M42 lens for Spotmatic SP recommendation.

G

GWT

Established
Local time
7:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
76
A couple of weeks ago I picked up a Spotmatic Sp, it came with a 50mm lens and now I would like to add some sort of longer lens - possibly 150mm - 200mm for landscape and portrait shots.

Being new to M42 bodies and lenses could anyone recommend any I should look out for?
 
I liked the Takumar 150mm f/4.0 I had for a while, more than the 135/3.5 as it has more reach and isn't much if any bigger. One of the few lenses I took with a Spotmatic on a solo motorcycle trip to Alaska this past summer, no regrets there (other lenses were SMC Tak 35/2 and Tamron 17/3.5 AD2). The 200/4 is quite a bit bigger/heavier and I don't like the images as much for some lacking je ne sais quoi so I only have kept the 300mm.

If shorter lenses are OK, the SMC Takumar with rubber focus grip 100mm 4.0 macro is superb. I had a 105/2.8 S-M-C Tak and sold that in favor of the 100mm macro and have no interest in going back.

The 85mm Taks are great, especially the SMC 85/1.8 but are quite expensive. I got a good deal on one of those and have an 85/1.9 Super Tak from another deal and the 1.8 is "better" wide open with more contrast and sharpness but the 1.9 is a nice vintage look itself.

As for non-Pentax options, I have a wickedly cool but monstrous 135/1.8 Sigmatel but it's huge and heavy. The Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro 1:1 came in M42 but is fairly rare and expensive. Great modern looking lens and does 1:1 natively. I have it in K-mount and shoot most of my product work with that if the Takumar 100mm macro doesn't go close enough or I need f/2.5 for some reason. Kaleinar 100mm f/2.8 is a great option too, I have one but I have so many short teles I need to trim down so it's going away.
 
If you can get by with a lens of moderate length the 105mm lens for this camera is abslutely outstanding. Bear in mind most common lengths were made over many years in several variants with different coatings the one labelled smc being the latest and arguably the best. Other long focal length lenses are good too but this lens is extremely good. Look out for sticky and slow apertures. Old takumars are prone to this due to lube drying out after getting onto the mechanism and while its an easy fix for a service technician it can be costly considering the price of the lenses are modest. I have owned scores of different takumar lenses in various focal lengths and dont believe any of them to be poor optically.
 
generally there are early preset, next Auto Takumars, then come the Super Takumar followed by Super Multi Coated ( S-M-C ) and SMC Takumars. Presets have the smallest body, their simple coating generally is surprisingly good. Auto Takumars have larger bodies. Super Takumars are the first that have the A/M switch for open aperture metering, following S-M-C have the same bodies and generally the same optics but the superior coating, finally the SMC are optically identical to the S-M-C but are not fully metal but have a rubberized focus ring.

longer than 50mm:
the 85mm: there is a Super Takumar f1.9 that I like very much, the Super Multi Coated f1.8 is sharper wide open, but the f1.9 has more beautiful bokeh
the f2.8/105 is outstanding and cost much less, the early presets ( there are 2 versions ) being particularly small, later Super and Super Multi Coated have the same, somewhat bigger body, only difference is the better coating of the later S-M-C
the 3.5/135 are good, the 2.5/135 better.
the mentioned f4/150mm is very good
for 200mm there is not only the Super, S-M-C amd SMC Takumars f4/200mm, but also the earlier preset Takumar 3.5/200 which is bigger, and the very slim and light f5.6/200mm.

Pentaxforums is a great source for info on these lenses, their user review give good ideas of performance: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses-i3.html
 
If you only want to stick with Pentax branded lenses, there are obviously some good ones as mentioned above from persons with personal experience.

As also mentioned above, I wouldn't discount any of the really good lenses in M42 put out by other good lens makes. Vivitar and Sigma come to mind, but they aren't the only ones. Certainly the Yashica Yashinons are very good.

