Best M42 prime lenses for $150-350. From Fisheye to Telephoto vintage lenses.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- My ideas on the best M42 prime lenses that cost between US$ 150-350. I hope this becomes an interactive video and you can suggest your own thoughts on the best lenses.
Links to each section:
00:00 Introduction
00:29 Selection criteria
04:48 Fisheye
06:26 Ultra Wide Angle
08:13 Wide Angle
08:58 Classic Walk Around (35mm) and Pancake
10:15 Fast Fifties
14:40 Macro
16:06 Portrait and Short Telephoto (including 135mm)
20:18 Long Telephoto
Link to my Flickr lens albums: www.flickr.com/photos/9585957... 
Наука
not sure what are the best vintage lenses, but Simon's Utak is definitely one of the best vintage lens channel
I’ll go one further and say it is THE best channel for vintage lenses. He shows examples of pics that he actually shot and every video is well organized and presented.
He helps drive up the prices.
Anyone reading this, you can 100% trust this guy and his opinions. I've bought a number of the lenses on this list because of his recommendations and I love them ALL. Some of my absolute favorite lenses of all time.
Links to each section:
00:00 Introduction
00:29 Selection criteria
04:48 Fisheye
06:26 Ultra Wide Angle
08:13 Wide Angle
08:58 Classic Walk Around (35mm) and Pancake
10:15 Fast Fifties
14:40 Macro
16:06 Portrait and Short Telephoto (including 135mm)
20:18 Long Telephoto
Could you add a 00:00 as well to the description so that the RUclips chapters work?
What are you using to modify an m39 to m42? Is it preferable to have different adapters for different sized lenses? For instance, an adapter fitting LTM and an adapter that fits Helios and the like. Thanks!
@@simonarnold3597 I'm using a basic M39 to M42 adapter ring. Most of my Russian M39 lenses came with the ring already attached. (I did buy three new metal rings from China, and one of those doesn't fit properly). And then I use a M42 adapter to whatever digital mount I'm using. I've not had any issues with infinity focus using these adapters - but I don't use Nikon cameras where it seems there can be issues. Of course, I'm not talking about range-finder M39s here - they are different!
Thank you for the nice review on M42 lenses ☺️
As for 35mm I would also mention EBC Fujinon 35mm f1.9, all metal but super small and light for it's f1.9. Also it has some Lanthanum and Thorium glass. Didn't check for radiation, but judging on yellowish glass when I bought it it looks like it radioactive... Rendering is simply amazing, with a bit busy bokeh, but 3 D pop and colours from this lens are jaw dropping. I actually sold all my M42 35mm lenses, as this one is the only one I keep using in this focal length... Only bad thing, it is overpriced now, I could get my for 200USD in Japan, but recently it has a prices 500-700usd...
As for 135mm the same, EBC Fujinon 135mm f2.5 is a winner 🏆
I'm happy that a number of my lenses made the list.
The appearance of a lens makes a considerable influence on my choices, and if it's difficult or frustrating to use that makes it better.
thanks for your detailed and perspective talk, which did offer a great access for me to dive into this vivid lens world
Thanks for all the videos Simon
In addition to my Canon FD lenses I like M42 lenses with an more specific optical formula. Helios, Jupiter and Industar lenses have remarkably performance and an very specific character.
A lens I miss in this range is the Noflexar 3,5 35mm Macro. In Germany it was known as "Bergsteiger-Objektiv". It was small, lightweight and could reach 1:2 with an very specific build-in macro mechanism. Image qualitiy is very good. In the 60ies it was regarded as one of the best macro lenses.
Thank you for your time and information!
Absolutely usefull and brilliant. Thank You for sharing, it makes us winning a lot of time ! Greetings from Belgium.
Isco-gottingen tele-westanar 135 3.5 3rd version is a favorite. Small, compact, dense, surprisingly good at ♾️. It has decent close focus for a vintage lens.
A nice survey in a price category that reflects both accessibility and performance!
Incredible super thorough informative video as always!
