Any recommandation for vintage macro lens (M42 mount on Fuji X-T3) ?

Hi,

Would you have recommandations of macro lenses that adapt well to Fujifilm X-mount (for instance using a M42 Fuji X adapter) ?

I had a Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro on my EM1-2 and I liked it. I don't have it anymore because I progressively swtich to APS-C and currently shoot with a Fujifilm X-T3.

My subjects will be static: flowers, mushrooms, etc.

Also, It would be nice if it's easily available at a reasonable price on the used market.

Thanks

Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS or Konica Hexanon 55/3.5. Both are excellent, the Nikkor's reputation is legendary, but I really like the Hexanon and tend to use that instead. Neither is expensive.

I don't think there is any such thing as a bad macro lens. They seem to all perform well.

+1 vote for the Nikkor 55/2.8s, just make sure the helicoid isn't locked up with old grease; this is a problem I've seen on a handful of 55/2.8 Nikkors out in the wild.

Just about any 50-60mm macro from the major players back in the day will be really nice. Most of them will have some character at faster apertures, but once stopped down they will at least be competitive with your since sold Olympus 60.

The Pentax 50/4 macros are lovely at any aperture. The preset 1:1 M42 version is collectable and can thus get fairly expensive, but if you can wait for a reasonably priced 1:2 version to pop up or wait for an auction they can be had for $60-80 USD with the added benefit of getting multi-coating. Same goes for K-mount versions. I can't speak for their later f/2.8 brethren, but they're probably sweet as well.

A solid vintage/character-lens choice in M42-mount would be the Yashica / Mamiya / Tomioka 60/2.8. Once you stop it down it will be a competent macro but wide open it has some charm (a bit of SA glow can be nice). It's not what I would call cheap.

If the YMT is a little too pricey but you want something surprisingly similar, the Vivitar 55/2.8 could tick some boxes for you. Like the YMT it goes to 1:1 natively, is a joy to use, and has some character wide open. Given that M42 is so adaptable it is probably the most expensive flavor, so it may be worth getting it in a different mount; you'll likely save some cash overall even considering the added cost of purchasing another adapter.

There's also a Vivitar 90/2.8 (not to be confused with the 90/2.5 "Bokina", which has become a bit of a legend) sibling of the 55/2.8 that may tick all the same boxes with the added benefit of being a longer focal length.

yokou said:

Hi,

Would you have recommandations of macro lenses that adapt well to Fujifilm X-mount (for instance using a M42 Fuji X adapter) ?

I had a Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro on my EM1-2 and I liked it. I don't have it anymore because I progressively swtich to APS-C and currently shoot with a Fujifilm X-T3.

My subjects will be static: flowers, mushrooms, etc.

Also, It would be nice if it's easily available at a reasonable price on the used market.

Thanks

Click to expand...

I only have this one from the vintage macro lenses, it is quite capable but it is Pentax K mount, don’t think they made it in M42: SMC Pentax-A Macro 1:2.8 50mm, here a few samples, I found it to be quite nice (this is used on Fuji X-T3):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/20142778@N04/5PV0053d2g

--
https://500px.com/bc-foto

Thinking o40 f M42 the 50 f4 Pentax is excellent, you don't need the preset one. If you want real vintage, the 40 or 90 Makro Kilars are excellent lenses. The 40 gets downplayed because it doesn't cover full frame/35mm, but on an APS-C camera it is fine, I use one on my Leica CL (digital) adapted from a Canon FD mount. Vivitar did have some really good macros, I belive there is a 55 and 90 Series 1, the interesting one is the 90-180 flat field macro, it's one problem is it is really heavy, I have used a Canon FD one on my CL, macro is excellent, infinity is OK but not to sharpest tool in the box. Of course most of the end of the 20th century macros were good lenses.

I didn't expect to hear anyone mention the Macro Kilars! Do you own/use the 90?

At first glance the 90mm f/2.8 doesn't sound like much being a 4e/3g Tessar-type. However, the 90mm is particularly interesting as a character lens for its signature bokeh. I don't believe any other lens does what it does (let's call it "double-bubble-bokeh") - it's pretty wild!

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=kilar+90mm

I'm not sure how true this next statement actually is, but this lens apparently employed a lens element that had a 'bi-radially ground' surface; sort of a two-step approximation of, or a precursor to, an aspherical surface. I don't know which surface this would be (perhaps on the middle negative element?). It's not easy to determine whether or not all revisions of the lens have it as there are conflicting reports online. Some day, I hope to get my hands on a sample to inspect the elements in person, and shoot with it of course.

