M42 kit, zeiss glass the commoner's way

[Abbazz]

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?

Will,

You have to be careful with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5 lens, because there have been two different types of this lens. The first one was a 5 element 5 group lens, while the second (Pentax part number 43812) was a 6 element 6 group lens offering better sharpness and enhanced contrast. To complicate things even further, Pentax has later released a Takumar 135/2.5 in K bayonet mount, which was an economy lens with 4 elements, no multi-coating and rather low performance.

Several other Takumar lenses have been made in different types with varying performance over the years (like the 135/3.5 or the 85mm portrait lens) but not many people are aware of this fact. It's fascinating to read all the posts about these Takumar lenses on certain Internet forums, where people are debating endlessly over minute differences in lens performance, without even specifying which version of the lens they are referring to

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[shadowfox]

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

Ted, I can only find the "Young Woman with Hat" in your gallery, but that's enough to convince me.

Actually I was just lost in your gallery, you have so many cool and groovy stuff in there

 

[shadowfox]

Will,

You have to be careful with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5 lens, because there have been two different types of this lens. The first one was a 5 element 5 group lens, while the second (Pentax part number 43812) was a 6 element 6 group lens offering better sharpness and enhanced contrast. To complicate things even further, Pentax has later released a Takumar 135/2.5 in K bayonet mount, which was an economy lens with 4 elements, no multi-coating and rather low performance.

Several other Takumar lenses have been made in different types with varying performance over the years (like the 135/3.5 or the 85mm portrait lens) but not many people are aware of this fact. It's fascinating to read all the posts about these Takumar lenses on certain Internet forums, where people are debating endlessly over minute differences in lens performance, without even specifying which version of the lens they are referring to

Cheers,

Abbazz

Yikes! thanks for the tip, Abbazz, so how can I distinguish the 5/5 from the 6/6? is the part number imprinted on the lenses themselves?

 

[Abbazz]

Yikes! thanks for the tip, Abbazz, so how can I distinguish the 5/5 from the 6/6? is the part number imprinted on the lenses themselves?

The part number is engraved on the lens barrel below the "AUTO/MAN" (or "A/M" on certain lenses) switch. Just look for part number 43812 and you should be OK, provided that the lens is in good shape.

By the way, I made a mistake in my previous post, the 135/2.5 first type had 5 elements in 4 groups and not 5 elements in 5 groups.

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[tedwhite]

Will, sorry about the clutter.

Rainy Day is on p.6; I am not a Well Man & Elderly Gentleman Walking are both on p.9. Young Woman with Hat you found, and I think that was on p.1.

Rainy Day and Young Woman were the only posed shots; the rest were grab shots.

Ted

 

[tedwhite]

I just posted another 135/2.5, "Retired Pirate," and it's on page 1 so you don't have to go on a journey.

This was a bitch to scan as it's dry mounted, so it's stiff and the image is too large for the scanner - which is why the top of his head is cut off. I put a heavy dictionary on the scanner's lid, but it's the best I could do.

The actual image is, of course, much sharper.

Unfortunately the serial # of the lens is 43801

Ted

 

[shadowfox]

The part number is engraved on the lens barrel below the "AUTO/MAN" (or "A/M" on certain lenses) switch. Just look for part number 43812 and you should be OK, provided that the lens is in good shape.

By the way, I made a mistake in my previous post, the 135/2.5 first type had 5 elements in 4 groups and not 5 elements in 5 groups.

Cheers,

Abbazz

Amazing, I didn't even know there would be a number under there

Out of curiosity, I searched and found a picture of the number, see attached images.

This particular sample is the Super Takumar, which is 43801, not the one you mentioned.

Ted, I bet yours look like this also.

 

[Kim Coxon]

They did!. It was called the Bessaflex.
http://cameraquest.com/voigtFlexTM.htm

Kim

I wish Cosina would make a basic M42 body -- I'd happily pay $200 for a good one!

 

[Kim Coxon]

Actually the first version was a 5 element 4 group lens.

