Jump to content

Best m42 50ish mm lens?


Recommended Posts

After deciding that the 56mm 1.2 is unobtainium I've got my mind set on adapting a vintage lens of similar focal length.

 

Ive done some reading and I think the takumar smc 55mm 1.8 would suit me nicely. Plus its cheap as chips! But thought I'd ask you guys and see what you thought before I buy anything.

 

Should I go with the takumar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I've heard Takumar 55 is good. If you have a chance to get it cheap, I'd go for it. I have one Minolta 50/1.4, but haven't used it much really. And classic Helios 58/2, which is quite fun, but I usually leave these  vintage lenses home when I want to travel kind of light, since they're quite heavy and space consuming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if there's a "best" lens, it depends on the job I guess. My always-on portrait lens at the moment is a russian Helios 44, famous for it's swirly bokeh effect. There are many variations of it, the earlier ones somewhat creamier with more aperture blades, the later ones sharper but with lesser blades. 

Otherwise I used to try out many cheaper Pentax K lenses, some of them also available for M42. Some brands like Revue, Ricoh, Chinon etc. can be found dirt cheap and are fun to try out. Just don't expect extremely sharp, technically perfect pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I go with the takumar?

 

No. If you were after the "look" of one particular vintage lens, you wouldn't be asking, so the very fact that you did tells us something.

 

If I'm not mistaken, all you want is a cheap and fast 50-ish lens for the sake of background isolation.

 

And for that I suggest… Canon EF 50/1.8, AKA "Plastic fantastic". That lens costs from $50 to $90 used; add a semi-decent adapter ($10-20), and you've got yourself an excellent "background isolator" for less than $100  :D

 

Creamy bokeh? Check. Sharp? Check. Cheap? Check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there is plenty of m42 50ish lenses. If it doesn't have to be m42, there is much more.

 

However, the Super-Takumar 1.8/55 i can definitely recommend: 

Very nice build, for me a haptic dream. Optically also good. Rather small. 

Rather sharp wide open. Nice bokeh. But, when closed to a certain amount, it shows the saw teeth circles which you may like or not.

Depending on age and coating a bit susceptible for flares on back light ... (however i love that).

Affordable to cheap.

 

There => https://goo.gl/oWoYfO <= are some samples i took with mine.

 

Whether it is especially good for portraits, i don't know ... i use it more as kind of "fun lens", yet. (see pics)

I also have an XF56 ... but the takumar including the "fat" adapter ist smaller and lighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. If you were after the "look" of one particular vintage lens, you wouldn't be asking, so the very fact that you did tells us something.

 

If I'm not mistaken, all you want is a cheap and fast 50-ish lens for the sake of background isolation.

 

And for that I suggest… Canon EF 50/1.8, AKA "Plastic fantastic". That lens costs from $50 to $90 used; add a semi-decent adapter ($10-20), and you've got yourself an excellent "background isolator" for less than $100 :D

 

Creamy bokeh? Check. Sharp? Check. Cheap? Check.

Handling and character are important to me too. The focus ring on the canon is kinda tiny! Oh and I love the vintage look of old lenses!

 

The Helios looks kinda interesting! The swirly bokeh is quite unique.

 

Kinda leaning towards either the takumar 55 or Helios now.

 

But still keen to hear more people's thoughts. Thanks guys so far! Appreciate your opinions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Handling and character are important to me too. The focus ring on the canon is kinda tiny! Oh and I love the vintage look of old lenses!

 

Indeed. Takumars are always great, plus they look great and feel great. But it can be any old 50/1.8'ish lens really, i rarely look for something that specific, mostly just those that happen to fall on my path. Because i have a rule that i only buy things that i can pick up personally. That way i always know what i'm getting, and as a bonus it puts some sort of a brake on my GAS. :lol:

 

One thing i hate about M42 though is the screw mount, that takes a long time. If you have more than one (eventually) that can get annoying. So one way to solve that is actually to get a EOS adapter for your camera, and then put a M42 to EOS adapter on every M42 lens that you use regularly. That way you've basically soft-converted all your lenses to a convenient Canon EF bayonet mount. :DB)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on what you are looking for.

 

1) The subject separation you only can have with a f1.2 aperture (limits your choice)

2) A good, fast 50 (of which there are plenty)

 

I have quite a collection of vintage 50ish lenses and this is my quick take on (some of) them :

 

Takumars (M42) - I don't really like the bokeh, can be quite nervous, blooming highlights and softness wide open, low contrast. Handling is excellent with both, I thought they were pretty smooth until I tried the Minoltas. Anyway, the 50/1.4 is better than the 55/1.8 IMO, but more expensive of course.

