[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: IMG_9726.jpg (52 KB, 750x548)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
share your favorite m42 lenses for under a 100. currently looking at the auto chinon 55mm 1.7

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
CommentScreenshot
Image Width750
Image Height548
>>
Helios 44-2. Jupiter 8 is also good (but even better would be saving up a bit and getting a Jupiter 9).
>>
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4, obviously.
>>
File: IMGP1953.jpg (185 KB, 1197x821)
185 KB
185 KB JPG
Zenitar-m 1.7/50

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3200352
is that thing radioactive?
>>
Mir 1b ftw
>>
>>3200395
Barely. Just like a lot of fast lenses at the time.
Even the little Industar-61 L/D has lanthanum in it.

It's not like it's an Aero-Ektar or something; short of smashing and eating the thoriated glass, I don't think it could possibly harm anyone.
>>
I used the SMC Tak set for all my video work before I could afford a Sigma, such beautiful lenses. I regret selling my adapter because now I want to try out some Helios / Zeiss glass.
>>
Jupiter-9 on ebay sometimes sells for <100
>>
>>3200324
My chinon 50 1.4 was only $15, chinon a shit too.

Best legacy 50 I've come across are nikkor 1.4, or if you want warmer and more contrast, the canon fd version. No point limiting yourself to m42 when nikon f90x go for $30, which was the d810 of the last of the 135 cameras.
>>
>>3200324
Helios 44-2 or 44-4
Also Jupiter 9 and Jupiter 3 (but you got to be lucky)
>>
File: P1040177_ TWO.jpg (697 KB, 1619x1000)
697 KB
697 KB JPG
Jupiter 21M
It's sharper than my father's old Tokina auto-tele 200mm f/3.5 FD
But anyway, I should get a speedbooster because MFT just crops a little too much for these lenses and they become comparatively unsharp.
Probably will get an FD speedbooster and then use an M42-FD adapter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-G7
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2017:06:12 10:51:11
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1619
Image Height1000
Exposure ModeAuto
Image QualityUnknown
White BalanceAuto
Focus ModeManual
Spot ModeUnknown
Image StabilizerOff
Macro ModeNormal
Shooting ModeAperture Priority
AudioNo
Flash Bias0.00 EV
>>
>>3200716
>Jupiter 21M
It is just a copy of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f3.5
>>
>>3200737
the Jupiter 21M is a 200mm 4.0 tho
>>
>>3200737
You're thinking of the jupiter-37a
>>
>>3200418
My mir 1b sucks dick, shitty resolution on every f-stop. Probably just caught the bad copy.
>>
>>3200324
S Takumar 55 1.8 and 135 3.5
>>
>>3200324
Got not long ago a Zeiss Triotar 135/4 for around 25€ including shipment on ebay.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.