I have a 40mm not a 90, they are going for more than I was willing to spend for, as you said, a 4 element lens. For that focal length I use a 105 f2.8 Micro Nikkor AiS. A lens I used a lot while doing medical photography. Anyway the 40 and 90 Kilfitts deserve a look, eapecially if you are going for vintage.

First, don't limit your consideration to M42. Note the very first rec is for MicroNikkor...and I like the older versions best. If you just Have to have M42, then there's the Pentax line, but also Vivitar and Kiron, for example, were made in various mounts. If you prefer a little extra working distance, go to 90 to 105. There you get the Bokina, the 90mm Vivitar Series 1, but also the 100mm f2.8 Vivitar Macro and its twin the Kiron 105. Beautiful lenses. I like the Minolta MD f4 in that focal length area, or the MD 50, great color. If you like Canon, the FDs are extremely sharp. I have a couple Konicas, but they're not on my "A" list. The Fuji EBC is around, too, if you want to stick with Fuji. As others say, most 50 to 100mm macros are really good. Getting one that goes to 1:1 is handy. And to be honest, any normal lens on extension tubes is probably great so long as you're not using it to copy documents where a flatter field would be best. Probably the very most important consideration of all is getting one in close to mint condition, with no mechanical or optical issues.

sensiblename99 said:

Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS or Konica Hexanon 55/3.5. Both are excellent, the Nikkor's reputation is legendary, but I really like the Hexanon and tend to use that instead. Neither is expensive.

Click to expand...

Neither the Nikon nor the Konica can be used on your camera as normal lenses because of the M42 flange is shorter than that of the Nikon and/or Konica. This means you need a Nikon/Konica to M42 helicoid focusing tube. In doing so, you can go higher than 1:1. Please do keep in mind that the Nikon AIS 55mm 1:2.8 can only reach 1:2 rather than 1:1. The AF version can reach 1:1. A good M442 macro lens in my mind is the MACRO YASHINON60mm 1:2.8 made by Tomioka. It can go to 1:1 directly with using any accessories. The lens mount is M42.

CK

I'd second any recommendations for the Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro, if it has the serial number beginning with 28xxxxxxxx. I love mine, and use it on my Fuji cameras with an M42 adapter (also on L Mount, not shared here). I've had the Tokina 90mm and an Elicar 90mm. I gave both up and stuck with the Vivitar:


Snail 1


Shroom


Snail 2


Fly guy - I don't do focus stacking


Looks good for landscape/sunrise too!

Not sure what you are saying...the MicroNikkor cannot be used on X-T3 as a normal lens? That certainly surprised me, so I thought I would compare a Pentax SMC 50 f4 with a MicroNikkor Auto 55 f3.5 using plain ole cheap ($7) adapters on my X-H1...which has exact same mount, flange distance, etc., as the X-T3. Of course both work fine for close-ups... for example, here's a handheld snapshot at about 1 ft with the Pentax, which isn't minimum focus distance. Then two shots at f4 at distant objects, one with Pentax, the other with Nikkor. The greenhouse is around 300m away...essentially infinity for a 50 or a 55mm lens. The Pentax is fine, but the Nikkor is a touch better, and both completely usable as normal lenses. As I wrote below, to me there are two factors: working distance and whether a "mint" copy can be obtained at reasonable cost. The particular brand/model is not too important, as all can be used both for macro shots and as normal lenses albeit "slow" with max apertures in 2.8 to 4 range.


SMC 50


SMC 50


MicroNikkor Auto 55

Ching-Kuang Shene said:

sensiblename99 said:

Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS or Konica Hexanon 55/3.5. Both are excellent, the Nikkor's reputation is legendary, but I really like the Hexanon and tend to use that instead. Neither is expensive.

Click to expand...

Neither the Nikon nor the Konica can be used on your camera as normal lenses because of the M42 flange is shorter than that of the Nikon and/or Konica. This means you need a Nikon/Konica to M42 helicoid focusing tube. In doing so, you can go higher than 1:1. Please do keep in mind that the Nikon AIS 55mm 1:2.8 can only reach 1:2 rather than 1:1. The AF version can reach 1:1. A good M442 macro lens in my mind is the MACRO YASHINON60mm 1:2.8 made by Tomioka. It can go to 1:1 directly with using any accessories. The lens mount is M42.

CK

Click to expand...

