The Very Best M42 Lenses

HoutHans · 11-26-2019, 07:09 AM

Well, I don't have much comparison material to go with, but can I say that I really like my super takumar 28/3.5? Nice and small, great for architecture and street photography and just a joy to hold and operate.

**MossyRocks** · 11-26-2019, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

If it helps any, my experience is the 200/3.5 is better with respect to firinging and lateral CA. It does suffer slightly from longitudinal ca, but overall I found it much better.

And now I really want to test one, too bad I would probably have to buy one to test it and that more than likely means I won't end up selling because that is how I am it seems.

**luftfluss** · 11-26-2019, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by MossyRocks

And now I really want to test one, too bad I would probably have to buy one to test it and that more than likely means I won't end up selling because that is how I am it seems.

Sent ya a PM...

**Lowell Goudge** · 11-26-2019, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by MossyRocks

And now I really want to test one, too bad I would probably have to buy one to test it and that more than likely means I won't end up selling because that is how I am it seems.

It’s called LBA for a reason

**MossyRocks** · 11-26-2019, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

It’s called LBA for a reason

It is more like GAS. I've bought a couple of lenses that I basically stole with the intention of selling them if I didn't like them, well I like them a lot and one of them isn't likely going down in price.

**microlight** · 11-26-2019, 11:45 AM - **1 Like**

Just getting back into using the SuperTak 135/f3.5; great build, smooooooth focusing!

stevebrot · 11-26-2019, 02:01 PM - **1 Like**

Best M42 lenses? How many electrons do you want me to sacrifice making a list?

The "best" (build, all round performance/utility, usefulness) on my shelf is a Super Takumar 55/1.8 (coarse-knurled aperture ring).

That being stated, I have a few others that I consider "never sell" due to their rendering qualities. In approximate order of fondness:

KMZ Helios 44M 58/2.0
LZOS Jupiter-9 85/2.0
Auto-Rikenon 50/1.7 (Tomioka)
Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 (Tomioka)

Lens I may yet acquire:
CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (Zebra would be cool)

Steve

**BruceBanner** · 12-17-2019, 01:10 PM

I just lost a long lengthy reply due to submission token! Grr! argh!!

Anyway, just quickly (before I dash to work), is this lens the 135 that people seem to recommend?

PENTAX TAKUMAR 135mm F3.5 screw mount lens | Lenses | Gumtree Australia Canterbury Area - Belmore | 1236190738

Are their different versions of this lens?

stevebrot · 12-17-2019, 02:59 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BruceBanner

Anyway, just quickly (before I dash to work), is this lens the 135 that people seem to recommend?

PENTAX TAKUMAR 135mm F3.5 screw mount lens | Lenses | Gumtree Australia Canterbury Area - Belmore | 1236190738

Are their different versions of this lens?

The short answer is yes, there are multiple variants at f/3.5 (actually subvariants for each point):

S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (4e - 4g)
Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g)
Auto/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g)

...and a few more at f/2.5:

S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/2.5 (5e - 4g)
S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 (6e - 6g)

It is the last one, the six-element version, that is more eagerly sought after and has the cult status.

Steve

(...thought I had found a clean copy of the 6 element version 135/2.5 just this last week, but alas, it was the five element version...)

Fenwoodian · 12-17-2019, 03:04 PM - **1 Like**

.

My vote's for the
Takumar 200mm F3.5

Nice bokeh with that one!

**MossyRocks** · 12-18-2019, 11:25 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

.

My vote's for the
Takumar 200mm F3.5

Nice bokeh with that one!

I got a chance recently to take one for a test spin for astro shooting courtesy of one of our forum member. It performed really well and if I didn't already own the S-M-C 200/4 Takumar I would be seeking the 200/3.5 out over it. Both are great lenses but the 200/3.5 just seems a bit better, and yes I did post a review of it looking only at using it for astrophotography.

**BruceBanner** · 12-21-2019, 11:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stevebrot

The short answer is yes, there are multiple variants at f/3.5 (actually subvariants for each point):

S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (4e - 4g)
Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g)
Auto/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g)

...and a few more at f/2.5:

S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/2.5 (5e - 4g)
S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 (6e - 6g)

It is the last one, the six-element version, that is more eagerly sought after and has the cult status.

Steve

(...thought I had found a clean copy of the 6 element version 135/2.5 just this last week, but alas, it was the five element version...)

Thanks for that. I believe I picked up a nice copy of the S M C Super Takumar 135/3.5, 4 element. I paid $110AUD for my copy, seems really nice, little sign of use. I was able to test it before use as well, wide open it was doing sharper shots than my K Takumar 135/2.5. What's really nice is the usability in Av mode and the size and weight of this thing is tiny! It's practically a FA77 with hood extended...
Well it's my xmas present to myself so I have no images to share with it as of yet, but just wanted to say I am pretty impressed.

It seems a hard task to find any comparison shots of the 6 element 2.5 vs the 4 element 3.5, do we have a good place to go that shows how much (supposedly) better then 6 element is?

