Set of M42 optics but which ones?

S

snip

Established
Local time
10:59 PM
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
175
View My Gallery
I hope this is the correct sub category for this question.

I want to assemble a complete set of M42 primes for my Praktica. I.e Same manufacturer similar "fingerprint" and such.

I'm thinking of going either with Asahi stuff or Zeiss Jena. The former having the attraction of SMC coating and the latter the siren song of the "Zeiss" name. I know they are not the same as "real" zeiss lenses but from what I hear and from having owned one Tessar which I unfortunately sold I think they are quite nice.

So the kit would be 50mm, Something in between like a 135 and a 200mm With maybe room for a 300mm if I can find one that is sufficiently fast.

But which ones? For the 50mm f/1.8 would be nice, in Jena that would be the Pancolars where the Tessar available in an f/2 or f/2.8 version has the ability to go beyond f/16, not so with the Asahi equivalent where I would be starting at f/3.5 or moving to a 55mm, which I coincidently already own.

On the medium and tele front Jena is ahead again in the speed race offering wider max apertures on 135 and 200, also a fast 300 is available albeit I don't know how rare these are.

I'm confused about coating with the Jena's information regarding that is a bit scarce. So anyone who can shed some light on that would be very welcome

Also are the "Zebra" Jena's special in any way?

How about others, Meyer Gorlitz?

Looking forward to many answers

//Jan
 
I have mainly Pentax glass, and I've loved every one. Some comments based on what I own:
A 50/1.4 costs very little, even the 50/1.4 SMC-Takumar - and the image quality is astonishing. You might as well go for the faster lens from the start. Anything in the f/1.8 - f/2 range is so cheap and readily available as to be disposable.
The 135/3.5 Super-Takumar is light and sharp, and a joy to handle.
Ditto the 35/3.5.
The 35/2 Super Takumar (49mm filter size) seems to trigger a feeding frenzy whenever it appears on eBay, but if you can snag a good one then it's well worth the price.

Non-Pentax:
The Sigmatel 135/1.8 YS-mount is fun, and M42-mount adaptors are readily avaliable. You can also use a T-mount adaptor if you don't care about automatic diaphram operation.

A few examples from the wider end (I thought I had some shots up using the 135/3.5, but it seems I was mistaken):
35/3.5


35/2


50/1.4 SMC-Takumar


And the Sigma 135/1.8:
 
ruby.monkey said:
I have mainly Pentax glass, and I've loved every one. Some comments based on what I own:
A 50/1.4 costs very little, even the 50/1.4 SMC-Takumar - and the image quality is astonishing. You might as well go for the faster lens from the start. Anything in the f/1.8 - f/2 range is so cheap and readily available as to be disposable.
The 135/3.5 Super-Takumar is light and sharp, and a joy to handle.
Ditto the 35/3.5.
The 35/2 Super Takumar (49mm filter size) seems to trigger a feeding frenzy whenever it appears on eBay, but if you can snag a good one then it's well worth the price.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input. The 50/1.4 and 135/3.5 are the main optics I had considered from the Takumar range, I am not interested in 35 on SLR.

I am leaning more towards Jena for the reason that they are from the same era and area as the body (Praktica MTL-5) also they have the edge in the 200/300 end. But I am confused as to their coatings. Hoping to have more light shed on this.

//Jan
 
I'm beginning to think maybe I am barking up the wrong tree here, whilst looking for these lenses I have found that I could buy a Canon T-50 and 50/1.4, 135/3.5 and 200/4 for £139 all from a dealer. I doubt I would find 3 Zeiss Jena lenses for that sort of money but would they be better than the Canon FD optics?

I think they would also I just LIKE the MTL-5 it was my first camera and I feel kind of attached to it.
 
