# M42 Lenses



## jamesdavidboro (Nov 3, 2010)

Are they any good? I'm on a tight budget but i'm looking to buy a few new lenses for my Sony Alpha. There seems to be alot of cheap older MF M42 lenses kicking about on Ebay. I just wondered if anyone had any experience with them. I understand that when useing them you can only use Aperture Priority which isn't a problem as thats what i use 90% of the time anyway. Some of the Lens adapters say they have a AF confirm chip? Not sure what this is or whether i need it. The ones without AF confirm chips are about 1/3 the price.

Any advice much appreciated.


----------



## clanthar (Nov 3, 2010)

AF confirm is auto focus confirm. The chip allows the camera's auto-focus function to confirm (in viewfinder) accurate focus.

There's a huge legacy of m42 lenses out there. Some are as good as anything made today and often with better build quality. A lot of them are pure cr*p. You'll have to get brand specific. For example the '60s & '70s vintage Pentax lenses can be excellent.

NOTE: The model camera you have makes a big difference. Older "film" camera lenses can work well on cameras with APS or smaller sensors. On cameras with full-frame 35mm sensors you're going to run into trouble especially if the lens is normal to short focal length. Older film lenses weren't designed for modern digital sensors and you're typically going to run into chromatic abberation especially on the edges -- with smaller sensor cameras you avoid the edges.

Joe


----------



## jamesdavidboro (Nov 3, 2010)

Ah right, thanks Joe. I've done a little more research myself and it seems that if i want  Aperture Priority to work on my Alpha A450 i'll have to buy one with a chip as the A450 doesn't have a Shutter Lock on/off in the custom menu. I think it'll be worth it though.

On brands, is Helois any good? What other brands apart from Pentax are worth having?


----------



## enzodm (Nov 3, 2010)

jamesdavidboro said:


> Are they any good? I'm on a tight budget but i'm looking to buy a few new lenses for my Sony Alpha. There seems to be alot of cheap older MF M42 lenses kicking about on Ebay. I just wondered if anyone had any experience with them. I understand that when useing them you can only use Aperture Priority which isn't a problem as thats what i use 90% of the time anyway. Some of the Lens adapters say they have a AF confirm chip? Not sure what this is or whether i need it. The ones without AF confirm chips are about 1/3 the price.
> 
> Any advice much appreciated.



I've been recently hit by Manual Focus Disease, so now I have a number of M42 lenses (I prefer not to tell how many :blushing: ).

You go with aperture priority, with stop-down (focus wide open, then close to the aperture you want), and of course manual focus. AF confirm is useful because, unless you have a pro dSLR, viewfinder is too small and dark to really help in precise focus. AF confirm chip simply tells the camera there is a lens, so AF verification is activated, and you hear a beep or see a led when in focus, like in autofocus (but manually moving lens). I should tell not always AF confirmation is precise (when I can I focus in live view).

At the end, you will shoot like in old times, slower than usual because you set everything manually. 
Optical quality of old prime lenses (fixed) is typically not bad if compared to kit zooms, and sometimes very good (but as there is some hype around old lenses, for the best ones you spend as for a new lens). However, there could be some difference in behaviour that a usual modern zoom shooter may consider a defect, while a collector considers as "soul" of the lens (e.g. good definition but less contrast, recoverable in PP). Some lenses are also "easy" to build so are easy to be built well (50mm, 135mm). 

And again, if you are normally using a kit zoom, almost any fixed lens will be faster and with better bokeh - something that might give some satisfaction to counter lost time in manual focusing. 

Here you find samples, wide open, from Zeiss Pancolar 2/50 and Zeis Sonnar 3.5/135 (not at all the worst around... ): http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-forum-photo-gallery/222826-vineyards-cc.html

On the other side, MF zooms are less appreciated - modern ones are better. Anyway, they are so cheap to you could give a try.


----------



## jamesdavidboro (Nov 3, 2010)

Some very nice pictures there. I love the shallow dof! I just love pictures like that were the background is blurred out. I was out today with my kit lens trying to get shots like that but i can't get anywere near. M42 prime lenses are what i'm after. So it seems from what you've said they may suite me.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2010)

Asahi-branded Super-Takumars are generally decent. These were originally made for use on Pentax cameras,and have a nifty Auto-Manual diaphragm stop-down switch, which makes it easy to view and focus wide open, then hit the switch to close the lens down to working aperture with just one simple operation. As enzodm mentioned, "some" lenses are easy to make well, like 50mm and 135mm lenses, and the Super-Takumar 50/1.5 and 135mm f/3.5 and f/2.8 lenses are pretty decent. The old 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar is quite sharp,and very affordable.

Vivitar made some nice 55mm and 90mm macro lenses in M42 mount. The Vivitar Series-1 55mm f/2.8 macro is built like a tank,and has beautiful magnification scales and a build quality that today is only found in high-priced lenses.

I am really NOT impressed with the "look" of some of the older East German-made M42 lenses...some really dreadful lenses were also released in M42...some Russian-made stuff is also horrible.


----------



## enzodm (Nov 3, 2010)

jamesdavidboro said:


> On brands, is Helois any good? What other brands apart from Pentax are worth having?



Helios has done some nice lens, but like other former soviet or DDR brands, quality control was not the best: you will find good and bad copies.
Helios did a good 3.5/135mm (copy of Zeiss), an appreciated (also because the cheapest ever) 2/58, and some other nice lens. 
Zeiss is a good brand; Western Zeiss is expensive, Eastern (Zeiss aus Jena or so) is cheaper but still good. I do not mention Leica due to price.
Pentacon did a good 2.8/135. 
Here you find a number of samples: The Retro Way: My Other Photography

Look also at Manual Focus Lenses , good place to start. However, a word of caution: consider that you will spend time in learning things on those antique lenses instead of taking pictures .


----------



## eccs19 (Nov 3, 2010)

A good number of my lenses are M-42. Most of them are nice and sharp, but as mentioned, there are some duds as well.  My favorite 2 are my Takumar 100mm F4 and my Takumar 200mm F3.5  Both are nice and sharp.  I've also got a Takumar 28mm, but not that impressed with it.  I've got a Helios 58mm, and it's a nice sharp lens also.  I shoot Pentax, so it's a nice combination to use.  I shoot them either in AV mode or full manual.  Best part with this combination is I still get camera shake reduction even with the old lenses.


----------



## Ron Evers (Nov 3, 2010)

I have a Helios 44-2, 58mm f2.0 that is a little soft in the corners wide open but otherwise a very sharp lens.  I like the fact it will close focus to a bit over a foot which makes it very versatile & it is often my walk-about lens.  

The Super Takumar 55/1.8 M42 mount is also a nice sharp lens & reasonably fast.  Sure beats kit lenses.


----------

