[JoepLX3]

I find my 200 interesting and nice to have--although I never shoot with it.

[JoepLX3]

The 28 and 135 I find better than the respective "kit" zooms that cover those focal lengths, as well as being a stop faster, no bigger, and just all around very useful. The M200/4 is indeed a stop faster than a typical consumer zoom at that focal length, but it's also quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 50-200, IQ is really no better to my eyes, and f/4 isn't fast enough to get excited about, and I'm seldom interested enough in shooting at 200m to want to buy a bigger bag and carry around a 400g+ lens just in case. But heck, those three lenses for the price is great, and you can always sell off the 200 for 50 euro or so if you eventually find you are happier with a zoom.

The 200 mm F4 is indeed no F2.8 (or faster), but the 135 mm F3.5 is neither... The compactness remark is for sure true, but on the other side if in the "end" I also get the 50-135/50-150 mm F2.8 then the 200 mm would still give me more reach (for what that is worth)...
Hmm, both 135 and 200 primes will mainly be to play around either way and I think the 135 is much more practical length, but on the other hand the 200 more challenging.
What the heck, I only live once, probably go for all three

[JoepLX3]

re: M135/3.5



Are you serious? This is one of the easiest to find lenses around. At any given moment there are *dozens* available on Ebay, and it's essentially never out of stock at KEH.com. Most pawn shops have one or two sitting in the display case. Usual price is $50-$75.

Pentax Manual Focus Fixed Focal Length Lenses - KEH.com

Today only 4x 135 mm F3.5 (and two faster, F2.8 and even F2.5)
- 56 to 72 USD (depending Excelent to Excelent+ condition)

Looks like "my" shop is translating 1 USD to 1 Euro on both 135 and 200 mm lens, but the 28 mm A F2.8 is a good deal for me

Also noticed that the 100 mm is typically significantly more expensive, probably given Macro capability (different lens design). Oh, the 20 mm is also significantly more expensive, for 35 mm full frame format of course an ultra wide lens, but on DSLR with smaller sensor. I will be happy enough with the 28 mm and dream about and 10-2X zoom for some time.

[VaSA]

Did you try looking on eBay? I got A 28mm f2.8 for $55 about three month ago on eBay, also purchased M135 on a flea market for $25 about a month ago, but those go for about $40 on eBay.

[Nick Siebers]

For 28mm, consider the Sigma Mini-Wide II 28mm f/2.8 - it is a great little lens, often cheaper than the A 28mm, has the "A" position and will focus fairly closely. It came in a lot of different mounts, but if you can find the Pentax PKA mount it is great. The first version is good too, but no "A" position or contacts.

[JoepLX3]

Thanks VaSA, very good advice. I was actually just already doing that (that is on typical Dutch version of e-bay...).

I am in the race for two 28 mm A F2.8 lenses for the price of one
- One with original casing,
- The other with original hood.
If I end up "winning" both then I will just sell one "bare".

Also spotted a cheap good looking 135 mm F3.5 and that owner has 28 mm hood for sale (and the case is less important for me).

What am I going to do with all the money I am saving, buying more lenses?

[stover98074]

Joep,

I have one 28 and at the present probably four 135 lenses (I need to start selling some of my collection - it can build up quickly). I find I use the 135 focal length more than the 28 - especially if people are part of the subject.

Of the 135 lenses I have (Contax/Yashica [Zeiss], Jupiter 11A, Pentax Takumar Preset, Yashica) I am drawn to the old Takumar 135 3.5 Preset. This is a M42 lens and is easy to work with and quite small and light. I find Presets are nice to use because setting the aperture is a smooth process on the Takumars.

You may find that if you buy a used manual focus lens at a decent price you can resell it at the same price (more or less) and will not be out of pocket if you decide to sell it.

[JoepLX3]

For 28mm, consider the Sigma Mini-Wide II 28mm f/2.8 - it is a great little lens, often cheaper than the A 28mm, has the "A" position and will focus fairly closely. It came in a lot of different mounts, but if you can find the Pentax PKA mount it is great. The first version is good too, but no "A" position or contacts.

Thanks, but as a Newbie and Pentax being available at for me very reasonable prices, I "try" to stick to Pentax.
- Hmm, strange that for new lenses I am considering Sigma... (sounds like it will maintain its value less)

[JoepLX3]

Joep,

I have one 28 and at the present probably four 135 lenses (I need to start selling some of my collection - it can build up quickly). I find I use the 135 focal length more than the 28 - especially if people are part of the subject.

Of the 135 lenses I have (Contax/Yashica [Zeiss], Jupiter 11A, Pentax Takumar Preset, Yashica) I am drawn to the old Takumar 135 3.5 Preset. This is a M42 lens and is easy to work with and quite small and light. I find Presets are nice to use because setting the aperture is a smooth process on the Takumars.

You may find that if you buy a used manual focus lens at a decent price you can resell it at the same price (more or less) and will not be out of pocket if you decide to sell it.

Thanks, SO MUCH advice here!!!
- Knowing myself, having big storage space available and fortunatly never had to beg for money to buy food so far, I typically don't sell my stuff. But instead I try to make people close to me happy with it. I still own three ~10 years old Canon lenses and 2nd hand Flash I never used...

[Impartial]

I agree with most here that the A 28/2.8 is a practical and inexpensive lens choice, as well as forming a nice set with a 50 and a 135 :-). On a crop-factor DSLR that just leaves you short an ultra-wide (like a Pentax M 20/4) and you are good to go all-prime, all the time.

For 135 I would just mention the Sears 135/2.8 . Slightly wider aperture, available with or without the A setting at a very reasonable price point. Just be prepared to remove the Ricoh pin if it is still there, but I found that easy. Look it up in the database -- the lens has a cult following!

[Marc Sabatella]

The 200 mm F4 is indeed no F2.8 (or faster), but the 135 mm F3.5 is neither...

True enough. On paper, they might seem equally useful/useless. But consider, getting a sharp picture at 200mm requires that much *faster* a shutter speed than getting a sharp picture at 135mm, and the 200/4 will actually produce *slower* shutter speeds. So the 135 really has about a full stop advantage in speed from that perspective. And the difference in size and weight is almost a factor of two. And when you're thinking of shooting wildlife or other subjects from a distance great enough where 135mm just seems short, it's "often" the case that light is good enough that f/4 isn't really needed, and I'm much happier using my much smaller, much lighter, and much more flexible DA50-200.

So I'll just say is that based on *my* experience, the situations where a 66mm, 270g 135/3.5 comes in handy outnumber the situations where a 111mm, 405g 200/4 does, by probably a factor of 100:1. It's not even close to being close, at least for *my* purposes. I do a ton of concert photography in small venues, and that 135 really does very well as a focal length, whereas 200 is overkill

The compactness remark is for sure true, but on the other side if in the "end" I also get the 50-135/50-150 mm F2.8 then the 200 mm would still give me more reach (for what that is worth)...

True. But then, I'd still suggest you're better off with something like the 55-300.

What the heck, I only live once, probably go for all three

Especially given they are offering you a great deal on the package. Despite my reservations on the 200, I'd take it.

[dasuhu]

This week I picked up a SMC 135mm 2.5 from KEH for 169 USD (bargain condition). Of course it came in nearly perfect condition and have quickly become quite fond of it.

[JoepLX3]

... So the 135 really has about a full stop advantage in speed from that perspective. And the difference in size and weight is almost a factor of two. .... I do a ton of concert photography in small venues, and that 135 really does very well as a focal length, whereas 200 is overkill. ... True. But then, I'd still suggest you're better off with something like the 55-300.
... Especially given they are offering you a great deal on the package. Despite my reservations on the 200, I'd take it.

Marc, thanks for all your advice, the 28 and 135 are for sure my favorites!!!

[JoepLX3]

I agree with most here that the A 28/2.8 is a practical and inexpensive lens choice, as well as forming a nice set with a 50 and a 135 :-). On a crop-factor DSLR that just leaves you short an ultra-wide (like a Pentax M 20/4) and you are good to go all-prime, all the time.

Do you call 20 mm ultra wide on K-x? I am planning to waiting "for my private stock market" to go up before investing in something like the Tamron or Sigma 10-2X mm.

For 135 I would just mention the Sears 135/2.8 . Slightly wider aperture, available with or without the A setting at a very reasonable price point. Just be prepared to remove the Ricoh pin if it is still there, but I found that easy. Look it up in the database -- the lens has a cult following!

I will take a look, but for a newbie like me a Pentax sounds a little more "safe"...

This week I picked up a SMC 135mm 2.5 from KEH for 169 USD (bargain condition). Of course it came in nearly perfect condition and have quickly become quite fond of it.

Enjoy!!! (for me the 2.8 at much lower price will be enough for at least a couple of years...)

[Impartial]

No, on a K-x the 20mm is merely wide. But if you are into manual focus lenses, an M 20/4 is certainly the budget option for a wide prime . . . because of the crop factor, that is the toughest niche to fill in old glass, IME.