 

Minoltas - I LOVE the 45/2 (cheap, tiny, unique look and smooth focus), the 50/1.7 is even smoother (the smoothest focus ever!) and sharp!, the 55/1.7 unfortunately is in pieces at the moment, but should be similar to the 50/1.7 in sharpness and handling. Same bloom and slight softness when wide open, but different "look" that I like.

 

Canons - nifty fifty 50/1.8 II- wouldn't recommend it, even though I loved it on my Canons, the reason being the electronic aperture, which forces you to either shoot it wide open (or whatever aperture it was last at) or buy an adapter with a built-in aperture ring. The FL 55/1.2 - exquisite! My poor man's 56/1.2 (paid about $100). A lot of glass - a bit heavy. Focus ring is (on my specimen) too stiff for it to be comfortable. Perhaps re-lubing it will help? Doesn't look too big on the camera since the FD adapter is shorter than the Minolta/M42 adapters, which I quite like. Lovely colors and bokeh, but same problem with highlight bloom and slight softness wide open. Razor sharp from f2.8 onwards.

 

Helios 44M - This used to be on my Canon all the time. For some reason, I just don't find it compelling with X-Trans. Don't know why. Also a bit of a long throw and heavy focus ring. Fun bokeh though, sharp, low contrast. Max.aperture of f2 might not be that fast.

 

Pentax-A 50/1.7 - Also sharp etc. Virtually indistinguishable from the Minolta, was my favourite until I got the Minolta (as you might have noticed, I am a Minolta fan). Different colours.

 

I would recommend either the Minolta MC Rokkor PF 50 f1.7 (cheap, razor-sharp and ultra-smooth handling) or a Canon FD/FL 55 1.2. A Minolta 58/1.2 would probably also be great. The MD Minoltas should be similar, but more plasticky than the MC generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get one adapter for each lens. Most of the M42/Fuji adapters are in a $10-15 price range  B)

 

Not the problem, obviously. The M42>EOS adapters are 1mm, you don't notice they're there. They're not really adapters, more like lens converters. The 'mirrorless' adapters are 1 million meters in size, more than some of the 50's themselves are! So just one of those is fine thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is just my personal and subjective opinion. I'm no tech geek or something.

 

I've tried different M42 50/55mm lenses:

 

Fujinon 55mm f/1.8

Fujinon 55mm f/2.2

Fujinon 50mm f/1.4

Asahi SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 M42

 

 

Fujinon 55/1.8: Great lens!!! Nothing to complain on. Sharp even wide open. And you get it for 20 - 40 €. Here are some examples from a not so good photographer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93978937@N07/tags/fujinon55mmf18m42/

 

Fujinon 55/2.2: Even cheaper than the f/1.8 but not that good. Very soft wide open. Also ugly CAs in some situations. Save your money by not buying this one.

 

Takumar 50/1.4: Seeams to be a great lens. And yes it is and also it isn't. Cause very soft wide open, good at f/2.8, great from f/4. Unfortunately it also shows some ugly CAs wide open in some situations. BUT (and that's a huge but): The BOKEH is gorgeous!!! Very creamy and harmonic!!! Also you can create some nice lens flare with this lens. If you're looking for a great bokeh lens the winner (of these four lenses) is definitely the Takumar!!! Price about 150 €.

16216409757_3b2187f6fb_b.jpg

Whistle by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr

Some other examples here: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=93978937%40N07&tags=takumar&view_all=1

In the end I gave my Takumar to a friend of mine cause of purchasing the following lens.

 

Fujinon 50/1.4: That's my personal winner! Also about 150 €. But you get a sharp image even wide open. Also you have this extra speed towards the Fujinon 55/1.8. Image quality is similar to the 55/1.8 I think. Couldn't test it side by side cause I don't have the 55/1.8 anymore. Bokeh is quite nice but not as great as the Takumar.

16243948373_3902b6c342_b.jpgBright-eyed contentment by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, on Flickr

 

By the way if you're looking for a 135mm lens it's the same as with the 50/55mm lenses. The old Fujinons are the best choice. I also tried different of these lenses and Fujinon always did the best job!! See my test here: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/317-135mm-lens-comparison/

 

 

Like nowadays Fuji is and was the best lens manufacturer!!! IMHO

 

 

Here's a link to a M42 database http://m42lens.com/

 

 

Hope I could help a little bit.

 

Have a nice day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

All M42 Takumars are worthwhile considering. The old model 50/1.4 Super Tak with knurled focus ring has a very nice vintage rendering. The later SMC version has a more modern look, but is much sharper. The Helios is special, like the Zeiss Biogon. I must say that the later Helioses (v5 and up if I'm correct) have less pronounced swirly bokeh, are much sharper and less prone to flare.