I have the SMC 17mm f/4 in K-Mount and I love it so much. An absolutely wonderful fisheye lens.
If you stop it down you get wonderful sunstars too. Filters are super useful when shooting b&w film.
For 24mm, I don't have any M42 lenses, but if any other vintage ones are fine:
The Cosina 24mm f/2.8 MC Macro (several mounts) is really nice.
The Konica 21mm f/4 for AR mount is really to my liking. Shooting B&W with that is incredible imo.
I have a Schneider Xenon 50 1.9 in DKL mount and it is extremely lovely. Glad to see you recommend it.
One of my favorite vintage lenses tbh (DKL mount is a lot cheaper than m42 but the adapters are ugly).
I absolutely adore the Orestor 100 2.8. One of my favorite lenses for its pleasant rendering alone.
I have newer more perfect 100s but I often just enjoy using the Orestor. I have taken a few portraits with it on film too and they are some of my favorites.
I should use my 200 f/3.5 more. I adore the output of that lens. It is so good. Just a bit too heavy to lug around on a whim sadly.
Someday I should invest in the Fujinon lenses you mentioned. I haven't tried one yet!
Many thanks, really appreciate your kind words, and enjoyed reading your comments.
The Tamron Adaptall-2 500mm mirror lens (55B and 55BB) is one of the best of the mirror lenses. It can can be found at $100 up to maybe $250, if it has the case with filters (R, Y, O, ND4)
Very interesting. Thank you!
Super interesting. Thanks!
I have a virtually mint MIR-1 I picked up recently but for about $100. I love it. I actually put it on my Contax AX and it works beautifully. An auto-focus MIR-1 that’s fast enough to capture my young kids moving around.
Glad you mentioned the Schneider-Kreuznach, the Xenon is a fine lens, in my opinion =)
Excellent video though, thanks for all the effort!
On your list are many lenses that I own and love. I agree with almost every decision. It is funny, that some of them I got very cheap like Carl Zeiss 80mm f1.8 which is my favourite portrait lens and than I look the price now. I know why it is not on the list. Love your videos.
I was a little surprised you didn't mention the SMC 400 f5.6. I had a copy it was sharp as a tack. The 300 f4 was no slouch either. Thanks for the video, as I said before it is like a trip down memory lane.
Great video! I have just started looking into vintage ultrawide lenses to adapt on an a7 to shoot the northern lights. In the ultra wide angle section you mention that there isn't much selection available in vintage - what would you recommend having a look at in digital zoom or prime (I am assuming you are referring to the Sigma 14mm f.1.8 Art?
Thank you for the nice review on M42 lenses ☺️
As for 35mm I would also mention EBC Fujinon 35mm f1.9, all metal but super small and light for it's f1.9. Also it has some Lanthanum and Thorium glass. Didn't check for radiation, but judging on yellowish glass when I bought it it looks like it radioactive... Rendering is simply amazing, with a bit busy bokeh, but 3 D pop and colours from this lens are jaw dropping. I actually sold all my M42 35mm lenses, as this one is the only one I keep using in this focal length... Only bad thing, it is overpriced now, I could get my for 200USD in Japan, but recently it has a prices 500-700usd...
As for 135mm the same, EBC Fujinon 135mm f2.5 is a winner 🏆
Love your videos!!!
Thank you!!
Great video, many very interesting lens options and you did a great job getting me interested in getting an M42 mount adapter and trying to get some of these lenses! 😁
Great, what vintage lens have you snagged so far?
@@rodels.3745 Hah, actually, so far still nothing! 😅
Thanks for another great video. I know it must be a tremendous amount of work to put a video like this together. I have refered back to your “best of” videos many times, in case you wonder why your Watched to Liked ratio is so skewed. I’m sure I’m not the only one :)
Thank you! You kind words are much appreciated.