That is an advantage of the M42 mount cameras; so many lenses to choose from and test.
 
kuuan said:
generally there are early preset, next Auto Takumars, then come the Super Takumar followed by Super Multi Coated ( S-M-C ) and SMC Takumars. Presets have the smallest body, their simple coating generally is surprisingly good. Auto Takumars have larger bodies. Super Takumars are the first that have the A/M switch for open aperture metering, following S-M-C have the same bodies and generally the same optics but the superior coating, finally the SMC are optically identical to the S-M-C but are not fully metal but have a rubberized focus ring.

longer than 50mm:
the 85mm: there is a Super Takumar f1.9 that I like very much, the Super Multi Coated f1.8 is sharper wide open, but the f1.9 has more beautiful bokeh
the f2.8/105 is outstanding and cost much less, the early presets ( there are 2 versions ) being particularly small, later Super and Super Multi Coated have the same, somewhat bigger body, only difference is the better coating of the later S-M-C
the 3.5/135 are good, the 2.5/135 better.
the mentioned f4/150mm is very good
for 200mm there is not only the Super, S-M-C amd SMC Takumars f4/200mm, but also the earlier preset Takumar 3.5/200 which is bigger, and the very slim and light f5.6/200mm.

Pentaxforums is a great source for info on these lenses, their user review give good ideas of performance: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses-i3.html
Click to expand...
I'm like you Kuuan on the 85 lens. I do own the very early Asahi Kogaku Takumar 1.9 83mm (37 mount) with the original 37-42 adapter on it and would never sell this Bokeh king.
 
oltimer said:
I'm like you Kuuan on the 85 lens. I do own the very early Asahi Kogaku Takumar 1.9 83mm (37 mount) with the original 37-42 adapter on it and would never sell this Bokeh king.
Click to expand...

ah, the 1.9/83, the most beautiful lens I have ever seen, and so very small for a 83mm! the 900 usd the shop asked for was a bit too steep, but always looking out for this rare jewel! ..envy..;)
must make do with the 2/58, generally love the tiny but mighty early preset Takumars
 
There are stunning lenses, all by Takumar.
I've used the excellent 105mm f2.8.
The 135mm f2.5 good.
The 200mm f3.5 amazing but heavy and big monster of brass.
The 85mm f1.9 is superb.
Please see to some shorter lenses!
The 28mm f3.5(square rotating lens hood):35mmf2.0 (rival a Summicron),
50mm Macro-Takumar.
I have this past week been donated a further few! Pentax Spotmatics..
One case had an unused Mercury battery!
Yup it fired up one of my SP's with working meter!
The Late Sam Haskins worked with Pentax 35mm and 6x7.
Sam made prints, from 35mm about 9' x 6' seen at Photo shows and stores in South Africa.
My best feel camera followed by my Leica M3.
 
If you want to go as far as 300mm, the Pentax 300mm F4 is an absolutely stunning performer and fast. They made it in M42 (Takumar, Super Takumar, Super Multi-Coated Takumar) and later in K mount.
 
The later version S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 is superb. I had the K series version briefly.
The 105/2.8 is a great lens.
I had a Pentax-M version of the 200/4, and I was impressed with it.
The Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 is very well regarded IIRC.
 
David Murphy said:
If you want to go as far as 300mm, the Pentax 300mm F4 is an absolutely stunning performer and fast. They made it in M42 (Takumar, Super Takumar, Super Multi-Coated Takumar) and later in K mount.
Click to expand...

I owned this lens (in preset aperture). I was sharp and enjoyable if a bit slow to use especially as the focus throw is very long. It also had some unusual bokeh but I can certainly attest that it is sharp. A couple of traditionally boring test / display photos.



It is also a BIG lens



The following is a candid shot with the 105mm f2.8 of an old man on a bus. You can easily see how nicely it renders.

 
Peter, Yes of course slow by the standards of shorter lenses like 135mm, but F4 is relatively fast for a 300mm lens. What in the world is that camera you have mounted on it?
 
