M42 lens for Spotmatic SP recommendation.

[GWT]

Guys, thanks so much for all taking the time to post some great suggestions and some great sample shots.

Today I popped back into the charity shop which I brought the Spotmatic from in the hope that possibly some of these lenses mentioned might be in there (this shop carries a good selection of older camera gear)

Sadly there weren't any Pentax lenses but there were some other makes which were in really good condition and the kind of focal length I was after so I picked them up.

Two of the makes I've never heard of and I can't seem to find much info on them on the internet - they are -

'Saitex mc auto 28mm f2.8' and a 'Auto Palar 135mm f2.8'

Has anyone had any experience of either of these - they were really cheap, are they any good?

The other lens was a 'Auto chinon 200mm f3.5'

I have heard of Chinon and I believe they can be a little 'hit or miss'?

Has anyone used one of these?

I'd like to keep my eye out for the Pentax lenses suggested but I thought at £19 - $29 for all three, they were worth a shot.

 

[Fixcinater]

Anything this old with unknown service history is hit or miss. It really just depends on sample variation and whether somebody has opened it up and "fixed" something inside.

I've had roughly 20 different Takumar 50mm (not counting the 55mms...) lenses over the past few years and have kept just a couple. They've ranged from seriously sharp even wide open to never really getting that sharp even at f/8-f/11.

So, your cheap off-brand lenses could outperform a 'bad' Takumar quite easily, even forgetting about the negative impact of fungus/haze/scratches in the glass.

Lastly, sample variation is nearly as important as proper focusing technique for optimum results.

 

[alistair.o]

This is taken using an SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4.

I am told they are harder to come by now but well worth the search.

 

[Pioneer]

Anything this old with unknown service history is hit or miss. It really just depends on sample variation and whether somebody has opened it up and "fixed" something inside.

I've had roughly 20 different Takumar 50mm (not counting the 55mms...) lenses over the past few years and have kept just a couple. They've ranged from seriously sharp even wide open to never really getting that sharp even at f/8-f/11.

So, your cheap off-brand lenses could outperform a 'bad' Takumar quite easily, even forgetting about the negative impact of fungus/haze/scratches in the glass.

Lastly, sample variation is nearly as important as proper focusing technique for optimum results.

Fixcinator, these are great points that are critically important but all too often completely overlooked. Just because it is a Takumar, or because it was made by Leica, does not mean it will be the perfect lens.

I currently own 3 SMC Pentax M 50/2 lenses, and I have sold several others. Two of them are just normal, nothing terrible but nothing special. However one of them produces photos that appear to have a special magic I cannot explain. It is so good that for awhile I was actually afraid to take it off the camera for fear of upsetting the fairies inside.

But these lenses are getting very old, as are the cameras that use them. Haze, fungus and cleaning can take their toll. Viewfinders get dirty, focus mirrors become misaligned. Even manufacturing tolerances were less rigid than those for today's equipment.

We read something good on the internet so we go pick one of these up, slap it on a digital camera using a 3rd party ebay adapter and take some photos. Or we buy the camera and lens, shoot some film, and scan it with our $100 scanner. After enlarging to 100% we immediately declare that these lenses are worthless. We may find a Nikon or Leica lens that does produce slightly better results and now we are convinced that all Leica lenses are terrific and all Takumars are crud.

The reality is somewhat different but these "experts" will remain unconvinced. :bang:

 

[GWT]

Thank you Alistair for posting this - funny enough the lens which came with the Spotmatic was a 'Super Takumar 50mm f1.4'.

I'm really looking forward to using it, just need to finish replacing the new light seals!

This is taken using an SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4.

I am told they are harder to come by now but well worth the search.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

GWT,
Look at your Super Takumar. If IR mark is to the right of left 4 on DOF scale and rear element is convex, extending above retaining ring, you got yourself a rather uncommon early 8-element "Planar Killer". 🙂
Some say it is a much better lens, than later 7-element version, some say otherwise. I like it, and it brings $150-250, if you decide to sell it.

 

[peterm1]

Guys, thanks so much for all taking the time to post some great suggestions and some great sample shots.

Today I popped back into the charity shop which I brought the Spotmatic from in the hope that possibly some of these lenses mentioned might be in there (this shop carries a good selection of older camera gear)

Sadly there weren't any Pentax lenses but there were some other makes which were in really good condition and the kind of focal length I was after so I picked them up.

Two of the makes I've never heard of and I can't seem to find much info on them on the internet - they are -

'Saitex mc auto 28mm f2.8' and a 'Auto Palar 135mm f2.8'

Has anyone had any experience of either of these - they were really cheap, are they any good?

The other lens was a 'Auto chinon 200mm f3.5'

I have heard of Chinon and I believe they can be a little 'hit or miss'?

Has anyone used one of these?

I'd like to keep my eye out for the Pentax lenses suggested but I thought at £19 - $29 for all three, they were worth a shot.

I have heard of Chinon (in fact Chinon made a range of cameras back in the 1960s /1970's and beyond) but do not know very much about them other than that they were around for quite a while, became a subsidiary of Kodak in the 1990s, so would therefore probably rate as one of the better "second string" brands given their longevity. They did use both M42 and Pentax K mount I believe.

As to the other lenses mentioned I have never heard of them. Back in those times it was quite common for various Japanese optical companies (e.g. Tokina) to make lenses which were both sold under their own name and in some cases, on-sold to various retailers who marketed them under their brand name. If you ever find old photo magazines you will see adverts for these oddly-named brands as well as the ones we are familiar with. As you might imagine many of those brands came and went quite rapidly. Some were quite good, some were "Coke bottles" depending on which company was the maker and how they were designed. They all targeted the budget shooter so you know which segment of the market they fall in. But without knowing specifics its rather hard to say whether any of them are usable.

My own limited experience is that few of them perform as well as the Pentax offerings although there are (very) occasional gems. However Soligor was one of the better known and more reliably performing brands. I owned a Soligor 200mm f3.5 (picked up for next to nothing) and it turned in acceptably sharp images I seem to recall). More options listed here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/miscellaneous-lenses-for-pentax-primes-c88.html

Unless you pick up a very cheap after market lens (for throw away money) I would be inclined to stick with the Takumar range. There are a lot of them out there and most of them are so common that they are relatively cheap. A 50 f1.8 (or f2) can be picked up on ebay for 50 bucks and is an excellent standard lens. While someone here opined that the 50 f1.4 was bad this is not my experience. It is sharp and is also known for its good bokeh. If you want inexpensive though go for the f1.8 you will not be disappointed. Just check first to make sure it is functioning correctly and has no haze or fungus. Incidentally I have not found haze to be as common in these lenses as they are in Leica ones. I think this is due to better lubricants used by the Japanese compared with the German company.

Other very sound and relatively inexpensive Pentax M42 Takumars include 28mm f3.5; 35mm f3.5; 105mm f2.8; 135mm f3.5; 135mm f2.5; 200mm f4; 200 mm f5.6; 300mm f4. I have had personal experience of all of these and more. The 50mm f4 macro and 100mm f4 macro are also very sound. I still use the above lenses on micro 4/3 cameras when the mood takes me.

 

[GWT]

Fixcinater, thanks for posting this i'd not heard of 'sample variation' before but as Pioneer say's it's something not to be overlooked.

Having only older and fairly average quality photographic gear I've never expected top notch sharpness from my images. The point you bring gives me a fresh view of my gear and it's potential or limitations - many thanks.

Anything this old with unknown service history is hit or miss. It really just depends on sample variation and whether somebody has opened it up and "fixed" something inside.

I've had roughly 20 different Takumar 50mm (not counting the 55mms...) lenses over the past few years and have kept just a couple. They've ranged from seriously sharp even wide open to never really getting that sharp even at f/8-f/11.

So, your cheap off-brand lenses could outperform a 'bad' Takumar quite easily, even forgetting about the negative impact of fungus/haze/scratches in the glass.

Lastly, sample variation is nearly as important as proper focusing technique for optimum results.

 

[GWT]

Sam, thanks so much for letting me know about this. I've checked the lens and it is indeed the 8 element version!

