Any here tried M42 lenses?

[Zola]

I have ordered a M42 400mm lens and an M42 adaptor for my A6000, looking forward to to trying it out.

 

Has nyone here experimented with old M42 lenses on their Sony? 

[isha1]

Yes. They work fine. Manual focus and aperture.

[Username]

M42 has 2 advantages over most other legacy lenses:    

  

A: If you get a cheap adapter, at least it won't have a 

cheap latch on the front flange ;-)   

  

B: Many of them have an A-M [iris] control right on the 

lens barrel. 

[Studio G]

They work great, but optical performance varies a lot!

[Username]

They work great, but optical performance varies a lot!

I'm sure you mean from brand to brand, and so I very 

strongly agree. Since the variance is large, the best 

brands offer some great lenses. Takumars especially.  

Fujinons are generally excellent.

   

Soviet and GDR lenses abound in M42 and some of 

them can be terrific but the majority are the opposite.   

   

One thing about M42 ... all the optical designs will be 

old. Most M42 cameras ended in the mid 1970s and 

switched over to modern mounts. But some designs 

don't need to be modernized. If the design is rather 

conservative ... not ultra fast or ultra wide ... the old 

designs can hold their own with any sensor, despite 

the mythology that 50MP sensors "need" the finest 

premium optics. Mostly you'll find primes from 28 to 

135mm. Zooms of the era are seldom great, but the 

independent brands had a few premium zooms and 

the continued offering them for M42 long after the 

demise of the M42 camera models, cuz they sold to 

the installed base. Folks kept their camera bodies a 

lot longer back then :-) IOW you will find innovative 

and quality optics in, frinstintz, the Vivitar Series-1 

line, made and sold for about 10 years beyond the

demise of M42 camera models.  

[baillieswells]

My very first SLR was a Contax FM, for which I had three M42 lenses, a Carl Zeiss Biotar f2 58mm, a Schneider Kreuznach Curtagon f2.8 35 mm and an ISCO-GOTTINGEN Tele-Westanar f3.5 135mm.All three have a semi-automatic preset diaphragm with an aperture pin which is depressed when the shutter is released. In order to use these lenses on a A6000 it is necessary to have an M42 adaptor which has an internal flange to keep the aperture pin fully depressed all the time, otherwise it will not be able to change the aperture.(i.e. if the pin is not depressed the aperture will be fully open all the time)

I have used all three on my A6000, the definition is excellent with all three. Obviously focusing will be manual.but I find this no problem with the A6000.

 

(Unfortunately there are so many adaptors on the market, and it is not always possible from the illustrations and descriptions as to whether there is an internal flange. Obviously if the lenses concerned do not have an aperture pin, this becomes irrelevant)

[Username]

There's no reason for an M-42 adapter to lack the 

pin-depressor flange. It's not an added expense or 

manufacturing step. It's programmed into the CNC

lathe and is integral to the machined barrel ... IOW

not involving any additional parts to install.   

   

It's kinda like when you get a haircut the barber is 

spozed to not remove your ears, so that your hat 

won't slide down over your eyes. The barber does 

not hafta install ears as a part of his work.

    

OTOH some manufacturer somewhere is probably 

oblivious to the need to program the lathe to leave 

a flange of metal to push the pin :-( 

[izzikiorage]

I've been using a helios 44—2 for a year now. Some cheapo adapter i got off ebay. Works great

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[baillieswells]

Please do not use initialisms. What the hell do CNC, IOW and OTOH mean?

[Username]

Please do not use initialisms. What the hell do CNC, IOW and OTOH mean?

  

Very common terms. I feel no obligation to cater to a small group 

of persons presumably both unfamiliar and google-impaired. I've 

also used the terms M42, 50MP, and GDR. Apparently those are 

no mystery to you despite the fact that they're definitely far more

specialized than the terms about which you complain. I am NOT 

calling you stupid. I mean no insult. But I am saying you're being

unreasonable in your complaint. 

[Gandalf the Blue]

Since most (perhaps all?) M42 lenses were built for manual use -- both focusing and aperture -- they are among the few that will function exactly the way they were intended.  I only have one M42 lens, a Helios 40-2, but it's one of my favorites.  I use adapted MF lenses probably 90% of the time.