Fujinons are very nice ones. Also Carl Zeiss Jena, Mamiya, Contax, Leica-R have some nice offerings. However, some of them at a different price point and with different lens mounts.

 

But none of them will give you the corner sharpness wide open like the XF56. I have that lens and I own quite some vintage glass. But even a Summilux-R 50/1.4 or a Contax Planar 50/1.4 are nowhere near as sharp wide open. However, I use them often for their character, especially with people portraits.

 

Plus it depends on your needs whether the omission of AF is a decision maker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you would be willing to use a Nikon adapter rather than M42 (Fotasy or Fotodiox), Nikon's 50mm F/1.4 D (note "D"  not "G") is very good. "Good" as in one of Nikon's best.  You can find them used for a reasonable price.   The combination of the adapter and the lens is not all that heavy or bulky.  I focus wide open using peaking, then count the clicks on the aperture ring to stop it down as desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the 50mm f/1.4 D. Lots of purple fringing wipe open. Also not that cheap. For a fraction of the price, (~$60) you could get a Canon FD f/1.4 SSC if you were willing to use a Canon FD mount. The Canon FDs all had mechanical aperture rings unlike their newer lenses for their newer mount.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 3 copies of the Helios 44-2 that I love. One I've reversed the front element on as just a playful "special effects" lens. Of the other two, I prefer my "zebra" copy, but both are good.

 

One thing that you should note if the Helios intrigues you is that quality control on the manufacturing for these was always a bit sloppy. The best strategy for getting a good one is to:

 

1. Always buy from sellers with great eBay ratings.

2. Be patient, there are tons of these listed every day on eBay. Don't feel like you've got to buy one right now the first time you browse. That can be a recipe for overspending.

3. Always confirm condition (no oil on aperture blades, no fungus, etc.) through a question to the seller.

4. In my opinion, the older the better with the Helios lenses, but balance that with condition.

5. My strategy was to buy 3 and be happy if one of them was really good. Luck was on my side and 2 were great, 1 was OK.

 

Also note that the swirly bokeh can be cool, but don't expect to put that lens on your camera and start taking a ton of crazy bokeh shots right away. Certain backgrounds, light, and other factors influence whether or not you get the swirly bokeh with a Helios. That being said, the bokeh on these lenses at f/2 is simply outstanding if you get a good copy, whether it swirls or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many good 50 ish M42 lenses you definitely have plenty to choose from.

 

One thing about the M42 mount is that it was in wide use in the time of photography just before good multi coatings became an expected thing. By the time makers really put emphasis on having multi coatings across their entire range most had already moved to a proprietary mount if they hadn't begun with one anyway.

 

There are a few exceptions to this. M42 Pentax Takumars had extremely advanced coatings for their time. They are universally accepted to be excellent lenses and you would be hard pressed to not be happy with the 50/1.4. If you cant take nice photos with this lens then put down the camera.

 

My personal favorite M42 lenses are actually lenses that I have never technically shot with with. Well, sorta. I highly recommend the M42 Yashica DS-M lenses. Like I said, I have never shot with the actual DS-M lenses but I shoot all the time with Yashica ML lenses in the Contax/Yashica mount. Yashica cameras used the M42 mount for a long time and the last series of them, the DS-M, were excellent optics with a very good multicoating. That is actually what the M stands for in DS-M and differentiates them from the older DS lenses. When Yashica hooked up with Zeiss in the late 70's to develop the Contax/Yachica mount they needed a full lens lineup to put on the new cameras. So they simply modified the old DS-M designs to have the new C/Y mount. If you look at the old DS-M's and their first series ML counterparts the lenses are identical except for the mount. The lenses were later updated with some cosmetic changes (and a few had new optical formulas) and these are known as the Series II ML lenses.

 

A quick note about the series II lenses. There is a rumor, unsubstantiated but I believe to be true, that when Yashica changed over to the new series the bean counters at the corporation ran some numbers and discovered it would actually cost more money to make both the Yashica ML 50/1.7 and the Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 along side each other then it would be to simply make more Ziess Planars optics and put them in the Yashca ML body. The thing about the Contax Yashica system was that you had Yachica and Contax cameras using the same mount and all the bodies would be made by Yashica. But for the lenses you could choose the cheaper Yashica ML lenses or the nicer Contax Ziess lenses, some of which were made in Germany by Zeiss and some made in Japan by Yaschica but made to higher Zeiss standards. But the accountants figured it would cost less money to just make a larger batch of Zeiss Planar 50/1.7's and use them in both the Zeiss and Yashica ML lens bodies. They ML did not of course have the Zeiss T* coating but used the ML coating instead, which is still a very high quality coating. Yashica learned a LOT from Ziess during this period and it shows in the ML lenses. So if you buy a series II Yashica ML 50/1.7 there is actually a good chance you are getting a Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 with ML coatings. I can vouch for the lens and it is one of my favorites ever. Actually the Zeiss lenses from the C/Y period are some of the best manual focus lenses you can ever own. The ones made in Japan are actually Tomioka made Zeiss glass....holy crap what a combo.