Thank you
On the Fisheyes I got the later SMC 17/4 M-Version. It's a greate lens on the K1 and very compact which makes it fit in a full bag additionaly
Ultra Wide: I had the Tamron 17/3.5. Was ok on film but was lausy on the K10
A few years back I bought the Pentacon 135mm f2,8, an earlier version, for abput US$ 20. And I have yet to open it and clear the mist between elements most probably caused by diffused lubricant. That being said, despite the mist, the lens is still razor sharp...
Brilliant video
I had a sweet find recently and one other togs might want to look out for its a Taisei Kogaku Tamron Twin-Tele f1:2.8 135mm with a matched rear Mount teleconverter that increases the focal length to approximately 225mm its a m42 preset with what looks to be a 12 bladed diaphragm
Thank you!
Takumar 50mm M42 1.4 - 7 blade my favorite 50mm lens
I have a 500mm 8.0 mirror lens with the t mount I converted to K mount I used it to photograph the space shuttle in flight over Edward's Airforce Base coming in for a landing in the 1980's with a Pentax ME Super film camera
I use my Pentax K 50mm f1.2 and it does real well on my Fujifilm X-e3 in Acros mode.
great vid! you could easily have made a separate vid for each category considering how complicated these things get. thank you!
Yes, I did think about doing separate videos, but thought I'd start with an overview first!
not sure what are the best vintage lenses, but Simon's Utak is definitely a good vintage lens channel
I would also include the 85mm Super & Super-Multi-Coated Takumars at the high end of the monetary parameters. As for wide angles, the better, more advanced Takumars (the brand I collect more than any others) lie just outside the m42 mount universe with the Pentax Bayonet mount, of which I included the two that improved the most via revamped optical designs, the 28mm f3.5 K on the lower range & the 20mm f2.8 20mm A on the upper. I picked up a PK adapter for just these 2 lenses. A bit outside of the screw mounts covered here, but I thought this would be a good place to mention them.
I would like to add the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primotar 50mm f3.5. It is near the bottom of the price range and it is slow but I like the look. It can be sluggish in post-processing, but the Bokeh is fun. I was lucky to acquire one that had been badly adapted to M39, for a great price. I used some acetone, removed the adapter and... magic! I would love to find the faster f2.8 and compare.
Great video as always. Two years on and the price of these have gone up significantly, so much so that it's difficult to recommend too many. The chance of finding a piece in good condition is now small. So I recommend lenses made somewhat later (hence not M42 but various bayonet mounts) that have more consistent performance and which have had a couple decades less time to misalign or separate.
The one significant exception is if you really must have that swirly bokeh. To me that's undesirable, so the plentiful East German copies of much older designs are off the list.
I found a 28mm F/2.8 Sears lens in a M42 mount. I couldn't get over how sharp it was. I found out that Ricoh made a lot of the lenses for Sears.
I found a Sears lens at a thrift shop practically in mint condition. But this one is 55mm/F1.4.
I agree about the Takumar 200mm f3.5 preset. That is an excellent lens and still quite cheap. For longer lenses and not so old there are some excellent Nikons.
Nikon lens can be used on Pentax ?
Sorry I don't know just asking
Great video.
I have about 10 vintage lenses mostly on the normal to wide range, OP mentioned almost every single one of them. The one that he did not mention is the Tacumar 35mm f2, which is my favorite of all of my vintage lenses.
Soligor 100mm f2 is one my favorite it's hard to find but has a great look
Excellent review Simon. I'm lucky enough to own some of the lenses and recognize your description. The MC MTO -11CA is a difficult beast to handle, and gives you many challenges. But when I finally nail a picture, it can deliver very well. I often find the bokeh very busy, due to the donut effect. When using it, I usually need to bump up the ISO, due to slow speed (F10), and the need of a decently quick shutter speed. A newer mirrorless camera with internal stabilization and never ending ISO, would do wonders for the usability of this lens!
Many thanks for your feedback on using this lens - I've seen some very good photos taken with the lens on-line, but wondered what it was really like!
@@Simonsutak I have seen those photos too, and that's the reason why I bought it. It is a good lens, but I find it challenging to use. The close focal distance is quite long, about 10m, but by loosening the end stop screw, you can focus closer than expected.
@@Simonsutak Interestingly, I believe the original use of these lenses was not so much for still photography but for film and TV. They were not easy to privately acquire in the USSR, probably because of security fears - but they were a thrifty alternative to the top-grade movie and TV telephoto lenses, and were readily available at smaller press outlets and colleges teaching anything relating to film. Quite a lot of classic Soviet panning film shots were made with those long 1100mm MTOs, and you can even recognize them by the very slight shake they always have (caused by the tube and mirrors vibrating as they move).
It is also the perfect lens to take photos of the moon and planets
I've got a Sankyo Komura 200mm f3,5 and I really like it, 16 blades and excellent colors contrast and sharpness. (Probably a late version in production)
Sadly the my Komura 300mm f5 I also own, is nowhere near in performance.
Only downside with the 200 f3,5 is chromatic aberrations @ f3,5 (But @5,6 it's great, and Bokeh stays very nice thanks to the 16 blades.
Simon, Id listen to your narration on anything.
What digital camera would you recommend to try vintage film era lenses on?
I haven't had my copy of the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 8 Element very long but it is a special lens.
How is the Pentacon 135mm f2.8 15 blade ?
Hi Simon,
Another excellent review. I'm thankful that I live in the opposite time zone so my mind is fresh in the morning - as there is a lot to take in. Will definitely be watching several times and making some notes. Thank you for all your effort and research that goes into these videos.
My first vintage lens purchase was the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 (based on universal recommendation). The bokeh was a revelation. Though I've since discovered my old Pentax 24mm f2.8 (k-mount) and Soligor 400mm f5.6 (m42) that were stored away. Have the Pentax 100mm f4 Macro that I'm using for slide & negative digitising. Very sharp at f8 and flat field. Most expensive vintage lens is my Pentax-A 135mm f2.8 and this it's an absolutely brilliant lens. Have an early Auto-TAKUMAR 55mm f2 arriving soon.
If you like the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4, I think you'll also really like the Auto Takumar - the bokeh is so dreamy!
One on your list that you mentioned but didn't review is the 135mm f2.8 Spirltone. I have this lens, a 16 blade monster. I actually picked up a second one to give as a gift for a fellow photographer. Now, it did stick a bit and had oil on the blades which got on the inner element, but even a complete mechanical idiot like myself, was able to take it apart and clean it up and reassemble the lens. It is a bit stiff, but it is a beautiful lens. The second one I picked up has a dent in the outer ring but it takes lovely images wide open or stopped down. Because of the dents I got it for $50 off ebay. I also picked up recently a Sears 135mm Auto EE f2.8 in a bin for $1! Built in hood, only 8 blades, but it feel silky-smooth just like a Takumar when you focus it and it is nice and sharp. Just two to consider on your M42 hunts.
Many thanks for these recommendations! The hunt goes on....
I bought a tokina 150-500 f5.6(~165 USD), adapted it on a sony a7 for wildlife photography.I also bought a 2x converter(~12 USD), it vignettes a bit.
For the 135 mm focal length my preference is the 135 mm f/3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar lens. I have a heavier Sonnar 2.8/135 with C/Y mount, but I prefer the CZJ version as it is much lighter.
I searched high and low for a ZS Planar, man that thing sings at f2.2, what a lens.
Whilst alot of long telephoto lenses are M42 by default, and alot just doublets, there are some interesting standouts- Century Tele Athenar I/II series, Tele Ennalyt 600mm, Novoflex series all within price range.
Id mention industar 61lz as a macro ish lens, but it was probably was mentioned in other list
Interesting list, Simon
My recommendations would be:
- Vivitar (Komine) 35mm/1.9
- Auto Rokinon (Tomioka) 55 mm/1.4
- Jupiter 11 135 mm/4.0
- Meyer-Görlitz Orestor 135 mm/4.0
But I also only have about 20 M42 vintage and cheap lenses...
what about the zenitar 50mm f 1.9 ?