I'm not going to speak for the OP and what they may or may not want (i read that m42 was used as an example rather than a requirement), but the fuji has a flange focal length shorter than Sony so can certainly use almost any vintage lens, including the two i listed.

I hope you really understand what a normal lens is. If you don't know, it means the angle of view on a film/sensor format being approximately the same as that of our eyes. With the 35mm film or FF, the focal length can be anywhere from 40mm to 60mm. On a Fuji X-T3, which is an APS-C format camera, the focal length can be anywhere from 27mm to 40mm. A MicroNikkor 55mm on an APS-C format is equivalent to 82.5mm in terms of focal length in FF, which becomes a moderate telephoto lens (usually for portrait shots) rather than a normal lens.

Are you aware of the fact that the Fuji X-T3 is an APS-C format camera?

Finally, showing images did not answer any questions. I can show many many pictures that are irrelevant to a particular question but fail to answer it.

CK

Thank you for your tutelage. I guess, like 99% of other photographers, I consider a "normal vintage macro" lens, one we source from old 35mm film cameras, to be one in the 50-55mm range. By "normal" I mean one that could be used for other purposes, not solely in the macro range. Hence, photos of distant objects. I note you recommended a 60mm lens. I probably should not have posted photos showing that the MicroNikkor, for example, was a capable "all-around" lens, since the original poster surely already knew that, having used a 60mm macro lens on the m4/3 sensor and was happy with it. BTW you noticed my photos were taken on an X-H1, so you may assume I know an APS from a hole in the ground. The argument about what is a "normal" lens on a 35mm film camera has been discussed at length elsewhere, some agree with your definition and others do not.

A "normal lens" for a camera is the lens that has the film/sensor diagonal of the film/sensor used. So a 35mm camera diagonal is 44mm but was normalized to 50mm, a 4x5 diagional is 162mm, but has normalized to 150, a 6x6 diagonal is 82mm which is close to the standard 80mm. The human eye generally see around what an 85mm lens would. I worked in ophthalmic photography for 35 years, so I have a good knowledge of how eyes work.

Almost any vintage manual lens can be adapted inexpensively to a Fuji-X mount. Whether it is an M42, Nikon F, Canon FD, or Minolta, Lots of choices, where an issue happens is with AF lenses. I use Nikon Micro/Macro lenses with my Leica CL, but my best 55mm is a Nikon D series with the screw drive focus and a miserable manual focus ring, a super lens that goes to 1:1, but absolutely impossible with manual focusing, unless you know the mag you want. I have had good photos with that lens, but I'd rather use my 105 or 200 Micro Nikkors AiS manual lenses.

All brands of macro lenses from the 1970's and 80's were quite good. Going back to the 50's and 60's, then Kiliftt, Nikon or Pentax is the way to go. Yashica lenses have a good reputation, but still considered an "off brand".

Thanks to all for your asnwers.

I’ve decided to prioritize the M42 mount because I think the adapter tend to be more compact (for instance the thread is inside the adapter) compared to others.

From your suggestions, I selected lenses that are relatively easy to find and not too expensive. Here is my short list:

• Pentax SMC 50mm f/4 Macro
• Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro
• Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Auto Macro
• Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 Macro

Edit : I just noticed the Pentax are 0.5:1 magnification, and the Vivitar lenses are quite long at full extension.

yokou said:

Hi,

Would you have recommandations of macro lenses that adapt well to Fujifilm X-mount (for instance using a M42 Fuji X adapter) ?

I had a Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro on my EM1-2 and I liked it. I don't have it anymore because I progressively swtich to APS-C and currently shoot with a Fujifilm X-T3.

My subjects will be static: flowers, mushrooms, etc.

Also, It would be nice if it's easily available at a reasonable price on the used market.

Thanks

Click to expand...

0.5x magnification list


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

yokou said:

Thanks to all for your asnwers.

I’ve decided to prioritize the M42 mount because I think the adapter tend to be more compact (for instance the thread is inside the adapter) compared to others.

From your suggestions, I selected lenses that are relatively easy to find and not too expensive. Here is my short list:

• Pentax SMC 50mm f/4 Macro

Click to expand...

It may be explicitly titled Super-Multi-Coated (commonly abbreviated keeping the dashes [S-M-C]). If you include the full spelling and the other abbreviation your search may yield more results. The SMC-labeled ones were later versions.

yokou said:

• Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro

Click to expand...

The A denotes it will be a Pentax K-Mount lens with optional by-camera aperture control. There is also a Pentax-M version, which is also K-Mount but is fully Manual. Both are not what you want if you're sticking with M42.

yokou said:

• Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Auto Macro

Click to expand...