GWT,
Look at your Super Takumar. If IR mark is to the right of left 4 on DOF scale and rear element is convex, extending above retaining ring, you got yourself a rather uncommon early 8-element "Planar Killer". 🙂
Some say it is a much better lens, than later 7-element version, some say otherwise. I like it, and it brings $150-250, if you decide to sell it.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

GWT,
That is very good news! Go shoot some film with it, and be prepared to be amazed. Then, start looking for 28/3.5 And 105/2.8 Takumars, either Super or S-M-C, to have a 3 lens kit. There is difference between them, but I quite like them both. For B&W film both work great.
Once you are smitten with these three lenses, it is time to build another one. 35/3.5, 85/1.9 and 135/2.5 work wonderfully together, especially with a second body. You might be lucky, and will be able to find 35/2 Takumar. It is kind of like 35/3.5 with 1.5 extra stop of low contrast imaging. But it is better to have it , than not.

My suggestion is to stick with Takumars, and, if you feel you would like to try something different, get some East German or FSU lenses.

 

[GWT]

Thanks for all the information Peter, as you say, I think getting all Pentax M42 lenses will be the way to go. I did pick up a M42 to Canon Adapter for my 30D (my only digital camera) to see how the lenses performed - I have only had a quick test on the 50mm F1.4 Super Takumar - here's a quick pic I took earlier (I know it's not the most exciting image I just wanted to see what the lens would do wide open.

I have heard of Chinon (in fact Chinon made a range of cameras back in the 1960s /1970's and beyond) but do not know very much about them other than that they were around for quite a while, became a subsidiary of Kodak in the 1990s, so would therefore probably rate as one of the better "second string" brands given their longevity. They did use both M42 and Pentax K mount I believe.

As to the other lenses mentioned I have never heard of them. Back in those times it was quite common for various Japanese optical companies (e.g. Tokina) to make lenses which were both sold under their own name and in some cases, on-sold to various retailers who marketed them under their brand name. If you ever find old photo magazines you will see adverts for these oddly-named brands as well as the ones we are familiar with. As you might imagine many of those brands came and went quite rapidly. Some were quite good, some were "Coke bottles" depending on which company was the maker and how they were designed. They all targeted the budget shooter so you know which segment of the market they fall in. But without knowing specifics its rather hard to say whether any of them are usable.

My own limited experience is that few of them perform as well as the Pentax offerings although there are (very) occasional gems. However Soligor was one of the better known and more reliably performing brands. I owned a Soligor 200mm f3.5 (picked up for next to nothing) and it turned in acceptably sharp images I seem to recall). More options listed here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/miscellaneous-lenses-for-pentax-primes-c88.html

Unless you pick up a very cheap after market lens (for throw away money) I would be inclined to stick with the Takumar range. There are a lot of them out there and most of them are so common that they are relatively cheap. A 50 f1.8 (or f2) can be picked up on ebay for 50 bucks and is an excellent standard lens. While someone here opined that the 50 f1.4 was bad this is not my experience. It is sharp and is also known for its good bokeh. If you want inexpensive though go for the f1.8 you will not be disappointed. Just check first to make sure it is functioning correctly and has no haze or fungus. Incidentally I have not found haze to be as common in these lenses as they are in Leica ones. I think this is due to better lubricants used by the Japanese compared with the German company.

Other very sound and relatively inexpensive Pentax M42 Takumars include 28mm f3.5; 35mm f3.5; 105mm f2.8; 135mm f3.5; 135mm f2.5; 200mm f4; 200 mm f5.6; 300mm f4. I have had personal experience of all of these and more. The 50mm f4 macro and 100mm f4 macro are also very sound. I still use the above lenses on micro 4/3 cameras when the mood takes me.

 

[Fixcinater]

I can tell just from the way the focus falls off in that image that it is indeed the 8-element. It sounds crazy to people that haven't tried both versions but the 8-element is, in my experience, markedly different than what replaced it. Plus, you'll never have yellowed glass due to the thorium like is found in the 7-elements.

There's quite a bit more difference in that pair than there is in the Super 85/1.9 and S-M-C 85/1.8.

I have the S-M-C 35/2 and it's a very good lens but the 35/3.5 is incredibly small and light and is one of my favorite for color work as the saturation is fantastic.

What's especially neat about the Takumar range is they are still cheap enough to try a bunch and at the end of the day not be out a ton of money like you would be with anything AF or any brand of RF lenses.

 

[VisualDarkness]

The Takumar 135mm F2.5 is for sure one of the best value M42 teles out there, it's simply wonderful.

 

[jamin-b]

The SMC Takumar 150mm F4 is apparently less well know than some of the Pentax star lenses but renders beautiful images and is one of the sharpest lenses I have encountered, including lenses 10x its cost...