 

This is actually one of the best reasons to shoot Yashica glass. All Yashica lenses were manufactured by Tomioka, a Japanese lens making company renowned for excellent glass. Yashica had outsourced all of its lenses to Tomioka and liked the results so much that they ended up buying the company and bringing their lens making in house. When the Kyocera takeover of Yashica happened in the 80's all of the Tomioka stuff went to Kyocera. And somewhere, even today, the remnants of Tomioka are buried in the holding of they Kyocera corporation.

 

But all of that is a little off the topic of M42's. Some other really nice M42's to look at are the Mamiya Sekor lenses. Well made, lovely little lenses with some more primitive coatings. A couple of examples of some Mamiya Sekor 50's...

 

8088539446_a548bf6716_b.jpg

 

6154110461_54007727a9_b.jpg

 

 

Probably my favorite M42 lens of all time is the Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2. A stupidly good lens with some very nice old world characteristics. Technically the bokeh on this lens is nissen, or 'broken', due to the way it can double render some things instead of smoothing things out. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world and it is sitting now on my desk as I type this. Mine is a 1959 aluminum bodies version and they can be had for not a whole lot of money. When used properly a photographer can turn the weaknesses of this lens around and some very nice images can result. Here are some examples...

 

16391139888_0a5e5137f7_b.jpg

 

7525426552_8ef40a2218_b.jpg

 

13139717663_1337d81228_b.jpg

 

7728630634_55cb7ba469_b.jpg

 

7554206952_912f2dcc0c_b.jpg

 

14537557153_8d38e1329c_b.jpg

 

The mantis photo is a good example of what I mean by Nissen bokeh. You can see the very specific double rendering on the hind parts of the little insect. Technically bad, but beautiful nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be completely remiss if I mentioned M42 lenses and did not discuss my OTHER favorite fifty in this mount. The Auto Yashinon 5cm f/2. This is a very old lens from the earliest days of Yashica SLR business. I'm fairly certain that this is also made by Tomioka as the renderings are what I have come to expect from Tomi glass. Unfortunately the records are lost from this era so we will never know for sure. I can say that on the outside this lens is 99 percent identical to the Pentax Auto Takumar 55/2.2 which can lead to some interesting discussion. Did Yashica buy a design from Pentax early on or did a very new Pentax company also buy a readily available design from Tomioka to quickly get a lens to market? My money is on Tomioka, since as a third party maker they sold to a lot of basic designs to many companies back then with only minor cosmetic changes. Who knows for sure? But if you ever come across one of these I HIGHLY recommend you get it. It is a tiny, well made little jewel of a lens and resembles an old rangefinder lens way more then the big SLR lenses that came later.

 

16927550658_f4af4a1f7c_b.jpg

 

16470588105_f7914cf931_b.jpg

 

14948124244_d78015db37_b.jpg

 

12377048975_3b90518a45_b.jpg

 

18320681115_dc281e0e8d_b.jpg

 

11969411715_900b6472c7_b.jpg

 

15383244000_1cc5558841_b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got a Helios 44-2 58mm F2 and it's a great little lens. Very sharp wide open and can have the funky swirly bokeh. Just got it yesterday so I'm going to wait till the weekend to put it through it's paces but so far is looking good.

 

Very nice. If I am not mistaken the Helios 44-2 is a direct Soviet made copy of the Zeiss Biotar 58/2. When Germany was divided up among the allies at the end of the war the Soviets got the part of Germany that had the Zeiss factory. They started making lenses under the Zeiss Jena brand (of which my Biotar is a copy) and they also shipped all the plans for the factory back to Russia and started cranking out Soviet made versions of the Ziess lenses in the millions. That should be what your Helios is.

 

Quality control on the Soviet lenses was horrible. Lenses were made on a quota system for the Soviet Communist economy and as the deadline for the quota got closer the factories grew more hasty in making the lenses. But there are many good copies available, you just have to find them. People sometimes joke you have to buy ten or twenty of the same lens to find a jewel. But once you find one it is a keeper. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Fun stuff is when you take a RICOH 55mm f/2.2 lens and flip the rear element.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...