And now... I will try and keep my eye out for the 200/3.5, but I am also after a 35mm, which of the M42 *good value* 35mm's comes recommended? I have a friend who has the zeiss distagon is it? 35/2? It's incredibly lovely, but also not cheap.. for the same coin I think I would put towards a used FA31. So nah... nothing quite as nice as that... but is there another recommended 35/2 that has a relatively low price in m42 mount?

Thanks!

BB

reh321 · 12-22-2019, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

The Mir-1B I'm not so keen on. The earlier Mir-1 (no "B" or "V" suffix) is definitely a favourite of mine, but I hesitate to recommend it to folks because of the potential for fouling the mirror when focused to infinity, depending on the SLR or DSLR camera used. If not for that, I'd recommend it...

I believe the "Mir-1" is the lens which received the 1958 Brussels award. How did the "Mib-1B" differ?

**BigMackCam** · 12-22-2019, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I believe the "Mir-1" is the lens which received the 1958 Brussels award.

That's correct. It's one of several Soviet lenses that received the award.

Originally posted by reh321

How did the "Mib-1B" differ?

I'm afraid I don't know for sure. The Mir-1B is later, but uses the same optical formula based on Zeiss' Flektogon design. I can only assume it's the optical element manufacturing and/or coatings that make such a difference.

Full disclosure - I've only tried three copies of the Mir-1 (two of which I own), and - I think - four copies of the Mir-1B (one of which I own); a relatively small sample on which to draw conclusions. That said, all three copies of the Mir-1 performed very well, snapping into focus quickly with excellent contrast and sharp images. By comparison, one of the Mir-1B's I tried was awful (I suspect it was a dud example), while the other three were perfectly OK, but didn't perform anything like the Mir-1. I found I had to rock the focus ring back and forth slowly to find accurate focus - it just wasn't as obvious as with the Mir-1, and the contrast was inferior (possibly related)...

**BruceBanner** · 12-25-2019, 08:32 PM - **1 Like**

I was gifted a Takumar 135/3.5 for Xmas, I took it for some test shots round the block on Xmas day, all of these of course SOOCs;

The purpose really was to see how well I could nail focus wide open at 3.5 (via OVF), how sharp it was, and if it held up fairly well with decent sharpness when the focus was off centre. I think it did really well!

11-26-2019, 02:01 PM - 1 Like	#37
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Best M42 lenses? How many electrons do you want me to sacrifice making a list? The "best" (build, all round performance/utility, usefulness) on my shelf is a Super Takumar 55/1.8 (coarse-knurled aperture ring). That being stated, I have a few others that I consider "never sell" due to their rendering qualities. In approximate order of fondness: KMZ Helios 44M 58/2.0 LZOS Jupiter-9 85/2.0 Auto-Rikenon 50/1.7 (Tomioka) Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 (Tomioka) Lens I may yet acquire: CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (Zebra would be cool) Steve

12-17-2019, 02:59 PM - 1 Like	#39
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by BruceBanner Anyway, just quickly (before I dash to work), is this lens the 135 that people seem to recommend? PENTAX TAKUMAR 135mm F3.5 screw mount lens \| Lenses \| Gumtree Australia Canterbury Area - Belmore \| 1236190738 Are their different versions of this lens? The short answer is yes, there are multiple variants at f/3.5 (actually subvariants for each point): S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (4e - 4g) Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g) Auto/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g) ...and a few more at f/2.5: S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/2.5 (5e - 4g) S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 (6e - 6g) It is the last one, the six-element version, that is more eagerly sought after and has the cult status. Steve (...thought I had found a clean copy of the 6 element version 135/2.5 just this last week, but alas, it was the five element version...) Last edited by stevebrot; 12-17-2019 at 03:08 PM.

12-21-2019, 11:19 PM - 1 Like	#42
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,405 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot The short answer is yes, there are multiple variants at f/3.5 (actually subvariants for each point): S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (4e - 4g) Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g) Auto/Super Takumar 135/3.5 (5e - 4g) ...and a few more at f/2.5: S-M-C/Super Takumar 135/2.5 (5e - 4g) S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 (6e - 6g) It is the last one, the six-element version, that is more eagerly sought after and has the cult status. Steve (...thought I had found a clean copy of the 6 element version 135/2.5 just this last week, but alas, it was the five element version...) Thanks for that. I believe I picked up a nice copy of the S M C Super Takumar 135/3.5, 4 element. I paid $110AUD for my copy, seems really nice, little sign of use. I was able to test it before use as well, wide open it was doing sharper shots than my K Takumar 135/2.5. What's really nice is the usability in Av mode and the size and weight of this thing is tiny! It's practically a FA77 with hood extended... Well it's my xmas present to myself so I have no images to share with it as of yet, but just wanted to say I am pretty impressed. It seems a hard task to find any comparison shots of the 6 element 2.5 vs the 4 element 3.5, do we have a good place to go that shows how much (supposedly) better then 6 element is? And now... I will try and keep my eye out for the 200/3.5, but I am also after a 35mm, which of the M42 good value 35mm's comes recommended? I have a friend who has the zeiss distagon is it? 35/2? It's incredibly lovely, but also not cheap.. for the same coin I think I would put towards a used FA31. So nah... nothing quite as nice as that... but is there another recommended 35/2 that has a relatively low price in m42 mount? Thanks! BB

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
One of very, very few repeatable AF.C autofocus tracking tests	beholder3	Photographic Technique	15	02-26-2019 11:41 AM
Nature Very pretty and very fragrant Jasmine.	Tonytee	Post Your Photos!	4	08-20-2018 09:38 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
Nature Very Pretty, Very Yellow, Very Big Flower.	Tonytee	Post Your Photos!	14	06-12-2016 03:45 AM
Very, Very, Very Large Format Camera Available	shutterdrone	General Talk	22	03-22-2008 10:43 AM

11-26-2019, 07:09 AM	#31
HoutHans Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Appingedam Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,123	Well, I don't have much comparison material to go with, but can I say that I really like my super takumar 28/3.5? Nice and small, great for architecture and street photography and just a joy to hold and operate.

11-26-2019, 08:21 AM	#32
MossyRocks Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,982	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge If it helps any, my experience is the 200/3.5 is better with respect to firinging and lateral CA. It does suffer slightly from longitudinal ca, but overall I found it much better. And now I really want to test one, too bad I would probably have to buy one to test it and that more than likely means I won't end up selling because that is how I am it seems.

11-26-2019, 10:05 AM	#33
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,627	Originally posted by MossyRocks And now I really want to test one, too bad I would probably have to buy one to test it and that more than likely means I won't end up selling because that is how I am it seems. Sent ya a PM...

11-26-2019, 10:34 AM	#34
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by MossyRocks And now I really want to test one, too bad I would probably have to buy one to test it and that more than likely means I won't end up selling because that is how I am it seems. It’s called LBA for a reason

11-26-2019, 11:42 AM	#35
MossyRocks Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,982	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge It’s called LBA for a reason It is more like GAS. I've bought a couple of lenses that I basically stole with the intention of selling them if I didn't like them, well I like them a lot and one of them isn't likely going down in price.

11-26-2019, 11:45 AM - 1 Like	#36
microlight Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,129	Just getting back into using the SuperTak 135/f3.5; great build, smooooooth focusing!

12-17-2019, 01:10 PM	#38
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,405 Original Poster	I just lost a long lengthy reply due to submission token! Grr! argh!! Anyway, just quickly (before I dash to work), is this lens the 135 that people seem to recommend? PENTAX TAKUMAR 135mm F3.5 screw mount lens \| Lenses \| Gumtree Australia Canterbury Area - Belmore \| 1236190738 Are their different versions of this lens?

12-17-2019, 03:04 PM - 1 Like	#40
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,875	. My vote's for the Takumar 200mm F3.5 Nice bokeh with that one!

12-18-2019, 11:25 AM - 1 Like	#41
MossyRocks Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,982	Originally posted by Fenwoodian . My vote's for the Takumar 200mm F3.5 Nice bokeh with that one! I got a chance recently to take one for a test spin for astro shooting courtesy of one of our forum member. It performed really well and if I didn't already own the S-M-C 200/4 Takumar I would be seeking the 200/3.5 out over it. Both are great lenses but the 200/3.5 just seems a bit better, and yes I did post a review of it looking only at using it for astrophotography.

12-22-2019, 02:39 PM	#43
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,184	Originally posted by BigMackCam The Mir-1B I'm not so keen on. The earlier Mir-1 (no "B" or "V" suffix) is definitely a favourite of mine, but I hesitate to recommend it to folks because of the potential for fouling the mirror when focused to infinity, depending on the SLR or DSLR camera used. If not for that, I'd recommend it... I believe the "Mir-1" is the lens which received the 1958 Brussels award. How did the "Mib-1B" differ?

12-22-2019, 03:34 PM	#44
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,690	Originally posted by reh321 I believe the "Mir-1" is the lens which received the 1958 Brussels award. That's correct. It's one of several Soviet lenses that received the award. Originally posted by reh321 How did the "Mib-1B" differ? I'm afraid I don't know for sure. The Mir-1B is later, but uses the same optical formula based on Zeiss' Flektogon design. I can only assume it's the optical element manufacturing and/or coatings that make such a difference. Full disclosure - I've only tried three copies of the Mir-1 (two of which I own), and - I think - four copies of the Mir-1B (one of which I own); a relatively small sample on which to draw conclusions. That said, all three copies of the Mir-1 performed very well, snapping into focus quickly with excellent contrast and sharp images. By comparison, one of the Mir-1B's I tried was awful (I suspect it was a dud example), while the other three were perfectly OK, but didn't perform anything like the Mir-1. I found I had to rock the focus ring back and forth slowly to find accurate focus - it just wasn't as obvious as with the Mir-1, and the contrast was inferior (possibly related)...

12-25-2019, 08:32 PM - 1 Like	#45
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,405 Original Poster	I was gifted a Takumar 135/3.5 for Xmas, I took it for some test shots round the block on Xmas day, all of these of course SOOCs; The purpose really was to see how well I could nail focus wide open at 3.5 (via OVF), how sharp it was, and if it held up fairly well with decent sharpness when the focus was off centre. I think it did really well!