One thing to consider:  most of the lens mount adapters, in fact every one I've tried, will be machined just a wee bit on the short side.  This is probably a good idea to ensure infinity focus, but it also throws off the distance scale on the lens focus ring.  The solution is to add a shim to the adapter -- most will allow this, I think -- so it is exactly correct.  That may require a few tries but once you have it set you'll have both distance scales and an infinity stop that doesn't overshoot the mark.  (Downside is that, once you've shimmed the adapter it should probably be dedicated to that one lens.  They're cheap enough so that shouldn't be much of a problem.)

[Username]

......... The solution is to add a shim to the adapter -- most will allow

this, I think -- so it is exactly correct.  That may require a few tries

........  (Downside is that, once you've shimmed the adapter it should

probably be dedicated to that one lens.  ..........

   

Yes, most adapters will allow shimming. That is the rule for 

ALL adapters of ALL mounts. Unfortunately, for M-42 it's the 

opposite. Most adapters will not allow shimming. Under $100 

the rear flange is usually cut directly into the aluminum barrel 

so you can't shim the rear flange on ANY cheap adapters, no 

matter which flange is on the other end [front end].  

  

OK, so even most cheap adapters tend to have a screwed-on 

chromed brass front flange, which invites unscrewing it and

shimming it. Nice. But the glaring exception is M-42. Since no 

fancy bayonet locking shapes are involved, most cheap M-42 

adapters do NOT feature a screwed-on chromed brass front

flange ... the M-42 thread is just cut directly into the aluminum 

barrel material, thus eliminating any possibility of shimming. 

    

Also, despite many M-42 adapters not allowing shimming, if

one HAS successfully shimmed an adapter [any adapter, for

any conversion, not just M-42] there is absolutely no rationale

for assigning it to one particular lens and providing additional 

properly shimmed adapters for every other additional lens !   

  

If you shimmed properly, the adapter is now exactly the right 

length ... and that length is not related to which lens is in use. 

The Right Length is an absolute ... it's not relative to anything. 

All other lengths are NOT right. There are an infinite number 

of possible wrong lengths, but ONLY ONE correct length.

   

One might get the illusion that "which lens" actually matters. 

If you use, frinstintz, a 100/2.8 to check focus while shimming 

an adapters, you may likely shim less precisely than if you'd 

used a 20/4.0 lens. Barrel length is waaaaay more critical for 

short FLs ... even if the max aperture is modest. 

   

IOW, the shim job based on a 100/2.8 will likely be inaccurate 

and not suitable for use with a 20/4.0. But, a shim job based 

on a 20/4.0 will be more than accurate enuf for a 100/2.8 or a 

300/4.5 or any long long lens.  

   

It does NOT matter that longer lenses have much less DoF. 

Longer lenses are far more forgiving of inexact "lens-to-film" 

measurements ... while being far LESS forgiving of inexact

"lens-to-subject" measurement. And it's vice-versa on both 

ends of that equation when dealing with SHORT FL lenses. 

   

IOW, short FL is forgiving of sloppy lens-to-subject focusing,  

but unforgiving of sloppy flange focus. Long FL is unforgiving 

of sloppy lens-to-subject focusing, but it's relatively forgiving

about sloppy flange focus. 

[baillieswells]

Very common terms. I feel no obligation to cater to a small group 

of persons presumably both unfamiliar and google-impaired. I've 

also used the terms M42, 50MP, and GDR. Apparently those are 

no mystery to you despite the fact that they're definitely far more

specialized than the terms about which you complain. I am NOT 

calling you stupid. I mean no insult. But I am saying you're being

unreasonable in your complaint. 

M42 and 50MP are definitions, like say cm, GDR may be considered an abbreviation, such as USA. However,CNC etc are initialisms, which should be defined. By the way, not to be confused with acronyms, which spell a word, e.g. NATO. (I wouldn't accept initialisms from my medical students, cannot have them confusing their patients.)

[Username]

M42 and 50MP are definitions, like say cm, GDR may be considered an abbreviation,

such as USA. However,CNC etc are initialisms, which should be defined. By the way,

not to be confused with acronyms, which spell a word, e.g. NATO. (I wouldn't accept

initialisms from my medical students, cannot have them confusing their patients.)

