puderse
Established
Spent a few dollars on a H1a that seems to be tying every bundle. Can I find any M42 lenses that surpass my Nikkors? I've herd that some of the SMC lenses are quite nice. Interested in wides. I would be very interested if a 20 was at least as good as my 20mm Nikkor.
charjohncarter
Veteran
First, get a late 60s Super Takumar 50mm F1.4. I don't think many Nikon users will argue that this is a great lens. Second, get a late 60s 28mm Super Takumar 28mm F3.5, again Nikon users won't argue.
I couldn't find a 28mm but here is the 50mm:
Aha, found one not as good a photo:
I couldn't find a 28mm but here is the 50mm:
Aha, found one not as good a photo:
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The 35mm f3.5 is the sharpest 35 I have ever tried. I have two of them, one is an auto-takumar (has a cocking button for the aperture that must be set before each shot!), and a Super Takumar (automatic diaphraghm).
Taken with the older lens.
Taken with the older lens.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Nice Chris, I don't have a 35mm old Super Takumar, but the new AF or FA, it is really sharp too. It just feel comfortable to use a Spotmatic (or H1a) and traditional length lenses. No auto, on real need for batteries, no screen read out, just man and his camera pitted against nature in the forest primeval.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Yes, the 35/3.5 is a very unpromising-sounding lens but it's quite good. Very small as well, so for outdoor walking around it's a great lens. charjohncarter is right on about the 50/1.4 also -- Mike Johnston's Luminous Landscape site even had a writeup about this lens.
Other than the aforementioned (and excellent) 28/3.5, Takumar wides are hard to come by, it seems. I have the 24/3.5 S-M-C Takumar, but it took me a while to find one.
I can also recommend the 55/4 macro and the 100/4 macros, if that's your thing at all. There's really not a bad lens in the whole Super Takumar and Super Multi Coated Takumar line.
The H1a is a little jewel of a camera -- sort of the OM-1 of an earlier generation.
Other than the aforementioned (and excellent) 28/3.5, Takumar wides are hard to come by, it seems. I have the 24/3.5 S-M-C Takumar, but it took me a while to find one.
I can also recommend the 55/4 macro and the 100/4 macros, if that's your thing at all. There's really not a bad lens in the whole Super Takumar and Super Multi Coated Takumar line.
The H1a is a little jewel of a camera -- sort of the OM-1 of an earlier generation.
OldNick
Well-known
I recently purchased a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5 for use on my Olympus E-510 with an adapter. It is very sharp on the digital. I have not tried it on film. I think the best bargain in M42 lenses is the SMC Takumar 55/1.8. It is the first Tak that I ever owned, and I still use it at times on the E-510.
Jim N.
Jim N.
Sam N
Well-known
The SMC-Takumar 50/1.4 with "radioactive" glass is great, but the yellowing can cause a color shift on your color shots (which might be desirable) and it will give you about a 1/3-stop loss of light.
I've heard nothing but great things about the 35/3.5 and 135/3.5.
I've heard nothing but great things about the 35/3.5 and 135/3.5.
OldNick
Well-known
stuken
Established
I have the 28mm 3.5, and the smc takumar 50mm 1.4. Both fantastic lenses.
loneranger
Well-known
The 20mm 2.8 FA has a very good reputation. I have the 20mm f4 M, which I put on my LX and it gives me great wide pics, stopped down. In fact the little 20 on the LX is more compact than a leica m6 and similar lens.
hans voralberg
Veteran
CZ Flektogon 20/2.8, I like the build quality, may be not as sharp as the Nikkor but by f/4 it's good
MarkoKovacevic
Well-known
I dropped my camera onto the 28mm f3.5 
But my 35 f3.5 is a very nice, sharp lens.
But my 35 f3.5 is a very nice, sharp lens.
Stu W
Well-known
I think any lens made by Pentax is excellent. I wouldn't be surprised if the 50 f1.4 outperforms the Leica.