[Nesster]

The other lens from the KX I bought a month and a half ago is beckoning, surrounded by old nikon and canon and leica lenses on the store shelf, only $30.

Of course I'll be going back in a week to liberate the wretch.

In the meanwhile though I was doing some looking, the only 35 3.5 listed is the K version, though there are some discrepancies as to what filter size etc it takes. I haven't noticed another K mount f/3.5... and no, I haven't double checked the Cecci book yet, though he said the early K's were re-mounted S-M-C Takumars, the same formulas etc.

I do like my Takumar 3.5, and am thinking, to what advantage is the K? Is it really the same lens or is it different apart from the mount?

[jsherman999]

The other lens from the KX I bought a month and a half ago is beckoning, surrounded by old nikon and canon and leica lenses on the store shelf, only $30.

Of course I'll be going back in a week to liberate the wretch.

In the meanwhile though I was doing some looking, the only 35 3.5 listed is the K version, though there are some discrepancies as to what filter size etc it takes. I haven't noticed another K mount f/3.5... and no, I haven't double checked the Cecci book yet, though he said the early K's were re-mounted S-M-C Takumars, the same formulas etc.

I do like my Takumar 3.5, and am thinking, to what advantage is the K? Is it really the same lens or is it different apart from the mount?

I have both... I think I have some specs on the Tak in an old Tak book I have, I'll take a gander... Anyway, here's a link to the specs on the K version.

Both are excellent, truly. Advantage of the K is that you don't have to mess with an adapter, but the build quality and focus action isn't quite as good as the Tak's.

Here are shots from the Tak, and here are shots from the K.


K 35 3.5

S-M-C Takumar 35 3.5



.

[Nesster]

Thanks, I'd noted the filter size - 52mm - and couldn't quite believe my eyes.

[monochrome]

Here is a cut & paste of comments made on the Pentax Discuss Mailing List around 2004:

Yoshihiko Takinami - I have/had K35/2, K35/3.5, M35/2, M35/2.8 and FA35/2AL. Go for K35/2 if you do need the extra speed. Go for K35/3.5 if you do need fine prints. I prefer K35/3.5 to K35/2 in point of center resolution/sharpness and better correction of aberrations.
Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - very little light-fall-off even at wide open, amazingly sharp, good color rendition, great color saturation, scarce distortion, natural bokeh, great resolution
Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - . . . one of the best Pentax lenses. . . Its color rendition and 3-dimensionality are really great. FA35/2AL is superior to K35/3.5 in point of correction, color saturation, and uniformity of image all over the frame. They are the two best 35mm (focal length) lenses Pentax ever made, IMO.
- - - - - -
David Collett - If you get a chance buy a 35/3.5, IMO it is the best "cheap" 35mm second hand lens you can buy. It has good contrast and is very sharp between f5.6 and f11. This may push the price up then perhaps I can sell mine for an inflated price and buy a[new] FA35/2 :-)
- - - - - -
Timo Hartikainen - a really great lens! . . . I'm very pleased. The image quality is really good, even at f3.5. .
David Mann - . . .Its small, light and really sharp.


Here's a link to Stan's compilation site for the comments on K through some of the FA lenses Stan's Pentax Photography


I have never read an authoritative proof that the SMC Takumar version and the K version of the 35/3.5 are the same formula, but it seems generally accepted that they are. In any event, My K35/3.5 gives the best color rendition and flare resistance of any manual Pentax lens I own. I also have the FA35/2 for lower light situations and auto focus. Both are great lenses, especially for the money.