    

    

ROTFLMFAO    

    

And BTW, "NATO" is not a word, therefor "NATO" is not an acronym.  

   

If you form an action group called "BAN", and if "BAN" means "Banish 

Acronyms Now", then "BAN" is an acronym, cuz unlike "NATO", "BAN"

is an actual word.   

   

Now, the ironic aspect of "BAN" meaning "Banish ....... " is optional. 

   

The acronym "PAVE PAWS" has nothing to do with asphalt, concrete, 

nor the feet of hairy animals. But "PAVE" and "PAWS" are real words 

and the "Precision Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning

System" was a real radar network so therefor "PAVE PAWS" is a true 

acronym. Acronyms hafta mimic words, not INVENT words. Jeeziz ...  

   

Once more, I am not calling you stupid. I'm just asking that you stick 

to the topics about which you are actually smart about. YDKWYMW. 

[Username]

OK, so that was a bit overboard ... only a bit !  

  

And yes, I'm narrow minded about acronyms.  

    

Nevertheless, anyone who can manage to 

earn an MD should be ready to google any 

unfamiliar character strings, rather than go 

around demanding that the offending strings 

not be used. 

   

So apologies for my over-the-top delivery,

OTOH, the message itself ? No retraction.     

     

   

OoooPz  .... OK .... "OTOH" means "On the 

other hand", and "MD" sorta means "Doctor  

of Medicine".

[Pieter Batenburg]

I found most of them to be really disappointing. The same goes for old Minolta MF glass.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

I found most of them to be really disappointing. The same goes for old Minolta MF glass.

M42 lenses is such a wide category of lenses by different manufacturers. So, basically your statement means you don't really see the point of vintage lenses?

[Username]

 `

   

It was basically just a snotty ignorant 

remark offering zero reliable content.  

   

As you noted, the original question is 

so unfocused that it really cannot be

meaningfully answered. Thus to offer 

such a short, snappy, pointed reply to

a pointless question is merely to put  

one's ignorance on parade.  

     

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  

    

TWIMC: "M42" is not a class of optics. 

It's a diameter and pitch of thread. As 

photo jargon, it refers to lens mounts 

based upon an M42 thread. Acoarst,  

lens mounts do not form images, so 

the original question is pointless

   

`

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Well, I mean, some people see vintage lenses mainly as a way of saving money. Then they get disappointed when the vintage lenses are difficult to use and don't produce images that look like the ones modern lenses produce.To others, like myself, vintage lenses are a great way to give your photos some character that a modern lens won't give you. To be honest, I prefer if people in the first category stay away from vintage lenses.

[markfireblade]

We have an old Minolta X-300 35mm film camera with an MD f3.5 35-70mm zoom with macro. Is this lens any good? It seems to be well made...

[Username]

.... MD f3.5 35-70mm zoom with macro. Is this lens any good? ....

If you put it on an APSC body you have a slow bulky 

equivalent of a 52-105 zoom. It will work but do you 

think you'd actually USE such a white elephant ? If 

you put it on a FF body it makes slightly more sense 

but only slightly. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

We have an old Minolta X-300 35mm film camera with an MD f3.5 35-70mm zoom with macro. Is this lens any good? It seems to be well made...

It has nice image quality. I used it on my NEX-7 for a period. Although it produced nice images, it was impractical. Ultimately, I don't think the zoom range is good enough to justify carrying this bulk, including the adapter. The macro mode has quite harsh bokeh too. I have used it as a walkaround lens on my analogue Minolta XD-7. For that I can recommend it wholeheartedly.

[nomad]

I consider this a very nice lens on my A7R II. Very useful for filming too with constant aperture and parfocality.

[markfireblade]

Thanks for the info all. I wasn't planning on using it with my a6300 unless it was a bit special...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Thanks for the info all. I wasn't planning on using it with my a6300 unless it was a bit special...

I mean, it is a bit special. It was considered good enough to be rebranded as a Leica lens back in the day. For me, the zoom range isn't big enough. I prefer using a smaller, faster prime or a zoom with bigger range. Saying that, I like most photos I've taken with this lens.