[BruceBanner]

Ok, so now that I have a M42 to K Mount adapter (and a Takumar 8 element 50/1.4 en route), I am curious to know what other really highly regarded M42 lenses that exist (be it rare)?

Should I just do a simple lens search here using the lens search tool to find that answer, is the list sortable by rating? Would some perhaps be missed out due to rarity etc?

I get the feeling there are enough hardcore users around here that can suggest a handful of really highly regarded M42 glass


TIA

BB

[Benz3ne]

I guess it depends on what you're after. There's some interesting glass in the Fujinon 55/2.2 and Auto-Takumar 55/2.2 with respect to bokeh. Same goes for the Soviet lenses in the Helios 44-x series and the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2, from my experiences. No doubt there's more M42 stuff that yields interesting results and is regarded highly as a result. If I remember rightly, the Meyer Optik Gorlitz 100mm f/2.8 has achieved something of a cult status with respect to its bokeh balls abilities.

Edit: The Flektogon 35mm f/2.4 is also well reputed. I had a brief stint recently with the 35mm f/2.8 but unfortunately there was some undeclared fungus growth so it's on the way back to the seller. The time I had with it though was good, it produces some lovely images. I'm pretty sure Pepperberry Farm will be able to advise on this matter!

If you're after all-out image quality, then I'm afraid I can't help as I've not quite fallen down that rabbit hole yet!

[arnold]

Hard to beat the Tacumar 55/1.8. Quite honestly any good 50 mm will give you all the quality you need. Have a look at the result of a simple 50mm / 2.8 Tessar and figure out where it short comings are. Taken in 1961 with a Practica IV
[IMG][/IMG]

[pepperberry farm]

CZJ Flektogon 35mm f2.4
Fujinon EBC 55mm f3.5 Macro
almost any of the Soligor C/D "P" series
almost any of the 55mm f1.4, as most are a Tomioka-design (Cosina, Rikenon, Auto-Sears, etc)

[BigMackCam]

It's difficult to define "best", since that's highly subjective. Whilst it's generally good to have a lens that produces sharp images, I prioritise overall rendering character much higher than resolution.

My interest in older glass is mostly for Soviet models. Of those, I really like the following in M42-mount, for a variety of reasons:

• Zenitar-M 2.8/16 fisheye (or "-K" for K-mount)
• Zenitar-M 1.7/50
• Zenitar-M 1.9/50
• Zenitar-M2s 2/50 (or "-K2" for K-mount)
• Helios-44-2 2/58
• Industar-61 L/Z 2.8/50 macro
• Volna-9 2.8/50 macro
• Jupiter-9 2/85
• Tair-11A 2.8/135
• APO Telezenitar 2.8/135
• Jupiter-37A 3.5/135
• Jupiter-11A 4/135
• Jupiter-6-2 2.8/180
• Telemar-22A 5.6/200
• Tair-3 4.5/300
• 3M-5A 8/500 catadioptric mirror

Where possible, choose multi-coated "MC" or late '60s / early 70s versions...

[kernos]

No one has suggested looking at photos and deciding what you like. For portraiture take a look at the early work of Alexandra Bochareva when she was working on a shoestring. She got stunning results primarily from a Helios 77m 50mm, Jupiter 37A 135mm and to a lesser extent a Helios 44m 55mm. The best really are from the 77m Some samples, sorry you have to click to see, 500px does not have an easy clip mode.


Helios 77m
500px

500px

500px

[kypfer]

Fujinon has already been mentioned ... there probably isn't a bad one, but the 35mm f/1.9 is a little bit special (IMHO)


Zeiss Tessar, Enna Lithagon, Meyer Lydith all have their place ... then there's all the Russian lenses, Jupiter-9, Industar-61, Helios-44 ... the list goes on


Enjoy

[Lowell Goudge]

Why does there have to be a very best?

Many M42 lenses are far from perfect, but produce stunning images largely due to their imperfections. The beauty of M42 lenses are that they are cheap. You can try Different things for almost nothing And have a whole lot of fun in the process

[simple1]

Careful - these things can take on a life of their own

Kernos' suggestion to look at photos and decide what you like is a good one.