I have no experience with the Zeiss lenses, and my opinon on the Takumars:
50/1.4 is very good, but if shaprness is your cup-a-joe get the 55/1.8 which is much sharper
The 135/3.5 is quite good, but there was a mamiya-sekor and a fujinon /2.8 which were better IMHO
The 200/4 can be spectacular, even for portraits if you use it carefully.
In wide angles the 28/3.5 was good, but there was a vivitar and a sekor that were better.
Now the lens that is quite unique and really worth all its price is the 17/4 Fisheye
 
Hello Jan,

I had a set of both Pentax Takumar and also Zeiss Jena.

The zebra Zeiss lenses are Single coated and the Black ones are Multicoated (which can also be seen by the MC label). There are a few older silver lenses which are also single coated. Basically it is the same with the Pentax lenses Super Takumar vs. SMC Takumar. You will also find some Zeiss lenses with the electric label. This means that there are 3 additional small pins at the mount to provide open aperture metering with dedicated Praktica models (LLC, PLC, VLC, EE) but work also fine on your Praktica.

There is nothing to worry about image quality. They are all in about the same league. You will sometimes hear about sample variation of Eastern European lenses but I didn't have seen any Problems with that.
One shortcoming of the Zeiss lenses is the lube wich was used back than. The aperture blades can get sticky and focusing can become quite stiffe. Before buying I would suggest to ask the seller if there are Problems with that.

I think the Takumar lenses will be cheaper. Considering ebay prices the Zeiss Pancolar 1,8/50 and the Zeiss Sonnar 3,5/135 will go for at least 50EUR. The longer lenses (Sonnar 2,8/200 and Sonnar 4/300) ar more expensive. There is also a Pancolar 1,8/80 which is very expensive (around 300EUR). The Sonnar 200 and 300mm are really heavy - 1,2...1,3kg.
I wouldn`t go for the Tessar since this was the Zeiss-Budget lens.
 
While still considering the valuable opinions from the others, I think, if you are to start from scratch, Meyer lenses (later marked as Pentacon) would be a good choice.

First of all, the enthusiasts have pushed the prices of Zeiss (Jena) lenses to the point of being somewhat absurd, and that makes Meyer/Pentacon lenses relative (or even absolute) bargains.

Second, the "unified series" of Meyer/Pentacon lenses, as in Orestegon, Oreston, Orestor, and Orestegor (and the later Pentacon versions) give a good regularity in the imaging characteristics. If you take your time and buy selectively, you should be able to build up a nice system at a reasonable cost.

For your information this is a list of the "unified series" of lenses, which were also made under the Pentacon name with successive improvements, such as multi-coating.

Orestegon 29/2.8
Oreston 50/1.8
Orestor 100/2.8
Orestor 135/2.8
Orestegor 200/2.8
Orestegor 300/4
Orestegor 500/5.6

Here is my first-type LLC (with one-piece delay-action lever) and contemporary Oreston, Orestor and Orestegon.

llc_1.jpg
 
snip said:
I know they are not the same as "real" zeiss lenses but from what I hear and from having owned one Tessar which I unfortunately sold I think they are quite nice.
Click to expand...

Huh? try to find a good sample of an M42 Biotar 58/2. It is as "real Zeiss" as it gets. 🙂
 
I have a spotmatic that really is new condition wise.
I mainly use a Vivitar series 1 135 f2,3 (wich really meters like 2,0)
that i like very much... extremly sharp and super nice bokeh. Though i think it will be rather hard to find cause i nerver seen another myself and it was a real PRO lens so everyone did not have it.
I also have the super-takumar 55 f1,8 . And this lens was a kitlens so they are very easy to find and very cheap. This lens is one of the nicest lens i ever tried its very contrasty and sharp at full apperture and it is built with extremly small tolerances. All the "super-takumars" is PRO level with sealing against dust and moisture and built with the intention to be used. I would like to say that all takumars i have tested is superb and all tests ive read on the net confirms that. / Karl
 

Attachments

  • spotmatictakumarrff.jpg
    spotmatictakumarrff.jpg
    147.3 KB · Views: 0
  • spotmatic135rff.jpg
    spotmatic135rff.jpg
    144.3 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom