M42 kit, zeiss glass the commoner's way

[erikhaugsby]

Unfortunately, unless you're using Safari browser from Apple, this particular picture will look very *blah* color-wise. 🙁

You're not kidding, but why is that? Even Firefox on a Mac renders it pretty low in contrast and saturation.

 

[shadowfox]

Erik, Safari has something that other browsers don't. It uses the right colorspace when rendering the picture that has the necessary information embedded (as a part of Color Profile info).

They say that Firefox 3 will have the same capability.

 

[Abbazz]

Lots of gorgeous Biotar pictures on this thread. Thanks for sharing.

Some of the German M42s are even better judging by some pictures I have seen on various forums. if you have a taste for these, try this forum which has quite a few comparisons and test shots of a range of manual focus lenses including a lot of M42s.:
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewforum.php?id=2

For German lenses in particular, I find this forum very interesting (and more image oriented):
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewforum.php?f=3

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[photobizzz]

I have a 300/4 Takumar, CZJ 135/3.5, and Jupiter-9 85/2 in M42 all are used on a Pentax K10D. Gottal love a 300/4 image stabilized for $150!

 

[oftheherd]

...

Lenses: Cosina 50/1.8, Cosina MC 135/2.8, Cosina MC 28/2.8, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Pentacon (Meyer Oreston) MC 50/1.8, Pentacon (Meyer Orestor) MC 135/2.8, Hansa 35/2.8, Helios 44M-2 (58/2), Porst (probably Chinon or Cosina) MC 35/2.8, Rikenon 24/2.8 & Sun 70-210/4 Zoom. Tamron Adaptall 2 28-70/3.5-4.5 with M42 adapter.
...

_________________________________
Tell me about your M42 kit or experience.
_________________________________

I know you don't mean that. 😀 😀 😀

I believe the Porst was a German rebranded Fujica line. I used to follow them on ebay as a way of increasing my Fujica equipment..

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Erik, Safari has something that other browsers don't. It uses the right colorspace when rendering the picture that has the necessary information embedded (as a part of Color Profile info).

Which of course is why you never should post anything on the web with any other color profile than sRGB. In the future that might change, if Microsoft ever decides to support embedded color profiles in the IE*, but as of now sRGB it is. Now I had to save the picture and have an image editor (I use Paint Shop Pro) convert it to sRGB in order to see anything like the intended colors.

* I don't use IE, but many people do, and Firefox 3 is still in alpha stage in any case

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I know you don't mean that. 😀 😀 😀

I believe the Porst was a German rebranded Fujica line. I used to follow them on ebay as a way of increasing my Fujica equipment..

It doesn't look like Fujinon EBC to me, but of course it is possible that it was made to spesifications ordered by owner of the Porst brand. Porst certainly was a West German brand associated with one of the large camera shop chains in West Germany.

The markings look quite similar to Cosinon lenses as does the multicoating, but the markings are not identical by no means. The lens only has "Lens made in Japan" written on it. The mechanical feel is quite good, but then again many Cosina lenses are not worse in that regard, for example the 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 are very robust mechanically. I have only taken a few shots with this lense and none of them wide open, so I can not say much about the optical quality.

 

[shadowfox]

Which of course is why you never should post anything on the web with any other color profile than sRGB.

Dr., I knew that 🙂 , but this way, more people are made aware of this. A simple picture "sacrificed" for the benefit of spreading the knowledge and awareness.

Besides, sometimes the picture look blah even with sRGB. AdobeRGB has bigger gamut and in my experience, better colors.

 

[mr_phillip]

The main reason I keep a couple of M42 SLRs around is the 35mm Zeiss Flektogon and the 50mm/1.4 Super Takumar – both absolutely awesome optics. I've got a bunch more Takumars, some Soviet stuff (the 85mm/2.0 Jupiter's nice) and a 135mm Zeiss. Nice cheap way to get some special glass into your life.

 

[Abbazz]

Which of course is why you never should post anything on the web with any other color profile than sRGB. In the future that might change, if Microsoft ever decides to support embedded color profiles in the IE*, but as of now sRGB it is. Now I had to save the picture and have an image editor (I use Paint Shop Pro) convert it to sRGB in order to see anything like the intended colors.

* I don't use IE, but many people do, and Firefox 3 is still in alpha stage in any case

If you use Firefox, you might want to read this thread:

http://nelsonfoto.com/v/showthread.php?t=12573

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[peterm1]

Up to now I have pretty much stuck with Pentax and Takumars. But after reading this thread and also looking at the following site over the past few weeks I think I need to consider getting some M42 glass from other manufacturers - including Russian ones.

http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewforum.php?id=2

You should check out this site. Lots of M42 information and pictures. I am particularly interested right now as I have just bought a Panasonic L1 which is a 4/3 camera and takes adapters that handle both M42 and Nikon lenses and am very keen to try them on this body. Up to now I have had a D70S and while its a a nice camera it is not effective with older glass - no metering and will not accept non AI lenses. Plus the Nikon register pretty well precludes using any other manufacturer's lenses as they will not focus to infinity. The Panasonic on the other hand takes a wide range of lenses including Nikon non AI ones and will allow centre weighted metering with them. (In your face, Nikon!) Of course the Panasonic requires stop down metering with thrid party lenses and that can be a pain but at least the Takumars have a stop down lever and this make it reasonably painless.

 

[shadowfox]

Exactly, Peter, the beauty of M42 system is the various lenses and bodies out there. Pentax Takumar lenses are only the tip of the Iceberg.

Hmmm.. M42 to 4/3rd eh? maybe when I have the E-3... drool!

 

[titrisol]

Spotmatics are great cameras, I just love them.
I have used it for all my life years (my fathe rhad one brand new in '73) so I guess that is why
I have used/owned some other M42 bodies, Fujicas, Yashicas, Vivitar but always come back to the solid and yet smooth Spotmatic.

I have currently several takumars (super and SMCs) in
50/1.4, Fantastic lens, with a nice OOFA and final feel

55/1.8, so sharp it hurts
28/3.5, Amazing lens, maybe a tad soft in the corners for some but good for me
135/3.5, Very good tele, sharp
17/4, the fisheye


and have also used the 200/4 which was unfortunately stolen and I think it made an awesome portrait lens, specially outdoors and wide open or at f/5.6

I have also Fujinon lenses and Sekor lenses (aka sears) are good buys great quality.
The Skor 135/2.8 is very nice, and produces lovely images

I have also many off-brand lenses that are good enough, from KMart, JC Penney, Soligor, Spiratone, etc.
Recently, the lens that was a pleasant surprise was a 35/2.8 Hanimex HMC I picked up at yard sale for cheap. Nice sharpenss and rendition of color, almost no flare

 

[peterm1]

Recently I have been researching m42 lenses. Motivated partly by this thread. I have been a long term user of takumars and have been long impressed with their quality and the quality of the results they produce. I have recently (Friday) received two adapters for use with my Panasonic L1, one for M42 lenses and one for Nikon. It si early days yet but I think I am having more fun with the M42s. Yesterday I tried the SMC Macro Takumar 50mm f4 and found that it works superbly as a standard lens. Likewise the 50mm f1.4. My personal favorite is the 85mm f1.8. Wow the bokeh on this is awesome but I have a hell of a problem focusing it wide open. Others I have tried to date are the 135mm f 2.5 (I always regarded this as a lovely lens, and now I am sure of it) the 24mm f3.5 and the 28mm f 3.5. Both of these are great too. I will soon post some shots. Love to hear more stories from those using M42 lenses on a digital camera.

Now I am beginning to consider the possibility of extending my range of lenses to encompass the German M42 mount ones. I frankly never took much interest before partly because I thought that some of them looked a bit strange (to someone who grew up with Japanese lenses.) OK shallow I know, but now I am putting that to rights, There seem to be a lot of very high quality German lenses at reasonably good prices (well compared with anything with a Leica mount.)

 

[wlewisiii]

I, too, have become inclined to picking up a M42 adaptor for my Canon T90. This thread reminds me of all the wonderful stuff from CZJ & all the rest. I'm especially in the mood for a nice CZJ 50/2.8 Tessar on my Canon 😉 although the Biotar shots in this thread make it look pretty sweet too.

William

 

[David Murphy]

I love many of the M42 lenses (who couldn't), but I just can't stand the faint viewfinders on most of the M42 bodies bodies I've seen. The Spotmatics are marvelous as mechanisms, but viewfinders are dim and most of the bodies need light seals. The Bessaflexes were cool, but are now gone and were expensive. The Fujica's, Mamiya Sekors, Praktica's, Yashica's and most other classic M42 bodies just seem to break or are already broken and have pretty marginal viewfinders compared to the best of Olympus and Nikon. Voigtlander, Rollei, and Zeiss Icarex may be the way to go, but that's calling up big $$'s again. I wish Cosina would make a basic M42 body -- I'd happily pay $200 for a good one!

 

[shadowfox]

The Chinon CM-3 has 95% coverage and I think 0.87x magnification. But it looks bright to me, not OM-1 bright, but the dimness of the viewfinder hasn't been a problem in the 10 rolls I ran through it (can you guys tell I like this camera a lot? 😉 )

 

[tedwhite]

Cosina did make a good basic one, as you know: The Bessaflex TM. Why they quite production is anyone's guess as the entire lot sold out in short order.

Maybe we could talk the bartender into putting a bug in Mr. Kobayashi's (sp?) ear?

I had one and stupidly sold it. Although it didn't have the solid feel of the Spotmatic, the viewfinder is quite bright, noticeably brighter than the Spotties, and the whole camera worked like a charm.

Having said that, after two cataract surgeries I now find my Spotmatics much brighter and therefore far easier to focus.

I have many Super Takumar and SMC Takumar lenses - ranging from 28mm to 300mm and there's not a dud among them.

The absolute stunners, if I had to choose, are the 55/1.8, the wonderful 105/2.8 and the knockout 135/2.5.

My one non-Takumar lens is the Vivitar 200/4 (or is it 3.5? Can't remember). It is a damn good lens and if you want an M42 in that focal length you can't go wrong.

Ted

 

[shadowfox]

Ted, I hopeI still can talk about my cameras when I'm 79 😉

The only Takumar I have is the 200/4 and I must say it's an excellent lens. It's even better than the OM Zuiko 200/4 which is saying a lot.

I am now keeping half an eye for the 105/2.8, do you have any samples from it? also from the "knockout" 135/3.5?

 

[tedwhite]

I hope so, too.

Actually, Will, it's a 135/2.5. Yeah, I'm sure I do. Just a sec.

OK, in my photos the following few: "I am Not a Well Man," "Elderly Gentleman Walking," "Rainy Day," and "Young Woman with Hat." All with the 135/2.5.

I'll have to fish about for the 105/2.8 stuff.

Ted