9:19 I own a Carl Zeiss Jena DDR 35 f2.4 and it becomes sharp at f4 but wide open it is washed out, and some chromatic aberration is present throughout. It might be my copy of that lens.
If the lens hood for the Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.8/120 mm is missing, you can use the one for the 2.8/105, the Macro 4/100 or the 3.5/135.
For m42, I own Helios 44 (silver and 44-2) and 40 (silver), and a Jupiter 9 (black). I find that the Helios lenses don’t perform very well in the climate I live. Southern California has super bright sun all day every day and that just destroys contrast and adds bloom wide open. I find that I have to stop those both down to 2.8 for my copies to remove the evil bloom. Though, I may be able to get away with wide open on my 44-2, which seems to handle poor bright lighting better than the 44-1. The Jupiter 9 I have performs much better wide open than the Helios lenses I own. That’s the extent to which I have experience with m42, I’m more of a vintage Nikon guy, but not bad at all. Hoping I can get my hands on some nice Takumars soon.
Also just in my experience shopping for a Helios 40, it’s impossible to get a good quality one with no issues for $350 under.
Also Simon, I’m a big fan of the channel, and if you want, I can lend you a Nikon lens to review. Thanks for the great videos, keep it up.
Get a filter my guy
@@htb123times I’m good
That’s too bad, I live in New England and these are some of my all time favorite lenses ever. I never considered the difference intense sunshine would make. Wouldn’t a filter only make things worse? I think of filters as just another layer of glass to pick up flare.
@@Dudeitsbrian I will say, using a hood (even just a simple rubber one) does help a bit - and you might want to take a look at some of the later, multi-coated marks of the Helios 44 family (like 44-3, or even a 44M-7 if you can get a hold of one), since flaring and blow-out in bright light is one of the things that the multi-coating is meant to address. It's still not perfect, but it helps a little.
That said, you're not wrong - these lenses are tough to use in bright light, and even with an expensive ND filter the results are less than stellar. They're wonderful in low light, though - try taking them out around (or even after) sunset and see what you get. My best pictures that my old, non-multicoated 44 (the BELOMO version) takes in particular have always been just after sunset, or otherwise in low light.
Thank you for you kind offer! I'm worried that if I try a film era Nikon lens, that will lead me down a dangerous collecting path.
BTW, my father lived in California for over 45 years (he's no longer alive), and when I visited him, using old lenses was less satisfying overall (except for the wonderful evening light), especially compared darker contrasts of England! However, I remember with great fondness a visit to San Diego/Zoo and then a drive all the way up the coast to San Francisco with my Spotmatic and Takumar lenses, where I got some great photos.
Great as all your videos
The Biotar 58mm f2 really is something special
Waiting for that projector lenses video...
Can't remember if a Noritar 17mm f4 is in M42, but would come within this budget and is vintage. Apparently comes under good praise. Fujinon also did an 18mm iirc in M42, rare but same price point
Very good... thank you. Now, i'm probably a little naive, but there is a Super Takumar that nobody ever seems to pay any attention to, but that i got a copy of and am blown away by how good it actually is - the 150mm f4. In good light, it's colours and sharpness are what really stand out. Perhaps i just got lucky....
Many thanks. Yes, a great lens. It gets excellent reviews from users.
@@Simonsutak Ah, mon ami... you're the one who 'needs' to review it - your channel is Gold for so many of us.
Tamron SP 17 - now some 35yrs old, no adverse comments at all ( used on fillum and digicam.)
good selection, I would probably buy one more lens, maybe wide angle. I only have few vintage lenses from, takumar 8th edition, carl Zeiss planar t 1.7, helios 40-2, helios 40 85mm,meyer optic gerlas 50mm. these are nice lenses. I think takumar is my favorite and helios 85mm is second. I noticed all these lenses do not suit what I create. I use photography to make abstract art. with dark background and colorful contrasting shapes.
how to share some photos I have created? not to promote myself but to help search for vintage lenses. I search for lenses that have very strong color rendition and sharpness. anyone have good suggestions?
for 135mm i have smc takumar 135 f2.5 its nice les to have
Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro, also branded with others.
Good one.
Thank you - and many thanks for your other comment/points on this video...I will respond!
Great video ! I use an Olympus OMD 5ii, is it possible for you to suggest some vintage lenses for us micro four third users? Thank you
I don't use/know micro four thirds, but I'll take a look! Perhaps others could help here.
Vintage lenses. I’m a Nikon guy, so my experience is with preAI Nikon specifically. Generally cheaper than the best ones in my opinion, the AI lenses, but easier to service and feel a little sturdier. In any case, Canon FD works just as well. I have only a few canon lenses and I use them only with my AE1, but they’re sharp as heck and get the job done, tho in a much more plasticky way.
I would suggest for a normal length lens, a Nikon or canon 24mm 2.8 or so to get that 50mm field of view. It’s gonna be hard to get anything wider than that with vintage lenses, at least that I know of. But then a 50mm 1.4 from either one will do you up a nice 100mm portrait look. A 35mm 2.0 would get you close to an 85 and I love that 35mm Nikon lens. But yeah I would keep in mind the size of the lenses, generally the ones I mentioned will be reasonably sized on a smaller body, but hey if you’re crazy then go for a 105 or a 200 and that’ll get you a lot of reach. All of these lenses I mentioned at least for Nikon, I got for under $100. Great value.
Also, forget to mention above, but if you use these lenses just with an adapter to your camera, 2x working focal length of course, but you can get a speed booster it’s called which will make the lenses work closer to their original intended focal length and it’ll make them faster and brighter. But these speed boosters are kinda expensive from my experience, which is not owning one because of how expensive they are, but maybe I’m wrong.
Anyways, the moral of the story is, Nikon and canon lenses will offer great quality across the lines. The lenses that Simon has recommended too will work great as well most of em, toward the shorter focal length spectrum at least. Get yourself a Helios and be epic, or whatever you know. If you wanna have a bunch I would recommend sticking with a single platform that way you don’t have to manage a bunch of adapters. Good luck to you, let me know if you need any more info.
Speaking of 58mm, The Mamiya 58mm 1.4 should give the Auto Sears 55 mm Rokonon 1.4 or it's equivilant a run for their money.
Hi, just discovered your brilliant channel and really like your analysis. One thing I’m interested in is determining the effects of things like “thin layer of haze” small dust, or bubbles in the descriptions. I try to only purchase mint lenses, but looking at the Zeiss 55 f1.8, I’m concerned about paying premium prices for a lens with defects. Could anybody point to a buying guide for lenses and how much damage like micro scratches are acceptable. Thanks!
Personally, I don't mind the scratches or the bubbles and they seldom show up. Big areas of dust or hairs show up more as you stop down and in the bubbles wide open. A thin layer of haze can be an issue, as the light reflects off/through the haze, impacting the image. And sometimes haze really means fungus. I've purchased old lenses with fungus when I'm confident I can open up the lens and disinfect it. I did once buy a lens with haze, not fungus, and it turned out to be locked in between two cemented elements. Impossible to clean. So I avoid haze now.
Great video as always, Simon, thank you for that!
I noticed you skipped by the mirror lenses rather quickly - I hazard to guess this is because these aren't really your specialty. It would be really interesting to see expanded thoughts from you on those, if you could even temporarily get your hands on one of these to review, even just as an experiment!
I've been eyeing the f/6.3 "fast" version of the MTO-500 (that being its focal length), but am still not sure I'm ready to commit to it. I do have a 1250mm telescope built on the same Maksutov optical system, and while it's great for moon photography (especially on a camera that can record 4k video, where a few hundred good frames will produce a beautiful stacked image with very little effort) - using it for most of everything else has been a bit disappointing, as it's f/13.9 aperture is painfully slow and diffraction as well as dust particles (which are inevitable inside of any old mirror lens) are very obvious, especially on a crop sensor. I'm definitely curious whether the "fast" 500mm MTO is worth the $250-300 I see it going for, since in theory it should be a much more manageable lens for "earthly" uses like bird photography. In theory.