It's a pretty sweet lens! It employs a Xenotar-type formula (5 elements / 4 groups) which actually seems to be a pretty common formula to use for macro lenses at these types of speeds (f/2.8, f/3.5, etc). The same base lens is apparently available under other labels:

• Elicar V-HQ
• Panagor PMC
• Soligor
• Soligor C/D ("computer designed"?)
• Rokunar V-HQ

yokou said:

• Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 Macro

Click to expand...

Like the 55, this 90 is available under the same additional brand names. There is also a f/2.5 variant of all of these - again not to be confused with the Tokina-made "Bokina" Vivitar 90/2.5. These use a revised optical scheme (6e/5g; the f/2.8 90s use 6e/4g).

Now that we've established that you're not against 90mm macros, there are some excellent options in that range worth mentioning.

Looking up pricing for the vaunted Bokina (the Vivitar one or the Tokina AT-X one), its pricing has settled down since last I checked. Its bokeh really is among the best and it's plenty sharp. It only goes to 1:2 on its own, and buying it on its own seems to be the best deal. Once you throw in the rear optic for 1:1, the price gets less reasonable and puts it out of the running for a "budget" option, in my opinion. If you want lovely smooth background bokeh for character these must be mentioned now though!

The Tamron SP 90/2.5s are perhaps the best deal right now in the 90mm vintage macro arena. Bokeh-wise they're barely worse than the AT-X, while having slightly tighter (and slightly differently-flavored) LoCA control. Both versions of it (52B, 52BB) can have the "blue spot" issue on digital, but are otherwise very great macros. I love my 52BB, but not necessarily because of its character, as it just performs so nicely that there isn't a whole lot of character to be had - it's a bit clinical.

There are also some old Zen-era Sigma 50/2.8 and/or 90/2.8 macros that don't command high prices. They probably won't dissapoint - prior to getting a Canon EF 50/2.5 my Sigma 50/2.8 treated me really well, but it also had a bit of a "blue spot" problem!

yokou said:

Edit : I just noticed the Pentax are 0.5:1 magnification, and the Vivitar lenses are quite long at full extension.

Click to expand...

Yep. Are these issues? We don't fully know what you want, do we? Most of these are simple primes in that they use unit focus by extension - there are no floating elements or focus groups. Extension tubes can quickly overcome the 1:2 issue when you need to get closer.

E Dinkla said:

yokou said:

Hi,

Would you have recommandations of macro lenses that adapt well to Fujifilm X-mount (for instance using a M42 Fuji X adapter) ?

I had a Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro on my EM1-2 and I liked it. I don't have it anymore because I progressively swtich to APS-C and currently shoot with a Fujifilm X-T3.

My subjects will be static: flowers, mushrooms, etc.

Also, It would be nice if it's easily available at a reasonable price on the used market.

Thanks

Click to expand...

https://www.coinimaging.com/hall_of_fame.html

0.5x magnification list

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

Click to expand...

That's a great resource, Ernst! Would you just look at that; the mentioned-in-this-thread Nikkor 55/2.8 is near the top of the charts at 1:2 magnification...

Off topic, but my profile pic is a Printing-Nikkor 150/2.8 on a bellows, which is the KING at 1:1 according to that site...

Happy to have experienced that one even if my time with it was brief.

One other great resource for all things macro would be the late Robert O'Toole (RIP) and all of his tests, but this is mostly niche, anti-budget, anti-beginner-friendly stuff:


It looks like someone has kept the site going thankfully, but unfortunately, a lot of the content seems to be locked behind a password now :-( .

He tried all kinds of interesting combinations of optics as well as more traditional ones in the "real macro" realm; he probably thought 1:2 was child's play.

Thanks for your answer.

After considering your suggestions and doing more research, I realized my criteria have changed a bit :
– 1:1 magnification without the need for extension tubes
– A focal length between 50 and 120 mm (my Zuiko 60mm macro, which I liked, had a 120 mm FF equivalent)
– Compact, easy to find, and not too expensive
– I still prefer M42 mount for its compact adapter, but other mounts would be alright

The only lens remaining on my shortlist is the Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro, which seems way shorter than the vivitar 90 mm f/2,8 Macro once fully extended.

I found some offers for the Vivitar 55 mm f/2.8 Macro MD mount around €100, while the M42 version is about €80 more expensive. The MD-to-FX adapter is slightly longer than the M42-to-FX one, but the difference is minimal, so I think I’ll go for the MD version.