Building the smallest M42 set. Need recommendations for a 28mm.

Cabessius · 05-05-2017, 04:34 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Hi guys, I'm trying to build the smallest possible set (28mm, 50mm and 135mm) of M42 lenses to use on my K50 when I want to travel REALLY light (and also for fun

).

Right now I have what I think are the smallest possible 50mm (the Industar 50-2) and the smallest 135mm (the Fujita f4.5).

What is the smallest M42 28mm I can get to complete the set?

Thanks!!

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

Kozlok · 05-05-2017, 05:04 AM

If you really want the smallest, I'd mix in the DA21. I know it's not a Tak, and it's not quite 28 mm, but it's so good and so tiny.

The Tak 28/3.5 is ~260g, the DA 21 is 134g.

But if you insist on M42, the Tak 28/3.5 is the obvious choice.

Topsy · 05-05-2017, 05:06 AM

Not entirely sure about 28s.. I only have the SMC Takumar 28/3.5 and am happy with that and never considered other ones..

However, how long is that Fujita?

D1N0 · 05-05-2017, 05:12 AM

28's don't get really small. You could also look at a 35 takumar: Takumar 35mm F4 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database (pretty rare) or a little bit bigger and heavier but still compact and easily available: S-M-C/Super/Auto Takumar 35mm F3.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The 35's have better iq as well.

Otherwise revert to Pentax M-lenses. The 20mm F4 is 150 grams and the 28mm F3.5 is 180 grams. The pancake 40mm F2.8 is only 110 grams.

Last edited by D1N0; 05-05-2017 at 05:21 AM.

**BigMackCam** · 05-05-2017, 06:11 AM

What a great question

As has already been said, there aren't (to my knowledge, at least) any truly small 28mm M42 lenses, so I'd aim for something with nice image quality. Perhaps a Super Takumar 28mm f/3.5 - the version with 49mm filter diameter?

hypernotactive · 05-05-2017, 06:32 AM

The Meyer-Optik Lydith 30/3.5 could be worth a look.

Sent fra min LG-H850 via Tapatalk

Cabessius · 05-05-2017, 06:51 AM - **1 Like**

Thanks for your answers, it won't be easy to find a dwarf 28mm M42.

Originally posted by Topsy

However, how long is that Fujita?

Didn't measure it, but here it is in my hand. Hard to believe that it is a 135mm.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

**pres589** · 05-05-2017, 07:22 AM

Ricoh 28mm pancake with a mount conversion back to M42... so you can then put an M42 to k-mount adapter on it?

Cabessius · 05-05-2017, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by pres589

Ricoh 28mm pancake with a mount conversion back to M42... so you can then put an M42 to k-mount adapter on it?

Nice solution

utak · 05-05-2017, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by hypernotactive

The Meyer-Optik Lydith 30/3.5 could be worth a look.

+1. It's a cutie, and a good performer. Here is it next to its sibling 29mm Orestegon, a lens that is around the size of a Takumar 28/3.5.

pathdoc · 05-05-2017, 07:55 AM

Holy moly, that thing (135mm) is TINY.

It looks just under twice as long as the M42 adapter is wide.

On my current screen, it measures 86mm across the widest part of the threads and about 155mm in overall length, maybe take off 10mm for the amount that screws on inside the camera. So maybe 83mm long or 75mm jutting-out distance, assuming that the 42mm in M42 is the widest distance across the threads. Width is estimated at 45mm.

Those observations IMO constitute rough reality checks upon each other.

Compare my SMC-M 135mm f/3.5 which is 80mm from lenscap to mount face - in the ballpark for length - but whose width is more like 60mm.

It may amuse you to know that the pocket slide rule I measured and calculated all this with is Ricoh-branded.

Turning to the issue of a 28mm lens, I understand that there are convoluted reasons why lenses of the M42 era actually get BIGGER below a certain focal length, and the shortest wider-than-fifty M42 lens I have ever handled is my 35mm/3.5 Super Takumar. However, both lenses OP has here are rooted in the technological era of the Pentax M37's... in which there is nothing wider than a fifty. It took until well into the M42 era for Pentax to work that one out.

ETA For interest, here is a link to an ebay auction for a 35mm Fujita. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/RARE-JUPLEN-FUJITA-35mm-f2-8-f2-5-LENS-M42-VINTAGE-FI...UAAOSwT-FZC2JZ

stevebrot · 05-05-2017, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by pres589

Ricoh 28mm pancake with a mount conversion back to M42... so you can then put an M42 to k-mount adapter on it?

Ha! Ha! Assuming the rear element diameter will fit M42!

As mentioned above, the Super Takumar 28/3.5 (2nd version)* is a good candidate. It is one of the smaller lenses on my shelf and my smallest 28mm overall (length x diameter). Much depends highly on how one defines small. If length is the only concern, there is a plethora of 28mm lenses in M42 mount with a flange to filter ring distance of ~38mm (the same as the ST 28/3.5). Both my Tamron 28/2.5 (02B) and Vivitar 28/2.8 CF** dial in at that length. Yes, there is the rare pancake, but I am unaware of any in M42 for 35mm FF.

Steve

* includes the S-M-C and SMC Takumar versions
** Komine-made from 1983, made in multiple mounts including M42

Not a Number · 05-05-2017, 08:18 AM

The 49mm filter 28mm Takumars (Super-Takumar and S-M-C Takumar) weigh in at 218g vs 260g for the 58mm filter versions.

Topsy · 05-05-2017, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Cabessius

Thanks for your answers, it won't be easy to find a dwarf 28mm M42.

Didn't measure it, but here it is in my hand. Hard to believe that it is a 135mm.

Cool!

I'm asking because I may have a smaller one

(Who'd have thought that a man would ever say that with pride?)

Tamron Twin Tele 135 f4.5 / 225 f7.7

7.3cm without the TC

Cabessius · 05-05-2017, 01:22 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by Topsy

Cool!

I'm asking because I may have a smaller one

(Who'd have thought that a man would ever say that with pride?)

Tamron Twin Tele 135 f4.5 / 225 f7.7

7.3cm without the TC

Side by side:

05-05-2017, 07:55 AM	#11
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Holy moly, that thing (135mm) is TINY. It looks just under twice as long as the M42 adapter is wide. On my current screen, it measures 86mm across the widest part of the threads and about 155mm in overall length, maybe take off 10mm for the amount that screws on inside the camera. So maybe 83mm long or 75mm jutting-out distance, assuming that the 42mm in M42 is the widest distance across the threads. Width is estimated at 45mm. Those observations IMO constitute rough reality checks upon each other. Compare my SMC-M 135mm f/3.5 which is 80mm from lenscap to mount face - in the ballpark for length - but whose width is more like 60mm. It may amuse you to know that the pocket slide rule I measured and calculated all this with is Ricoh-branded. Turning to the issue of a 28mm lens, I understand that there are convoluted reasons why lenses of the M42 era actually get BIGGER below a certain focal length, and the shortest wider-than-fifty M42 lens I have ever handled is my 35mm/3.5 Super Takumar. However, both lenses OP has here are rooted in the technological era of the Pentax M37's... in which there is nothing wider than a fifty. It took until well into the M42 era for Pentax to work that one out. ETA For interest, here is a link to an ebay auction for a 35mm Fujita. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/RARE-JUPLEN-FUJITA-35mm-f2-8-f2-5-LENS-M42-VINTAGE-FI...UAAOSwT-FZC2JZ Last edited by pathdoc; 05-05-2017 at 08:01 AM.