Otherwise, I'd be glad to see you give the 300mm Tair "photosniper" a more detailed look sometime - it sounded like you enjoyed that experience, and I've heard the same from others (especially for its unusual focus mechanism)! Having recently purchased a brand new Sigma 100-400mm lens for telephoto uses, I'm honestly not sure I have much of a particular need for anything in that range (very fast lenses notwithstanding) - but as with the mirror lenses, it sounds like the reason to buy something in this range isn't really the image quality but simply the experience of using it.
With that, a last thought: one interesting subject for a future video might be to highlight lenses that are mechanically unusual and interesting to use (whether in a pleasant or unpleasant way!), from your perspective.
(-George from Canada)
If you want the Best Mirror Lens Grab the NIKION 500mm f8 .... It comes with 4 colour filters located in the lid of the case .Also get the NIKON 400mm. f3.5 ...
@@laurencemoss8049 A 400mm f/3.5 mirror lens? (Or did I read that wrong?) That sounds intriguing, as far as astrophotography at least!
I'm not overly concerned about quality, unless it's something really outstanding - half of the reason I'm looking at MTOs anyway is that I just happen to be collecting Soviet lenses anyway. But I have noticed that there's still quite a number of modern mirror lenses being made, and I don't doubt most are at least optically better than the MTOs (though I do love their rugged looks).
You're right, mirrorless lenses are not my specialty at all, although I've been part of on-line photo groups where people have used them actively. Like you, I'm happy to use modern telephotos, but it would be fun to spend some time with a reflex mirror lens some time - one of the Macro Mirror lenses. And thanks for the idea on unusual lenses!
@@Simonsutak In that case, I would definitely recommend giving that f/6.3 version of the MTO-500 a try! They're a bit more rare than the standard f/8 versions, but they're well within reasonable price ranges covered by this video. And while there are a few modern f/6.3 mirror lenses in that same focal length, all the other vintage ones I've come across tend to be the slower f/8.
"Mirror lenses" is actually a bit of a misnomer for these - in the telescope world, these are referred to as Maksutov-Cassegrains, while in Russia they tend to be called meniscus lenses, since much of their focal length and aberration-correcting effect is achieved by the light-bending meniscus lens on the front, and not the mirrors.
I wonder how the prices of most of these lenses have changed over the past two years. I’ve owned several of the various Takumars mentioned for over 20 years and can’t imagine selling them.. but everything comes to an end so I suppose it’s time they went on to new young film photographers to carry on the tradition of excellent image rendering. Well, maybe I’ll just shoot one more roll of film through them first 😏.
Probably the Tokina RMC 17 mm f3.5 MF will cut the deal for the ultrawide section (I owned one costing only 89€ ) great on IR photography. The Tamron 17 mm f3.5 is less good like the Vivitar/Soligor 20 mm f3.8 and Tamron 21mm f4 lenses. Those last three are quite nice for UV photography.
The M42 ORESTOR 2.8/100 Car Meyer-Optik I notice is only six blades, no issue wide open of course. There is a Pentax M and A 100mm f2.8 with six blades as well. I would be curios how they stack up. I have the two Pentax. I may have to eventually by the ORESTOR to see for my self.
HI, my M42 Orestor 100mm is the 15 blades zebra version - more expensive than the 6 bladed one - and it's a cute lens. I've also got a large, heavy F100m f2.8 Macro. The Pentax is a superb performer, in a different league. But the images do look more "digital" than the Orestor's "film" look. Here are my albums of photos from these two lenses if you're interested, starting with the Orestor.
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157718934733730
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157653929567868
@@Simonsutak Yes! I realize now there was a more expensive one as I dug a little deeper. Should have known. Lol... I was referring to the non macro 100mm Pentax made. Either way, your macro shots look nice. I use the 645 120mm Macro with a adapter. They go for a song on Ebay and seem to preform well.
