Question for you photographers.

[Elliott18t]

I was wondering if any of you have done this.


There are plenty of old Manual focus etc carl zeiss, etc lenses out there to be had for actually a decent price with a M42 mount. Have any of you bought any of these and a M42 adapter to your camera mount?

what was the experience like?
If not, would you do this?


just curious.

[sisforsurfing]

There are lots of really good M42-mount lenses. You can also use Leica-R, Nikon-mount Zeiss (though at those prices I'd go for Sony's Zeiss stuff) and Nikon-mount Voigtlander.

The main annoyances;
- your camera might not meter. I'm not sure about Sonys. The lower-end Nikons dont but the higher-end ones do.
- as you stop down the lens, it actually stops down, rather than using auto-aperture like you're used to. It's like holding the DoF preview button down the whole time, only you can't not. The solution is to focus wide open, then stop down, meter, and shoot. That sounds like a bigger deal than it is.

I have an Olympus 100/2 that I use this way.

If you want to try it out get a $7 adapter on eBay and some fun, cheap, reputable M42 glass. There's plenty of info all over the internet. Something like the Jupiter-9 85/2 or something even cheaper.

[Elliott18t]

i keep hearing to get the pentacon or jupiter 135 from the alpha people; I hear they are shoot offs of carl zeiss ?. in the manual version i guess (i suppose it has an 'auto' version too) it has 15 blades instead of the normal 6? I found lots of info in the past hour or so, but im not sure what has good coatings or not. i saw some pentacon 135 photos, and man are those sharp. I could use something with a longer focal distance anyways :)

what do you mean by the nikon mount ones i can use?

[SoStock92]

Honestly, its a bit of a hipster thing right now. For canon, there are enough affordable EF mount primes available that it's not really worth messing around with. If you are talking about the Russian stuff for like $120 then yeah maybe that's something to play with, but some of the Zeiss and "cheap" M42 mounts are upwards for $500. Whatever you do, install the adapter on the lens first, then the lens/adapter to the body. I have seen first hand the debris from people screwing the M42 lenses down onto the cheap aluminum adapters - aluminum filings in the camera! Not fun.

[Elliott18t]

really? i thought it would just be a nice way to broaden my lens choices :/ not because its "vintage" which i saw show up a couple times..lol.

I was looking around in all the stuff, Zeiss was just an example. Some i have seen that i found online are really sharp, and thats what im looking for and much more affordable than G or zeiss lenses built for my camera :P. I dont have that kinda money to drop on glass that Im that great of a photographer or use it as a job.

[SoStock92]

I am not trying to discourage you - just trying to tell it like I see it. Some of the Rokinon stuff is pretty damned sharp - but all of the sharp lenses are going to be manual focus and some have very, very weird distortion (quality of the optics isn't so great). You will see a LOT of sharp primes - obviously primes are easier to engineer than zooms, because the lens only has to do one focal length. If you find something for a steal, give it a go. Just be careful and definitely pick up an adapter for each lens you have, you really don't want to be threading those things all the time - the shavings on the crappy adapters is ridiculous.

[sisforsurfing]

Jon, don't know where you're getting the weird distortion stuff? Maybe the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm? Otherwise their 14mm and 85mm are optically right there with the Canon Ls at 1/5 the cost. (if you're good enough to focus the 85)

They're just lenses. Some are deservedly priced, some are overpriced, and some are outright bargains. Take almost any 135mm since the 70s. They are all sharp and all have good bokeh. Some can be found for like $40, often less.

I say it's worth it to play with some mid-range teles and fast 50s (the pentax 50/1.4s are super cheap.) The wides are cool too but not so much on a crop body.


But really, if I had a crop Sony body I'd get the new 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f2.8 which are sure to be really good, are cheap and have autofocus.

[Elliott18t]

i have a 50mm f1.8 but a little longer or shorter wouldn't hurt. starting to like the prime options.

[SoStock92]

Jon, don't know where you're getting the weird distortion stuff? Maybe the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm? Otherwise their 14mm and 85mm are optically right there with the Canon Ls at 1/5 the cost. (if you're good enough to focus the 85)

They're just lenses. Some are deservedly priced, some are overpriced, and some are outright bargains. Take almost any 135mm since the 70s. They are all sharp and all have good bokeh. Some can be found for like $40, often less.

I say it's worth it to play with some mid-range teles and fast 50s (the pentax 50/1.4s are super cheap.) The wides are cool too but not so much on a crop body.


But really, if I had a crop Sony body I'd get the new 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f2.8 which are sure to be really good, are cheap and have autofocus.

Chris -

I meant that the bottom barrel dirt cheap soviet union stuff is hipster. Not all of it is particularly good - is it acceptable? Sure. Maybe? Some of the Jupiter examples I've seen are terribly soft - others are sharp. There's so many different lenses.

My point about distortion was regarding the 14mm 2.8's coming out. There is also another prime with the issue, I forget which. Its correctable in PTLens but honestly I prefer to not have to PP every image with a certain lens. Also, forget about using it for video. People like to dismiss it as "not noticeable" - here are some examples.

http://newworld666.smugmug.com/Architecture/Lyon-early-in-a-spring-morning/IMG1276/877675508_iKsR2-X2.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4902636793_9d32eedb6c_b.jpg

Ouch


Yeah they're cheap, but 3 - 4 $50 - $200 lenses could buy you a single nice lens. I am just suggesting that Elliott be careful with selection.

[Elliott18t]

thanks for looking out. Ive been reading trying to see what was good etc. Im just trying to play around before I drop an 'assload' of money on a lens.


i do have my eye on some newer lenses, but have some more important things to do first. :)

[SoStock92]

I hear you - what focal length are you most interested in? This is for your Sony right?

[Elliott18t]

yes, well it looks like i could use anything longer than 55mm at least lol. I can't imagine anything over 200mm being to useful for me, at least not yet.

[SoStock92]

I was shooting photos birds at dawn at this birding spot down in cape may and a dutch guy had a sony dslr with a nice manual longer lens. I am nut sure what it was - push/pull zoom and manual focus. I think it was adapted.

[Elliott18t]

it was possibly this?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2561852886_20bdbcbf26.jpg

the minolta "beercan". I know its a fav amoung the sony people lol.

[SoStock92]

It had a smoother rubber grip on the focus from what I could tell - does that push/pull?

[Elliott18t]

It had a smoother rubber grip on the focus from what I could tell - does that push/pull?

not sure to be honest, i dont have it :lol:

[sisforsurfing]

Chris -

I meant that the bottom barrel dirt cheap soviet union stuff is hipster. Not all of it is particularly good - is it acceptable? Sure. Maybe? Some of the Jupiter examples I've seen are terribly soft - others are sharp. There's so many different lenses.


Word, I agree with that. You can do cool stuff with the Jupiter-9 or Helios if you know what you're doing, but at that point you can use other stuff more effectively.
And I really didn't know the 14 had that kind of distortion. Terrible! I stand by their 85 though.

I did see a nice Vivitar 135mm f2.8 in Minolta mount go for $9 on eBay earlier today though. Just keep your eye out.