Some old shots of mine with the 300/4 and Kodachrome

U3428I1164435911.SEQ.0.jpg


U3428I1164435902.SEQ.0.jpg


U3428I1164435908.SEQ.0.jpg
 
peterm1 said:
I owned this lens (in preset aperture). I was sharp and enjoyable if a bit slow to use especially as the focus throw is very long. It also had some unusual bokeh but I can certainly attest that it is sharp. A couple of traditionally boring test / display photos.



It is also a BIG lens



The following is a candid shot with the 105mm f2.8 of an old man on a bus. You can easily see how nicely it renders.

Click to expand...
Peter; what a terrific shot of the old man, and so pensive. I doubt that Karsh could have duplicated this one. Just outstanding.
 
David Murphy said:
Peter, Yes of course slow by the standards of shorter lenses like 135mm, but F4 is relatively fast for a 300mm lens. What in the world is that camera you have mounted on it?
Click to expand...

The camera is a Panasonic L1 Also used rebranded by Leica as Digilux 2 (or was it 3)? But I was not referring to the aperture speed of the lens but rather its focusing mount which has to be rotated and rotated and rotated and rotated to focus from near to far. I meant it was slow in that sense.
 
Bought Spotomatic and 7 lenses all new as a college grad present. Color pics were fair. Monochrome not so good. I was trying to equal the paper sample book you could find in photo stores at the time and trying to match some projected slides a friends father did in Europe with a Contaflex.

A neighbor offered me a Leica M3 trial. Same film, same developer, and it was a winner. Nirvana.

The best lenses I had were the 50 and 100 4.0 Macro Takumars. Only 35 I liked was the 3.5. All the 35 fast lenses were not worth anything. 50 1.4 were trash. 50 1.8 were much better. 85 1.8 was good. Had a 24 that was pretty good.

Third party glass was never kept.
 
Ronald M said:
Bought Spotomatic and 7 lenses all new as a college grad present. Color pics were fair. Monochrome not so good. I was trying to equal the paper sample book you could find in photo stores at the time and trying to match some projected slides a friends father did in Europe with a Contaflex.

A neighbor offered me a Leica M3 trial. Same film, same developer, and it was a winner. Nirvana.

The best lenses I had were the 50 and 100 4.0 Macro Takumars. Only 35 I liked was the 3.5. All the 35 fast lenses were not worth anything. 50 1.4 were trash. 50 1.8 were much better. 85 1.8 was good. Had a 24 that was pretty good.

Third party glass was never kept.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the Pentax shots were no different from my Leica!
In fact my Pentax SP had better exposure due to TTL reading..
I shot both,together, on many assignments.
In Leica the 35mm Summilux was so awful i sold it real quick..
Not everything in Leitz Leica lenses was good.
The 135mm Hektor a joke.(had 3 different ones).
90mm f4 so soft as unusable.
My 200mm f3.5 Takumar (brass and heavy) is way better,
contrast, color and sharpness than my 200mm Telyt...
I sold the Visoflex, the 65mm Elmar, 200mm Telyt and bought a car.
Like many others in the 60's I moved mostly to SLR for pro jobs.
The M3 and 50mm for personal work and special projects.
The Pentaxes never needed services...
 
Ronald M said:
..
The best lenses I had were the 50 and 100 4.0 Macro Takumars. Only 35 I liked was the 3.5. All the 35 fast lenses were not worth anything. 50 1.4 were trash. 50 1.8 were much better. 85 1.8 was good. Had a 24 that was pretty good..
Click to expand...

got to counter that ;)

yes, the Macro Taks are very good!
I agree that the f3.5 is better than the f2/35. The only other faster 35mm Takumar, the rare Auto Takumar f2.3/35mm is very good though!
the 1.4/50 trash?? the S-M-C 1.4/50 is the best 1.4/50 that I have tried, resp. have had the pleasure to use. For anyone curious, see my humble photos taken with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157605746644529/
there is no Takumar 1.8/50, but a long line of 1.8/55 and 2/55 with the same optical construction
the 1.8/85 is good, the 3.5/24 a decent, reliable performer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom