> I enjoy using my Spotmatics and MXs -- I bought them last year and the > Spotmatics in particular are so much cheaper now than when I was a boy! > Then, they were completely out of reach, I think even an H1a with a > standard lens was close to $200 new during the 60s, which is probably > equivalent to US$1000 now. All of my M42 lenses are the "low cost" ones > under $100 -- e.g. SMCT 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 105/2.8, > 135/2.5, 85-210/4.5 and ST150/4 -- and some cost me less than $10, yet > the quality is just wonderful.
Having tested most of my screw-mounts I can say that that particular collection of lenses you mention is of a very high standard of optical quality, even compared to newer, more expensive Nikon lenses. The only lens you've got that I'm not impressed with is the 35/3.5, and lots of people have suggested that I must have a bad sample of that particular design. Ironically, the more expensive screw-mount lenses at more extreme focal lengths are less competitive with today's lenses than the "cheap" ones you've got. The 20/4.5 and 300/4.0 are simply not as good as modern lenses at those focal lengths. This is because technology has improved the ability of lens designers to make ultra-wide and ultra-telephoto lenses. It may also be because people are willing to pay for the extra quality--the average 14mm these days is over $1000, and the big N and C telephotos are $5000 and up. They are also very big and heavy even compared to the all-metal Takumar designs. And yes, with digital and autofocus pushing down values of older cameras the spotmatics are a great bargain (assuming you don't need digital and autofocus). DJE
