[Matt_Dodwell_UK]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

But the OP could come into the light and change to Pentax

Haha maybe. I'll do some research into Pentax digital cameras, especially full frame, but I keep spending on Pentax lenses for the SP500 and MX, so don't have much left for a new Pentax body and len(s) :-)

My reasoning for Fuji really is form factor over much else, I love the connection to film slr set ups with the shutter dial on top, aperture rings etc. I like to not go into the menus etc.

---------- Post added 01-08-18 at 11:11 AM ----------

...now when you do a search for threads on the modern versions of this lens, which are just this side of 'magical', you'll be confronted with "Are they really this bad'?

Here's how awful mine is at iso 3200, handheld...

Cheers,
Cameron

Awesome. Is this with a digital Pentax Full Frame and 40mm lens?

[pschlute]

The M 40mm f2.8 was of its era. That is it was designed to be small to compliment the MX. That meant compromises were made in its design. If you want a sharper lens of the same era get one of the 50's. If you want to get a lens that epitomizes the era it was made then get the M40mm. Simple as that.

[k0og]

Matt,

A little story...

I got my copy free (just paid for shipping) because the cement holding together the doublet lens element was separating. After disassembly I was able to soak the doublet in solvent to separate and clean the failed cement from the doublet, and reassembled it with a tiny droplet of mineral oil between the doublet elements, instead of lens cement. This was several years ago, and it's still in perfect working condition.

My copy is quite sharp, and I have no complaints. It indeed makes for an excellent lightweight option with a small camera body like the MX. An example is attached (Pentax MX, Pentax-M 40mm f2.8, Kodak Tri-X @ ISO400 processed in Rodinal 1+100 for 60 minutes semi-stand).

-Joe-

P.S. I suspect some reasons for bad reviews are that it is manual focus with a very narrow focus ring, and it's usually over-priced in the various marketplaces as compared to prices for 35mm and 50mm lenses. Neither of these reasons affected me, so I give it a somewhat high rating.

[robgski]

Haha maybe. I'll do some research into Pentax digital cameras, especially full frame, but I keep spending on Pentax lenses for the SP500 and MX, so don't have much left for a new Pentax body and len(s) :-)

My reasoning for Fuji really is form factor over much else, I love the connection to film slr set ups with the shutter dial on top, aperture rings etc. I like to not go into the menus etc.?

if you like manual controls at hand without having to dive into menus, you really should look at the Pentax DSLRs, I bought my K-5 for just that reason, especially because I have a lot of Manual glass from my K-1000 days.

I own a M40mm, Iam very pleased with both its size and the results, I paid about US $ 100 for it.

[aslyfox]

Haha maybe. I'll do some research into Pentax digital cameras, especially full frame, but I keep spending on Pentax lenses for the SP500 and MX, so don't have much left for a new Pentax body and len(s) :-) . . .

not trying to cause trouble

[ the heck I'm not ]

and I am not sure if it would be available in the OP's area or if shipping costs would be prohibited but

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/94-pentax-price-watch/358830-pentax-k-1-1799-a.html

and you could check the market place " buy/sell " above

[microlight]

That's a fine portrait, Cameron.

[LensBeginner]

Well, the optical design should be the same for both the M and the XS lenses, I checked that just a couple of days ago.
Number of aperture blades is different (5 vs 9), and don't know what else.

[Matt_Dodwell_UK]

I have just had a look on Flickr (sorry can't add link) on a SMC Pentax-M 40mm 1:2.8 group and there are some images taken with this lens and on an MX that are very pleasing.

I'm going to have wider look, but I quite fancy getting one, not that I'm don't already have enough lenses :-)

I've had a look around my usually vintage camera shops (online) here in the UK and can only find one for sale at £75 in (excellent condition). It seems a little expensive to me, maybe if it was excellent+ condition (their rating system is user/avg/excellent/excellent+). I've had a few lenses from them in Excellent and Excellent+ and I've been very happy with them, but it all depends on the price.

[Kevin B123]

If you had a Super A or newer, you could use the DA40 on it in program mode, just saying

[murrelet]

I have just seen a photo of the Pentax MX with 40mm 2.8 Pancake lens. It looks like a tech piece of art :-).

I also love 40mm focal length and used to shot the Voigtlander 40mm f2 Nikon mount for my old FM (miss that lens).

I've just read some reviews on it and it seems to be a bit of a duff lens. Is this really the case or are we to obsessed with perfect sharpness etc. Does it have any qualities to make it worth shooting with?

Or should I leave it well alone.

The SMC-M 40mm is a great lens when paired with any M series body. Almost pocketable; a great travel combination. Not a low light performer. But how often do you go below F2.8? Some samples below. These were probably F5.6-F11. Can't comment on how well it performs at F2.8

[boriscleto]

If you're really into pancake lenses you should look into adapting the Konica AR Hexanon 40/1.8 to your Fuji

www.buhla.de - Konica Hexanon AR 40 mm / F1.8

There's the Ricoh XR Rikenon 45/2.8 in K-mount too. Good luck finding one at an affordable price...

Chinon had a 45mm pancake too.

VERY RARE PENTAX K / PK MOUNT AUTO CHINON 45mm f/2.8 PANCAKE PRIME LENS | eBay

And the FA 43mm F1.9 Limited is basically a pancake I'm sure it would look very nice on an MX, and it has an aperture ring

[gofour3]

The M40/2.8 is a great little lens for use on a film camera. (Though a bit hard to focus because of its size). Optics are also pretty good.

The newer DA version is probably better for the digital world.

Phil.

[murrelet]

If you're really into pancake lenses you should look into adapting the Konica AR Hexanon 40/1.8 to your Fuji

www.buhla.de - Konica Hexanon AR 40 mm / F1.8

There's the Ricoh XR Rikenon 45/2.8 in K-mount too. Good luck finding one at an affordable price...

Chinon had a 45mm pancake too.

VERY RARE PENTAX K / PK MOUNT AUTO CHINON 45mm f/2.8 PANCAKE PRIME LENS | eBay

And the FA 43mm F1.9 Limited is basically a pancake I'm sure it would look very nice on an MX, and it has an aperture ring

I can vouch for the Auto Chinon (not the precise copy in the linked ad). I prefer it slightly to the SMC-M pancake. An example from the Chinon

[clickclick]

How about throwing a 43 Limited into the mix? A nice slim profile that bridges film to a future DSLR nicely.

[Piotrek K]

I only used M40 on APSC - it is really fine IQ - wise starting from f 4.5. But I prefer using this with mirrorless, not with DSLR.