[millsware]

I see that the K version of this lens is much better reviewed than the M version. My question is to anyone who has ever owned both at the same time or close to it. Do you really see a huge difference?

[Nick Siebers]

I see that the K version of this lens is much better reviewed than the M version. My question is to anyone who has ever owned both at the same time or close to it. Do you really see a huge difference?

I have both currently in my possession. I did a "quick and dirty" test of shooting around the house and couldn't find any obvious differences. I've always thought my M lens was pretty great, and the K version did have some fungus that I cleaned out. So maybe that explains the equality?

[northcoastgreg]

I have both lenses. While I wouldn't describe the difference between the lenses as "huge," the K 28/3.5 is clearly better. The differences are more in the rendering, color rendition, and particularly in the microcontrast. In terms of resolution, they are about the same (although the K 28 is a little sharper toward the edges). The K 28 simply tends to produces contrastier, richer, aesthetically more satisfying images than the M 28 2.8.

[freewheeler]

I have both lenses. While I wouldn't describe the difference between the lenses as "huge," the K 28/3.5 is clearly better. The differences are more in the rendering, color rendition, and particularly in the microcontrast. In terms of resolution, they are about the same (although the K 28 is a little sharper toward the edges). The K 28 simply tends to produces contrastier, richer, aesthetically more satisfying images than the M 28 2.8.

I agree with you and like to add that my K28 produces slightly brigther pictures wide open than my m28.

[johnyates]

I have both and I think both are good lenses. The K28's image quality is a tiny bit crisper than its M brother. According to http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_28-30.html , the first generation M28 at f:11 has pretty near equal resolution to the K28 at f:8.

The M28 is as common as dirt and can be had for ~$50. The K28s are fetching ~$150 on eBay these days. Is the K three times better than the M? I don't think so.

Here's a couple of samples from the M at f:8

[Dr Orloff]

I owned both and sold the M.

The M is very compact, the K is quite large. But worth it, no contest for me.

[baro-nite]

The M28/2.8 has been mentioned and some other responses seem to refer to it too. Note the OP asked about the M28/3.5.

I have both but only recently acquired the M and haven't used it enough for a meaningful comparison.

[Jonathan Mac]

I had both at the same time, now I have only the K, because I found it to be superior, though it's much larger. I did a comparison here (which also includes a couple of other 28mm lenses):

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/193250-manu...k-vivitar.html

I kept the K as a high-quality lens, and the M 28/2.8 vII as small, faster lens for travel, though I'm likely to get rid of that now I have an M 35/2.

The M 28/3.5 is not a bad lens. It's almost as sharp as it's older brother, much easier to find (and cheaper) too, but I found it lacking a vibrancy and sharpness that the K has.

[LennyBloke]

Had 2 of the M version and 3 of the K version (not all at the same time) - the K's were sharper and I preferred the colours they produced. The M's were not bad, but the colours seemed a little less punchy, flatter overall and not quite as sharp - but still not a bad lens at all

[paulh]

I've never owned the K, but I have the M, and a couple of 3rd party 28's. I find the M28/3.5 colors to be very vibrant, almost 3-D looking at times. It gives the skies an unusual purplish tone, which is quite striking imo. I'd love to find a K sometime, but for now I'm quite satisfied with the IQ of my M28/3.5.

[Kayaker-J]

Your 28mm test is a great contribution here, Jonathan Mac: It's a very good example of a few pictures being worth a thousand words... or more. For my personal* requirements (landscapes, in particular), I find the plusses you demonstrate for the SMC "K" version of the 28mm to be a bit more than "subtle" (as some have suggested). But I think there's a good argument for keeping an "M" version on hand, too, for traveling light.

[timo]

I see that the K version of this lens is much better reviewed than the M version. My question is to anyone who has ever owned both at the same time or close to it. Do you really see a huge difference?

I have both. Wide open the K is a bit better than the M towards the edges. Stopped down a bit, I find them virtually indistinguishable. You would really have to work hard to identify one as being consistently superior to the other. In various head-on comparisons, I have not detected the differences in microcontrast etc. mentioned earlier in the thread, or at least not to a significant degree. Minor variables in shooting conditions are far more significant than any difference between the lenses. Given that the M is smaller, lighter, and cheaper, it's the winner, in my view.

[Kayaker-J]

When this sort of friendly back-and-forth comes up, I always wonder about the sample to sample variations. And the fact that folks typically don't specify the camera they're using to arrive at these judgments. Roger C., at his pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJHRkpISUVCRkpOSkVN?url=lensrentals.com blogspot, has documented this issue clearly and repeatedly with respect to even highly regarded, fresh-from-the-factory contemporary glass. Since Roger buys lenses 20 at a time and is a very clever guy, with proper testing set-ups and protocols at his disposal , I have to regard his results as authoritative. I like the practical advantages of a film era 70-150mm MF zoom so much that I have nine examples of the Nikon-E f.3.5/Kiron f.4/Vivitar f.3.8 "first cousins" (with "matched multipliers") in N-AI and PK mounts to compare, including four of the Series-E. This is economical in the long run.

---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 11:18 AM ----------

I have both. Wide open the K is a bit better than the M towards the edges. Stopped down a bit, I find them virtually indistinguishable. You would really have to work hard to identify one as being consistently superior to the other. In various head-on comparisons, I have not detected the differences in microcontrast etc. mentioned earlier in the thread, or at least not to a significant degree. Minor variables in shooting conditions are far more significant than any difference between the lenses. Given that the M is smaller, lighter, and cheaper, it's the winner, in my view.

I find it very, very hard indeed to call Jonathan Mac's comparison results at f.8 "virtually indistinguishable".

[timo]

When this sort of friendly back-and-forth comes up, I always wonder about the sample to sample variations. And the fact that folks typically don't specify the camera they're using to arrive at these judgments. Roger C., at his pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJHRkpISUVCRkpOSkVN?url=lensrentals.com blogspot, has documented this issue clearly and repeatedly with respect to even highly regarded, fresh-from-the-factory contemporary glass. Since Roger buys lenses 20 at a time and is a very clever guy, with proper testing set-ups and protocols at his disposal , I have to regard his results as authoritative. I like the practical advantages of a film era 70-150mm MF zoom so much that I have nine examples of the Nikon-E f.3.5/Kiron f.4/Vivitar f.3.8 "first cousins" (with "matched multipliers") in N-AI and PK mounts to compare, including four of the Series-E. This is economical in the long run.

---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 11:18 AM ----------



I find it very, very hard indeed to call Jonathan Mac's comparison results at f.8 "virtually indistinguishable".

Well, Kayaker, I have had another look. I must be missing something. Sure the K landscape shot is a bit less exposed/darker than the the M one, giving an impression of greater contrast. Beyond that I find it tough to see any material difference. In the 'wide open' comparison of the rock, the foreground/corner flowers are sharper in the K version. Maybe it's the focus, maybe it is (as I said earlier) that the K is a bit better at the edges wide open. Having both lenses, I'm unbiased - but I can't see in that comparison the justification for the higher price, greater weight etc. of the K. (When I come to sell mine, it will be a different story )

(Incidentally my own comparison is based, most recently, on use with a K5 and Lightroom.)

[Jonathan Mac]

While I no longer have the M to take more comparison shots, my decision to sell it was also based on results from both lenses in general use. I prefer the K, but both lenses are extremely sharp. My preference is based on colour and other less easily identified and tested qualities. Despite being slow, the K is capable of the mystical 3D effect, while the M is not.

My K cost double what the M did, and I consider that fair for the IQ, I'd recommend the K.