[murrelet]

What I brought with me on a trip this summer with my MX:

M 40mm F2.8 pancake
M 28mm F2.8
M 100mm F2.8

I'm still not convinced I need to extra reach of a 135mm. If low light was a factor but weight wasn't, then I'd substitute the pancake with an M 50mm F1.4. If weight was a factor, then I'd go with an M 50mm F1.7.

[Peter308]

OP here, thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences, views and ideas. let me share some initial thoughts/reactions.

I am not so keen on the longer range tele's as it seems to defeat the size point of an MX and may be unbalanced. Having said that I have just purchased an MX winder (before I have even got there camera!). Any love for the SMC A 100mm f2.8 or is this a bit on the big side?

At the wide end 28mm seems to be most people's preference, but I also like the 21 - 24mm focal length - great for landscape and environmental shooting without to much distortion that super wides can produce. Views on the K 20mm f4?

The standard focal length I find the hardest to decide - perhaps I go for a full set of M 40mm f2.8, A 50mm f1.2, and M f1.7. Having said that, there is one camera I am considering at the moment and it comes with the M 50mm f1.4.

I like the left field zoom short range zoom option, one to do a bit of research on.

[monochrome]

K20/4: Nice lens, some distortion, hard to find, needs the (impossible) hood. A20/2.8 might be better, but pricier. K24/2.8 is more compact.

[pathdoc]

I am not so keen on the longer range tele's

The M 135/3.5 is quite small for such a thing; losing a half stop over some of the 2.8's helps keep the size and weight down. I found it to be the biggest lens I want to put on an M body and still fit with the philosophy of small = beautiful. It handles nicely, though, mostly because it is a prime (so it doesn't become nose-heavy like the push-pull zooms of the period) and because much of the length is a grip surface for focusing, so you can be very flexible in where you support the lens barrel. If you ever come across one in a pawnshop or something, or know somebody who has one, ask to handle it on the MX body. You'll see what I mean.

perhaps I go for a full set of M 40mm f2.8, A 50mm f1.2, and M f1.7.

Overkill, IMO. If you wind up with the MX that has the M50/1.4 on it, use that for a while before you take the plunge into anything else. One thing about the MX is that the shutter speed dial is rather stiff. The M40/2.8's philosophy is one of rapid aperture changes and short throw focus for quick snapshots, a philosophy for which the most appropriate body is the ME (or its various successors); the MX is (in my experience) a more deliberate snapper. Go for the 40/2.8 only if you really feel you need a completely pocketable (i.e. coat-pocketable) casual-carry SLR... and preferably when on the move, outdoors, in good light.

That A 50/1.2 will set you back big bucks and the A contacts are wasted on the MX, though if that SFXn is still running, or you have/want a Pentax DSLR, they will come in very, very handy. My f/1.2 lens ended up being the Rikenon-P 55/1.2, which I think was made by Tomioka (some sources say Porst). The Ricoh pin is safe on manual-focus bodies anyway, and because it's actually a name-brand Rikenon it has the safe variant that doesn't get jammed in the AF screwdrive hole - I trust mine on the K-1.

[gabriel_bc]

Another contrarian vote:

FA20-35/4
M50/1.7
Adaptal 90/2.5

[TwoUptons]

I just got back from a trip to Paris with my MX.

I took the M24-35, and it was nearly perfect. I did add an aftermarket metal hood, and it worked great.

I also took my A50mm f1.4 that’s optically about the same as the M. Also a good choice, though I antagonized about it vs the M135mm f3.5. Either way probably would have been good. I just would’ve taken different pictures...

Those three have, like most lenses of that vintage, terrific ergonomics with the MX. I almost never use any of them on the K1, for example, but they are great on the MX.

A 20-35 would have been a better range than the 24-35, but maybe not as satisfying in use, if that makes sense.

-Eric

[gofour3]

Another option is an ultra wide & 35mm & 85mm if you do not require a long lens.

Something like this for a kit would be my pick, so you can skip the 50/55mm or use it as your fourth lens:

20mm
35mm
85mm

Phil.

[twilhelm]

It is definitely a nice compact lens with good image quality, but the prices have been steadily rising, with the optically superior A version pushing 200 bucks right now. The M is cheaper but just isn't as good.

I have the A version, and didn’t realize it was optically different from the M.

I always felt I wanted a little wider than the standard 28mm. I’ve had two different Sigma 24mm lenses, which are quite affordable at usually less than $50, and very compact. But I feel the A24-50 is actually better at 24mm, just not as fast of an aperture.

I guess I got lucky getting mine well under $100 in nearly new condition with the original case. But even then, $200 won’t get it from me!

[pathdoc]

Another option is an ultra wide & 35mm & 85mm if you do not require a long lens.

Something like this for a kit would be my pick, so you can skip the 50/55mm or use it as your fourth lens:

20mm
35mm
85mm

Phil.

Not so much to the OP's tastes as he wants primes, but something I considered before rejecting the MX in favour of my S1a on my last trip was:

RMC Tokina 17/3.5

Rikenon-P 35-70 3.4-4.5 zoom

Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5

Thereby giving me three doublings of focal length (or as near to it as makes no difference) with only three lenses carried. The only bad thing about this would have been the lack of a fast fifty for low light or narrow DOF.

[TwoUptons]

I also have the A24-50, and it’s the one that goes on anything automated.

From 24-35 I’ve never seen a significant difference between it and the 24-35, though I’ve also never really quantified it.

And while the automation advantage goes away with the MX, it does go to 50mm, which makes up for the extra length somewhat...

I was going to sell the 24-35 two years ago when I got the 24-50 but didn’t when KEH offered me $22 for it. I’m glad I kept it...

-Eric

[baro-nite]

K24/2.8 is more compact.

That was a favorite of mine, as is the optically-similar A version. I say "was" a favorite only because I returned it under warranty from the seller due to a problem with the diaphragm. I still have the A and it remains a favorite.

[K-Three]

If you are at all interested in macro/close up work, consider the M100ƒ/4 Macro,
Only 2:1 without extra extension, but a good, sharp, short tele, and more versitile than you would expect.
About the only downside is the slow max aperture.
Very compact for what it will do,
It was my "standard" lens on both my MX & LX back in the day.

Agree with others about larger lenses, the winder helps balance, but then you really get away from the compact form factor.

[leekil]

M20/4
FA43

It's hard to say what your third lens should be. If you are actually considering a et of "normal" primes, then you don't mind some duplication in focal lengths, so the third lens could be one of:

40mm -- for when you really want an extra small kit
M50/1.2 -- for extra low light capabilities
M50/1.4 -- if you want a cheaper large aperture

[JimD]

With my two MX's I always had my M20/4, M50/1.4 and M100/2.8. I had a few others but those were the 3 that I used the most.

I've actually still got the cameras and lenses. All bought new in the late seventies and early eighties.

[savoche]

With my two MX's I always had my M20/4, M50/1.4 and M100/2.8.

This sounds like a good combo to me. If I should go with something I have it would have to be A20/2.8 (or K24/2.8), K50/1-2, and M135/3.5