Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-22-2013, 12:23 PM   #1
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 105
K 35 2 vs M 35 2


I have the opportunity to buy an K35 2 lens, but recently acquired an M 35 2.
I mainly shoot b&w film.
Is there someone who has both and can tell me their difference is worth having both?
Or is the K so much better over the m that i need to look and buy the K version and eventually sell the M?



12-22-2013, 12:42 PM   #2
Veteran Member
macTak's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 759
Both lenses are rather uncommon, so there will be hardly anyone who has used them both (esecially on film). In the lens review section, there is one user who tried both, whom I quote:

"In comparison with my M35 f2, this is much bigger and longer. The image quality is more uniform throughout the whole picture. While the contrast is slightly low at f2, the Vignetting problem is less significant than M35. More importantly, the corner quality is much better than M35 at f2. The differences are less apparent at f8.

If you have a M35, should you get a K35 f2? For me, absolutely if you can find one. For daily use M35 is more than sufficient in my opinion."

Another review compared the M35/2 to I presume the SMC Takumar 35/2 (same optical design as the K), and found "The sharpness is a tad better on the M42 version when wide open, but is so close to the M35/2 otherwise".

I personally have only the M35/2 and love it, and any minor difference in optical quality to me is more than made up for by the very small size and light weight of the M35. There certainly is not enough differnce between them to have both (if you somehow wanted two 35mm lenses, get the K35/3.5 as a compliment), and I personally don't think the differnce is great enough to trouble yourself over selling the M. The question is, I suppose, are you happy with the results you are getting from the M. If so, then no reason to make a change.
12-22-2013, 12:52 PM   #3
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,454
QuoteOriginally posted by macTak Quote
The question is, I suppose, are you happy with the results you are getting from the M. If so, then no reason to make a change.
I agree with macTak. The only reason (aside from LBA) to make the change would be if you are not satisfied with the results from the M 35/2.

Tom G
12-22-2013, 01:03 PM   #4
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,339
Get the K35/3.5, it's better than the faster versions.


12-22-2013, 01:47 PM   #5
Veteran Member
glasbak's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 346
The K is the better one, the M the slightly wider one, compare here

And the K35/2.0 is not the same optics as the Takumar version.
12-23-2013, 01:22 AM   #6
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 105
Original Poster
Thanks for all the replies!

Had read the reviews about the K & M version, but tought i would gather some more info if i asked.
Only shot one roll of film with the 35 2 and find it quite sharp even wide open. Mostly used for people shots in the evening.

Strange thing that the M version is wider than te K version!


Thanks for posting the link!
12-23-2013, 03:39 AM   #7
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 4,343
I have the M and am very happy with it. It's fairly sharp wide open and excellent by f/2.8. I haven't tried the K but optical quality was sometimes cut to make the M series lenses smaller.
12-23-2013, 03:25 PM   #8
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere near the middle...
Posts: 269
I had the M35/f2 version for a few months (bought from this forum), and it compared very favorably to my ZK35/f2. I was hardpressed to tell the difference between images taken with these 2 lenses. I sold the M35 as it had (famous) oil-on-the-blade issues.

12-23-2013, 03:42 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,425
There's a bit more info here which is a compilation of comments from the old Pentax Discuss Mailing List from the late 90's and early 2000's. Click Short Prime Lenses Best 35MM and then General Discussion of 35MM lenses for more than you really want to know.

I have the K35/3.5 as well and I agree with Phil - sharper and great color rendition. Takinami says the FA35/2 and K35/3.5 are the two best 35's Pentax ever made.
12-24-2013, 07:44 PM   #10
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,859
I use the M35/2.0 as my fast "normal" lens for film.
It accounts for perhaps 75% of my photos.

I have owned the M35/3.5 also. It's a fine lens but harder to focus.

I've always wanted to try the K35/2.0 but I've never seen one I could afford.

I suppose what I'd really like is the mythic M35/1.4...


  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax FA 35 2.0 vs Nikkor 35 1.8DX many samples simbon4o Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 08-01-2012 04:11 PM
DA 35 2.4 vs. Takumars or M-series lenses arsn.r3d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 02-23-2012 06:24 AM
For Sale - Sold: Bessaflex - Pentax K 35/2 - Takumar 35/2 Hilo Sold Items 4 01-06-2012 08:02 PM
Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35 vs DA 35 Macro Limited ? q10 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 06-03-2008 09:35 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:37 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]