Steinheil Munchen 135 2.8
Jupiter 12 35 2.8
TAKUMAR M42 85mm 1.8 , A.Schact Ulm 90mm 2.8 12 blade Zebra
Thank you so much. I have been thinking about trying an old Nikon lens, but I'm worried it will lead me down a whole new path of acquiring lenses! BTW, my father worked and retired in Palm Dessert (he's no longer alive), and when we visited him, my old lesser coated lenses were more of a struggle compared to England, so I know what you mean.
Coming back to this video, the only bad thing about this vide ( I love most of this guy's m42 mount advice ) is that I think he's been picking up steam with the views and subs and now PRICES ARE GOING UP lol
13:47 I recently compared the 13 bladed Silver Helios with other versions, but the difference is really minimal as you can see in the video on my channel.
So, well within the price range, what about my 135mm f/3.5 and 105mm f/2.5 Nikon manual lenses? Do I just toss them into the bin? I ask because you do not seem to mention any Nikon glass.
Do whatever you want with your Nikon glass, the title clearly states M42 mount, both your Nikons are AI-s mount, thats why they are not mentioned in this video
@@michaeldesignbig2538 Yes, I made a mistake. I was being facetious and did not intend to come across any other way. And I think I was responding to his content in general as he seems to mostly talk about m42 and similar mounts.
Do you have a $50 budget lens list
Yes, for M42 lenses:
Bargain vintage lenses in M42 mount - best value performers from wide angle to telephoto
ruclips.net/video/bSxyHCm8N4A/видео.html
Macro Kiron 105mm
As long as the lens is sharp...
as for jupiter 9, just go chinese lenses instead price wise the same but sooo much sharper
Any Takumar will save you time and money.
zenitar 16mm sucks at 2.8 :D it only becomes usable at 5.6
Two major points:
1- By choosing 42 mm-only mounts, you really exclude some of the best of best out there, such as the highest quality lenses like Topcor RE (Exekta mount) that not many even know about their existence, or OMو M or Fujifilm, or Konica's Hexanon mount excellent lenses, mostly in the same price range but many far far optically superior. My suggestion: You should have used Film era lenses, instead of 42mm mount only.
2- IMHO you should have removed that price range in your filter. Not that the very nice modestly priced lenses will all suffer and die in the shadow of the abnormally expensive few lenses, but just to prove price is subjective and what some will pay, without a true reflection of the Optical Merits and Real Quality. This has already been proved by some gurus of this field such as Mathieu Stern.
You could prove once again that a good lens is not only about the price or historical importance or brand!
Thank you otherwise.
Thank you so much!
Film era lenses - can they be compatible with Digital SLR ? I have pentax k5 (K mount) - curious to know - thank you !
@@SY27196 If you are familiar with manual focusing or will to learn, it's all easy then.
btw, a lot of fun too.
You should be able to use Old Pentax bayonet mount lenses (Pentax K mounts) directly and as is, to your DSLR body. You can focus to infinity, manually focus of course, and can shoot either in AP or M mode. Everything manual. So no electric coupling and no EXIF on the images.
You won't be able to use Pentax older, screw mount lenses (M42), as is but if you buy a cheap mechanical adapter that physically permits coupling with DSLR, then all is the same. Same for many other older vintage camera brand lenses but you should find the right lens for the Pentax DSLR adapter. These adapters are typical $10-20 and you can find them easily online.
Other vintage lenses made by other major brands also can be used but some may need optical correction glass for infinity focus (Not recommended).
In general, if you are to use older lenses with new camera bodies, you may want to use a major brand mirrorless digital camera body, due to more compatible flange distance and no need for any optical correction glass in the adapter.
My Mir 1b 37mm was only £55
m42 was always a poor mans mount, even super takumars arent as good as nikon or canon glass of the period, at least the ones I tried
150 to 350 dollars ?
FOR AN OLD SHITTY LENS ?
a few years ago, those lenses could be bought for around 10 dollars... but now you "hipster photographers" have pushed the prices.
For the rest of you, go modern automatic lenses. Much better. WAY better.