Ooops, just read your later post. However, the AOHC site is to M42 what Boz's is to K mount.

http://www.aohc.it/indexe.htm

Will,

You have to be careful with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5 lens, because there have been two different types of this lens. The first one was a 5 element 5 group lens, while the second (Pentax part number 43812) was a 6 element 6 group lens offering better sharpness and enhanced contrast.

Several other Takumar lenses have been made in different types with varying performance over the years (like the 135/3.5 or the 85mm portrait lens) but not many people are aware of this fact. It's fascinating to read all the posts about these Takumar lenses on certain Internet forums, where people are debating endlessly over minute differences in lens performance, without even specifying which version of the lens they are referring to

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[Kim Coxon]

I thought I might add some general thoughts on M42 having played a bit with it.

In many ways, Fujica dealt with it is a better way than Pentax and is a very undervalued syatem. The EBC coating on the lenses is on a par with the SMC coating from Pentax. The 701 bodies had one of the brightest finders going until the Bessaflex. The open aperture metering was better thought out than the Pentax system. They also managed the transition to bayonet mount with more compatibility. Their basic adapter allowed auto stop down of all M42 lenses and the better one also allowed open aperture metering! There were some very fine lenses in their line up. There are more difficult to find but are generally cheaper than the Pentax ones.

As far as Pentax is concerned, a couple of points to note. The SMC Takumars as opposed to the Super Multi Coated Takumars can be a problem on non Pentax bodies. These are the ones which could be used for open aperture metering on the SPF and for Auto operation on the ES series. There is a small pin on the face of the mount which "locked" the AM switch. If you try to put any of these on an M42 body with screws in front face of the lens mount such as all the Fujicas after the 601/701 they will jam and it will be almost impossible to then remove the lens witout damage. Because of the ready availability of M42 adapters for most cameras, the price of the better Pentax lenses has grdually crept up recently and some lenses are getting very difficult to find in decent condition at a sane price. The 85/1.8 6 element lens springs to mind. In many ways the K mount lenses now offer better value as well as better functionality. The early SMC Pentax lenses were K mount versions of the SMC Takumars with identical performance. There are now looking far better value than the M42 ones and can easily be used on nearly all the Pentax bodies including the dSLRs.

I was very tempted by the Bessaflex and Ffordes still have the black ones available new. However, sense has prevailed and nearly all of my M42 stuff is shortly going, both the Pentax and the Fujica. The LX with the early K mount lenses gives me at least the same performance and better usability and there are some RF items beckoning.

Kim

 

[tedwhite]

Hi, Kim:

Who/where is Ffordes and how much are they? (If it's in England and in pounds could you convert it to dollars for me? I'm hideous at maths but do tie my shoes reasonably well).

Ted

 

[Kim Coxon]

There are the UK equivalent of KEH or B+H and are in Scotland. Double the UK price in £ to get the rough cost in $. So not cheap especially with the exchange rate at the moment. I personally think a good condition Fujica or Pentax would be a better buy. https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm

Voightlander Page here https://secure.ffordes.com/shop/Store/StockList.asp?Type=new&Sub=0&code=VL


Kim

Hi, Kim:

Who/where is Ffordes and how much are they? (If it's in England and in pounds could you convert it to dollars for me? I'm hideous at maths but do tie my shoes reasonably well).

Ted

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

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 best viewfinders I have seen on M42 bodies are the Chinons (CE/CM series). The later Prakticas are not bad either, starting from the MTL-3. The LTL series has pretty dim viewfinders, but the MTL-3 and MTL-5 have much better ones. The stop down mechanism of the Prakticas is also the best mechanical one there is. Only the Chinons with electronic shutter have a better stop down mechanism, since it is electromagnetically operated as well. The Prakticas are not the most reliable M42 bodies, but I don't find them particularly unreliable and they are so cheap now that you can always get another one. They of course feel a lot more 'clunky' and not as smooth as the Japanese mechanical bodies, but who cares as long as they work.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I thought I might add some general thoughts on M42 having played a bit with it.

