2 85mm 1:1.5 the early version

As for the Asahi/Takumar lenses, I like the following:

• The doublet 500mm 1:5 -- its quality is really not great but it is interesting
• The triplet 1000mm 1:8 -- an OK lens but definite not a great one.

These are what came to my mind. A short but definitely not an exhaust one.

CK

Click to expand...

Thanks for that list CK.

I must admit to only sharing one of them - the Zenit Helios 40-2 85/1.5 (early edition) - I was lucky to pay through the nose for a new old stock version which arrived in immaculate condition reeking of lathe oil. Unfortunately the focus action was very stiff. But after a while I summoned up courage and re-greased it after which the focus was as smooth as silk.

Which helped lead me to the conclusion after buying a few more brand-new old-stock FSU lenses was that there was a cache of QC rejects that were archived and never repaired.

I envisioned that there was so much unsold "perfect" stock at the death of their industry that it was not worth while to re-work their QC rejects.

Come digital and adapters they good stocks were sold off. Then there were only the QC rejects left .... So I ended up with a perfect lens with a heavy-handed greasing issue.

In any case Zenit made a new batch of the 40-2 85/1.5 some years ago and punched a hole in the market for these lenses. Don't know (don't care) if the values have recovered since or even if the new crop are any better. The new ones were selling quite cheaply last time I looked.

But you also reminded me of my CZJ Sonnar 200mm f2.8 which I think is fairly rare (S/N says "0741") which is a significant lump of heavy metal - also in M42 and seemed hardly used if at all when it arrived.

Frankly I have not used it much either. I made the mistake of taking it when out with a walking group who were not photographers. It is not only very heavy but does not cater for a tripod mount ring. Its focus ring moved about 1 cm from infinity to 40 metres then spends most of the rest of its near 360 degree rotation slowly working its way to a close focus a 2.2 metres. (With ever increasing gaps). Obviously a very slow and uncomfortable lens to use when out and about with impatient non-photographers.

But now that I have dragged it out of its "retired" pigeon hole I am determined to give this lens another roll of the dice. It reeks quality build and I am sure that is used with patience and respect it will be rewarding in use.

This must be the overweight big brother to your CZJ Sonar 180/2.8

T-Rex Mark said:

ProfHankD said:

I'll take the easy way out and just point you at MYLENSES page , which summarizes my opinions on a few hundred lenses (which I disturbingly enough own). Each is marked with the mount type, so it's easy to find the M42 ones.

Click to expand...

Wow what a body of work!

Click to expand...

It's mostly incidental as a help to the community. Most lenses I got for research involving measurement of out-of-focus point spread functions (OOF PSFs). I should probably have all the OOF PSFs linked there too, but there isn't enough space on that server.

T-Rex Mark said:

I need a bigger screen to consume it, I certainly will do, thanks for publishing / organizing your assessments and info so well! Are you maintaining / enriching with new ones?

Click to expand...

I am, although with incremental additions I often did not update the date.

Tom Caldwell said:

I must admit to only sharing one of them - the Zenit Helios 40-2 85/1.5 (early edition) - I was lucky to pay through the nose for a new old stock version which arrived in immaculate condition reeking of lathe oil. Unfortunately the focus action was very stiff. But after a while I summoned up courage and re-greased it after which the focus was as smooth as silk.

Click to expand...

The Helios 0-2 85mm 1:1.5 versions seem to have the same problem: focus getting stiff over time. Two have copies. The newer version had a completely fixed focus ring which was sold to someone who can fix it, while I currently have the older version that is difficult to focus although it is not possible to use. I do not have time and am willing to fix it, as I am using the CZJ Pancolar 80mm 1:1.8 instead.

Tom Caldwell said:

But you also reminded me of my CZJ Sonnar 200mm f2.8 which I think is fairly rare (S/N says "0741") which is a significant lump of heavy metal - also in M42 and seemed hardly used if at all when it arrived.

Click to expand...

Actually I meant the 180mm 1:2.8 rather than the 200mm 1:2.8. Unfortunately, the 200mm 1:2.8, which I have had a copy for more than a decade, shares the same problem as the 40-2 85mm 1:1.5. Many Soviet era lenses have essentially the same problem, perhaps due to QC.

Tom Caldwell said:

This must be the overweight big brother to your CZJ Sonar 180/2.8

Click to expand...

That is right. So, they are good paper weights as well. I would prefer the Nikon 180mm 1:2.8 AF or even the Tamron 180mm 1:2.5. Some people insisted the Tamron is better than the last MF version of the Nikon. Sharper may be, but in terms of rendering I would prefer the Nikon.

The NEEWER E-to-Z AF adapter may not work well with some of my AF E lenses, but the 100mm 2:8 STF did work in AF. However, the actual maximum aperture is T5.6 and the final effect may not be as good as the Nikon AFS 105mm 1:1.4.

My next project would be putting a Sigma MC11 (Canon EF-to-Sony E) AF adapter in front this NEEWER E-to-Z so that I could try my very limited number of EF lenses. At least, the monster Sigma 50-100mm 1:1.8 for Canon works; but I could only try it on a Nikon Z50. Isn't it a waste? I don't know. Maybe I should find a cheap Canon EF 200mm 1:1.8,

CK

Short and sweet:

Helios 44-2 58mm f2

CZJ 135mm f3.5

Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro (Komine version)

Happy times!

Ching-Kuang Shene said:

Tom Caldwell said:

I must admit to only sharing one of them - the Zenit Helios 40-2 85/1.5 (early edition) - I was lucky to pay through the nose for a new old stock version which arrived in immaculate condition reeking of lathe oil. Unfortunately the focus action was very stiff. But after a while I summoned up courage and re-greased it after which the focus was as smooth as silk.

Click to expand...

The Helios 0-2 85mm 1:1.5 versions seem to have the same problem: focus getting stiff over time. Two have copies. The newer version had a completely fixed focus ring which was sold to someone who can fix it, while I currently have the older version that is difficult to focus although it is not possible to use. I do not have time and am willing to fix it, as I am using the CZJ Pancolar 80mm 1:1.8 instead.

Member said:

But you also reminded me of my CZJ Sonnar 200mm f2.8 which I think is fairly rare (S/N says "0741") which is a significant lump of heavy metal - also in M42 and seemed hardly used if at all when it arrived.

Click to expand...

Actually I meant the 180mm 1:2.8 rather than the 200mm 1:2.8. Unfortunately, the 200mm 1:2.8, which I have had a copy for more than a decade, shares the same problem as the 40-2 85mm 1:1.5. Many Soviet era lenses have essentially the same problem, perhaps due to QC.

Member said:

This must be the overweight big brother to your CZJ Sonar 180/2.8

Click to expand...

That is right. So, they are good paper weights as well. I would prefer the Nikon 180mm 1:2.8 AF or even the Tamron 180mm 1:2.5. Some people insisted the Tamron is better than the last MF version of the Nikon. Sharper may be, but in terms of rendering I would prefer the Nikon.

The NEEWER E-to-Z AF adapter may not work well with some of my AF E lenses, but the 100mm 2:8 STF did work in AF. However, the actual maximum aperture is T5.6 and the final effect may not be as good as the Nikon AFS 105mm 1:1.4.

My next project would be putting a Sigma MC11 (Canon EF-to-Sony E) AF adapter in front this NEEWER E-to-Z so that I could try my very limited number of EF lenses. At least, the monster Sigma 50-100mm 1:1.8 for Canon works; but I could only try it on a Nikon Z50. Isn't it a waste? I don't know. Maybe I should find a cheap Canon EF 200mm 1:1.8,

CK

Click to expand...

I must get my 40-2 85/1.5 out again - last time i used it the focus was still silky smooth and pleasant after my re-greasing. The CZJ 200/2.8 is not so sweet focusing but within my tolerance levels. As noted it is not the lens to take with you when you are out with a walking group with zero interest in photography. But a session last week around the house when considered patient use is possible indicates that it works well and has a look all of its own - I was playing with B&W images which of course would be its build-design intended purpose.

I also have the Sigma DC 50-100/1.8 "Elephant" in EF mount which of course covers a fairly restricted range of focal lengths. It is an aps-c lens and very fast. When focal reduced to M4/3 the image will be just short of covering the 4/3 sensor and reach 35-100/1.3 which is remarkable - with AF-S as well ... But mine needs focus tuning and I have to work out how I can do this. It often "finds focus" slightly soft out of focus. MF is very sharp indeed. I have been using Metabones and Viltrox adapters to M4/3. It will also work crop focus adapted to my Panasonic S1 in L-Mount.

I haven't a Canon EF 200/1.8 in my collection but I did buy a new Canon EF 200/2.0L IS many years ago. Another "big lump" but it has proved an excellent lens for use in amateur theatre dress rehearsals.

Just recently Metabones has issued V4.10 for its EF-M4/3 adapters. Now allowing PDAF on the G9II 25mp sensor M4/3 body. But although I think that I am now getting PDAF in S-AF my experience is that my camera will not switch to C-AF (It complains "Switch to S-AF" every time I try and do so).

The biggest win so far seems the be my old Canon EF 85/1.2L MkI lens which is so sharp in S-AF that I could almost cut myself just looking at the capture.