If you want macro, the Macro Tak 50/4 is a nice lens. There’s also Vivitar 100/105 variants. I have the Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro (1:1) and the 135/2.8 (1:2) and really like both. Tons of others but those are the ones I can speak for.

The Mamiya-Sekor 55/1.4 and 58/1.7 are among my favorite 50ish lenses for their sharpness, colors, and bokeh.

Helios 44-2 58/2 is cheap ((but getting more expensive) and sharp with really cool bokeh. The Helios 40-2 85/1.5 is my next M42 target but it is spendy.

In the 50-58mm range there are tons of great lenses and it comes down to rendering subtleties or tactile/cosmetic preferences. Outside that range you need to be more selective (just my opinion).

[dcpropilot]

The legendary 8 element Super Takumar

[simple1]

The legendary 8 element Super Takumar

Which he has en route ;-)

[D1N0]

too many to mention. Go to the Photography with classic lenses facebook group. You will see a lot of m42 glass there.

[BigMackCam]

The Helios 40-2 85/1.5 is my next M42 target but it is spendy.

I don't want to divert far from the OP's main topic, but would say this about the Helios-40-2 1.5/85:... think carefully before you lay down your hard-earned money for one. In general use, I find it lacking... it's big, heavy and unwieldy, lacks contrast, suffers readily from veiling flare, and at the widest couple of apertures is really only sharp in the dead centre. It needs stopping down to f/8 for reasonable border performance, but even then the borders lag badly (on full frame, at least). Yes, it can produce distinctive swirly bokeh when the scene and subject placement are well-judged, but that's really its one and only trick, IMHO. As such, unless you intend to shoot a lot of photos using that effect, it's rather limited.

The slightly slower Jupiter-9 2/85 is a far better lens for general photographic duties...

[simple1]

I don't want to divert far from the OP's main topic, but would say this about the Helios-40-2 1.5/85:... think carefully before you lay down your hard-earned money for one. In general use, I find it lacking... it's big, heavy and unwieldy, lacks contrast, suffers readily from veiling flare, and at the widest couple of apertures is really only sharp in the dead centre. It needs stopping down to f/8 for reasonable border performance, but even then the borders lag badly (on full frame, at least). Yes, it can produce distinctive swirly bokeh when the scene and subject placement are well-judged, but that's really its one and only trick, IMHO. As such, unless you intend to shoot a lot of photos using that effect, it's rather limited.

The slightly slower Jupiter-9 2/85 is a far better lens for general photographic duties...

BMC - thanks for the insight. Your assessment fits right in with what I've read and is one reason I haven't jumped yet. I've almost pulled the trigger a few times on eBay but just couldn't quite do it. I've low balled on shopgoodwill but they end up going for eBay prices. If I don't stumble across one on the cheap it's unlikely I'll get one. But I will have a look at the Jupiter - thanks!

OP - apologies for the diversion. We now return to the regularly scheduled program

[reh321]

It's difficult to define "best", since that's highly subjective. Whilst it's generally good to have a lens that produces sharp images, I prioritise overall rendering character much higher than resolution.

My interest in older glass is mostly for Soviet models. Of those, I really like the following, for a variety of reasons:

• Zenitar-M 2.8/16 fisheye (or "-K" for K-mount)
• Zenitar-M 1.7/50
• Zenitar-M 1.9/50
• Zenitar-M2s 2/50 (or "-K2" for K-mount)
• Helios-44-2 2/58
• Industar-61 L/Z 2.8/50 macro
• Volna-9 2.8/50 macro
• Jupiter-9 2/85
• Tair-11A 2.8/135
• APO Telezenitar 2.8/135
• Jupiter-37A 3.5/135
• Jupiter-11A 4/135
• Jupiter-6-2 2.8/180
• Telemar-22A 5.6/200
• Tair-3 4.5/300
• 3M-5A 8/500 catadioptric mirror

Where possible, choose multi-coated "MC" or a late '60s / early 70s versions...

I noticed that the 37mm 'Mir 1b' is missing from your list?