In many ways, Fujica dealt with it is a better way than Pentax and is a very undervalued syatem. The EBC coating on the lenses is on a par with the SMC coating from Pentax. The 701 bodies had one of the brightest finders going until the Bessaflex. The open aperture metering was better thought out than the Pentax system.

Kim

I agree, but in general the biggest shortcoming of the whole M42 camp was not to get on the same table and agree on common standards. There were four different ways of implementing open aperture metering (Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya and Praktica) for Pete's sake! That lead to serious market fragmentation, which was one of the reasons for the demise of the M42. Admittedly not the only one, but with common standards there could have been some chance of M42 surviving the onslaught of bayonet mounts until the age of electronic data transfer and zooms, which would have made most of the both real and imaginary shortcomings of the M42 moot points.

On a similar note, the only really well though out open aperture metering system for the M42 was the Praktica electric. It was 100% compatible with older bodies and was much cheaper to implement on bodies than the mechanical aperture coupling systems of the Japanese companies. Unfortunately it was also the last one to appear, which took away all chances of it becoming a common standard.

 

[shadowfox]

Ok, I think I have my eyes on my next M42 lenses. It's a MIR-24M.

The thing is, this lens used to cost almost nothing, but it certainly has picked up a weird inflation in price.

Anyone has this lens? any experience to share? samples? ... wanna trade?

 

[tedwhite]

Will, what's the focal length on this lens?

I think there is a MIR in 20 or 21mm. Would love to have one of those.

Ted

 

[shadowfox]

The Mir-24 is a nice 35/2 lens. From the samples I've seen, the sharpness and the bokeh matches the flektogons easily. And it's one full stop faster.

 

[shadowfox]

Another one from the Biotar, wide-open, heavy overcast day, zero sharpening:

 

[Seele]

I agree, but in general the biggest shortcoming of the whole M42 camp was not to get on the same table and agree on common standards. There were four different ways of implementing open aperture metering (Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya and Praktica) for Pete's sake! That lead to serious market fragmentation, which was one of the reasons for the demise of the M42. Admittedly not the only one, but with common standards there could have been some chance of M42 surviving the onslaught of bayonet mounts until the age of electronic data transfer and zooms, which would have made most of the both real and imaginary shortcomings of the M42 moot points.

On a similar note, the only really well though out open aperture metering system for the M42 was the Praktica electric. It was 100% compatible with older bodies and was much cheaper to implement on bodies than the mechanical aperture coupling systems of the Japanese companies. Unfortunately it was also the last one to appear, which took away all chances of it becoming a common standard.

Sorry for coming in late.

There had been more than four aperture indexing and simulation for full-aperture metering with the M42 mount, the Pentacon Super and Voigtänder VSL1 TM both used mechanical linkage moving parallel to the optical axis and they're a bear to manufacture. Pentacon got sick of it and devised the electric system and Voigtländer/Rollei just dropped the M42 mount and standardized on the Rollei QBM.

After all, the Chinon Memotron was a mean to get over these incompatibilities by using the lowest common denominator: the aperture actuating plunger for stop-down metering. This made the shutter release button stroke somewhat longer than normal but in reality works very well. Back then when the CE-3 and CM-3 were current I bought a CE-II when it was being remaindered at a big discount, and I used all sorts of M42 lenses very effectively. But the rewinder shaft snapped which was far from expected: instead of a solid shaft it was hollow, more like a thin metal tube and I was a little surprised. Still, if a clean Memotron CE-3 turns up at a sensible price I do think that I would not mind acquiring it.

 

[dee]

Some Porst cameras of the 70s were Chinons - like my Prinzflex Super TTL in UK , jioned by a Praktica Super TTL .
It was my 1st real camera , back then I traded it for an Olympus OM1 - too fiddly ! That became a Minolta SRT ...
I have recently bought several Prinzflex / Chinon cameras at around £25 with Chinon / Auto Reflecta 50 F 1.7 lenses - and remember just how good they were !
i bought the Prinzflex 'cos it was cheaper than a Spotmatic - but I did not realise just how solid and well made it was ... working well , even today .

dee