05-05-2017, 08:13 AM	#12
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by pres589 Ricoh 28mm pancake with a mount conversion back to M42... so you can then put an M42 to k-mount adapter on it? Ha! Ha! Assuming the rear element diameter will fit M42! As mentioned above, the Super Takumar 28/3.5 (2nd version)* is a good candidate. It is one of the smaller lenses on my shelf and my smallest 28mm overall (length x diameter). Much depends highly on how one defines small. If length is the only concern, there is a plethora of 28mm lenses in M42 mount with a flange to filter ring distance of ~38mm (the same as the ST 28/3.5). Both my Tamron 28/2.5 (02B) and Vivitar 28/2.8 CF** dial in at that length. Yes, there is the rare pancake, but I am unaware of any in M42 for 35mm FF. Steve * includes the S-M-C and SMC Takumar versions ** Komine-made from 1983, made in multiple mounts including M42 Last edited by stevebrot; 05-05-2017 at 08:25 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: 3rd Pty M42, Helios-40-2, 28, 35, 85, 135, 200 and 450mm, M42-EF & M42-Nikon	MightyMike	Sold Items	80	12-29-2017 02:58 PM
For Sale - Sold: 3rd Pty M42, 70-150mm, 135mm F2.8, 200mm F3.5 M42-K, M42-EF & M42-Nikon Adapters	MightyMike	Sold Items	72	12-26-2016 09:37 AM
Soligor 28mm f2.8 M42 vs vivitar 28mm f2.5 M42	NaClH2O	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-11-2011 11:16 AM
Building a complete set	JoepLX3	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	50	10-08-2010 12:36 AM
my new computer set up.. (just finished building it)	distorted_vision	Post Your Photos!	7	05-10-2008 06:25 AM

05-05-2017, 05:04 AM	#2
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	If you really want the smallest, I'd mix in the DA21. I know it's not a Tak, and it's not quite 28 mm, but it's so good and so tiny. The Tak 28/3.5 is ~260g, the DA 21 is 134g. But if you insist on M42, the Tak 28/3.5 is the obvious choice.

05-05-2017, 05:06 AM	#3
Topsy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 625	Not entirely sure about 28s.. I only have the SMC Takumar 28/3.5 and am happy with that and never considered other ones.. However, how long is that Fujita?

05-05-2017, 05:12 AM	#4
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	28's don't get really small. You could also look at a 35 takumar: Takumar 35mm F4 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database (pretty rare) or a little bit bigger and heavier but still compact and easily available: S-M-C/Super/Auto Takumar 35mm F3.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database The 35's have better iq as well. Otherwise revert to Pentax M-lenses. The 20mm F4 is 150 grams and the 28mm F3.5 is 180 grams. The pancake 40mm F2.8 is only 110 grams. Last edited by D1N0; 05-05-2017 at 05:21 AM.

05-05-2017, 06:11 AM	#5
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,684	What a great question As has already been said, there aren't (to my knowledge, at least) any truly small 28mm M42 lenses, so I'd aim for something with nice image quality. Perhaps a Super Takumar 28mm f/3.5 - the version with 49mm filter diameter?

05-05-2017, 06:32 AM	#6
hypernotactive Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Moss Norway Photos: Gallery Posts: 180	The Meyer-Optik Lydith 30/3.5 could be worth a look. Sent fra min LG-H850 via Tapatalk

05-05-2017, 07:22 AM	#8
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	Ricoh 28mm pancake with a mount conversion back to M42... so you can then put an M42 to k-mount adapter on it?

05-05-2017, 07:31 AM	#9
Cabessius Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Ibiza, Spain Posts: 471 Original Poster	Originally posted by pres589 Ricoh 28mm pancake with a mount conversion back to M42... so you can then put an M42 to k-mount adapter on it? Nice solution

05-05-2017, 07:49 AM	#10
utak Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 928	Originally posted by hypernotactive The Meyer-Optik Lydith 30/3.5 could be worth a look. +1. It's a cutie, and a good performer. Here is it next to its sibling 29mm Orestegon, a lens that is around the size of a Takumar 28/3.5.

05-05-2017, 08:18 AM	#13
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	The 49mm filter 28mm Takumars (Super-Takumar and S-M-C Takumar) weigh in at 218g vs 260g for the 58mm filter versions.

05-05-2017, 01:12 PM	#14
Topsy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 625	Originally posted by Cabessius Thanks for your answers, it won't be easy to find a dwarf 28mm M42. Didn't measure it, but here it is in my hand. Hard to believe that it is a 135mm. Cool! I'm asking because I may have a smaller one (Who'd have thought that a man would ever say that with pride?) Tamron Twin Tele 135 f4.5 / 225 f7.7 7.3cm without the TC

05-05-2017, 01:22 PM - 3 Likes	#15
Cabessius Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Ibiza, Spain Posts: 471 Original Poster	Originally posted by Topsy Cool! I'm asking because I may have a smaller one (Who'd have thought that a man would ever say that with pride?) Tamron Twin Tele 135 f4.5 / 225 f7.7 7.3cm without the TC Side by side: