[ZombieArmy]

Hard to beat the Ms in terms of value for the frugal photographer. But judging by pictures I've seen and some of my own experiences there's a few misses, like I generally dislike my M200 F4. However judging by a lot of people's pictures the M75-150 zoom is a lens I really want to add to my collection.

[pschlute]

Hard to beat the Ms in terms of value for the frugal photographer. But judging by pictures I've seen and some of my own experiences there's a few misses, like I generally dislike my M200 F4. However judging by a lot of people's pictures the M75-150 zoom is a lens I really want to add to my collection.

I like my M 200 mm a lot.



---------- Post added 04-09-18 at 05:58 AM ----------

Yes, but then if Pentax was going to break form and become logical,
why wouldn't the 24/2.8 be called an "M", despite its 52mm filter size?

1976/1977 was when the M series lenses came into being. The "K" 24/2.8 was also released in 1977. There was already a "K" 24/3.5 in existence and I presume the "K" 24/2.8 was originally planned as a "K" lens, and was thus released as such.

[Take-5-JB]

Dewman,

I have the M100 f2.8 and like it very much.

I have the A35-105 f3.5 and like very much. I have the K55 f1.8 and like it very much. I have the M42 version of the 55 f1.8 and the 300 f4. I have numerous third party M42 and K mount lenses. Every lens I have seems to work well on all my Pentax DSLRs. I think if you stay away from the absolute dogs in the lens review section of our website, you can find something to like about most and some deficencies for many of them. If you like manual use them. I use my A lenses in complete manual.

JB

[iheiramo]

I love my M's

I bought my first M' lenses for the low price. Liked what I got and wanted a set of primes to cover shooting from wide to tele. Then I wanted to upgrade my lenses to the best in line. Then I found the Single In Challenge on the forum and decided to get also the rest of them to have lenses to shoot thru. Still missing a few lenses.

Every single one of the lenses has been well worth the money I have paid for them, but I have no experience with other legacy series. I have understood that you can find better IQ in all focal lengths, but M version is always the cheapest and typically smallest. I have been satisfied with the results I get and can't see no reason to go into more expensive lenses at this point in my hobby, but this, of course, might chance if my skills advance.

My current travel kit is: DA21ltd, M35/2, one of the M50/1.4/1.7/4, M85/2, M120/2.8 and M*300/4 when supertele is needed. At the moment I'm so used to shooting manual that all the automation in 21 feels awkward and I use it in manual mode except AF sometimes.

Finland is a small and expensive market, so these can probably be found cheaper elsewhere. Prices include post costs.

M28/2.8: 40€


M28/3.5: 50€


M35/2: 232€


M50/1.4: 90€


M50/1.7: 60€


M50/4: 147€


M85/2: 306€


M100/2.8: 120€


M100/4: 20€ Post only. Gift from Pentaxforums member.


M120/2.8: 157€


M135/3.5: 35€


M200/4: 49€


M*300/4: 341€

[savoche]

might chance if my skills advance.

..because, obviously, your skills are sorely lacking

Very nice examples. TFS!

[iheiramo]

..because, obviously, your skills are sorely lacking

Never settle. There are still things to learn. And so far I haven't made any money with my photography. Until I do the difference between M series primes and the very best lenses ain't enough to justify the cost.
But who knows, I might want the DFA*50 someday despite the cost. No matter how unreasonable that is

[savoche]

Never settle. There are still things to learn. And so far I haven't made any money with my photography. Until I do the difference between M series primes and the very best lenses ain't enough to justify the cost.
But who knows, I might want the DFA*50 someday despite the cost. No matter how unreasonable that is

Wise words. The day I think I have nothing more to learn in photography is the day I find a new hobby. Not likely to happen any decade soon.

In my experience the technical quality of a lens doesn't help me with taking better pictures. Enjoying the process of photography, though, results in better pictures. Of course, sometimes it can be inspiration in knowng that you have the best gear available. And then it can be quite frustrating when you still fail - and no longer can blame the gear

[deus ursus]

I'd pick an M lens before an A lens in the same focal length just for the looks! The M lenses look so good that the lack of in-body aperture control doesn't bother me. If the exposure is a bit 'off', I can always save it in post. I just need to slow down my shooting with those lenses.

[pres589]

At least on a current-ish DSLR, I don't mind an aperture ring nearly as much as not having AF. I have good eyesight but getting shots focused properly, reliably, isn't very easy. Even with a good split prism focusing screen SLR.

[monochrome]

At least on a current-ish DSLR, I don't mind an aperture ring nearly as much as not having AF. I have good eyesight but getting shots focused properly, reliably, isn't very easy. Even with a good split prism focusing screen SLR.

I just deal with limitations. There are fewer of them now. Since I got the K-1, here is my experience manual focusing lenses:

1. The larger K-1 viewfinder helps
2. The larger the lens maximum aperture, the better.
3. Less noise at higher ISO allows smaller apertures while maintaining faster shutter speed
4. Shooting at a smaller aperture like f/5.6 allows a deeper zone of focus
5. In a pinch I use Magnified LiveView with articulated screen and Outdoor setting
6. Having cataract lens replacement surgery* really helped a lot. I can even shoot Right Eye again.

* Probably the most important factor after the K-1 viewfinder.

[pres589]

Magnified Live View is great although I feel silly having to hold my camera like it's a smartphone to take a shot. On my K-5 II I try to just trust the red blinking focus confirmation light. On the SLR I've been using lately I just have to remind myself to take my time and not be lazy. I shoot in low light too much to touch an aperture like f5.6.

[ZombieArmy]

Just bought a pentax M 100mm f/4 macro for a rather good price on fleabay. Let's see how it stacks up!

[cyberjunkie]

I love my M's

M28/3.5: 50€

Very good price for a nice lens that sits very close to the top in Pentax 28mm's rankings.
Your pic shows that.

It's one of the M lenses I sold back in the eighties to buy faster (or "A" enabled) alternatives.
Shot at its sweet spot it's as good, or maybe even a tad sharper, than the expensive 2/28mm "Hollywood" that replaced it in my kit back then.
Of course the Zeiss-designed 2/28mm is faster, and provides better bokeh and optimal performance at close range, but the huge difference in price does not correspond to a similar difference in performance, IQ wise.
On average M lenses have a great price/performance ratio, and are solidly built without being heavy or bulky.
IMO the best ones are the two faster fifties, then 4/20mm, 3.5/28mm, 2/85mm, 2.8/100mm. Plus the 300mm Star.
These are the best, among those I own/owned.
I'm sure there are others, but I haven't tried them, so I can't express any personal opinion.

[Mikesul]

I am surprised that JCDoss has not weighed in since he is an M series specialist.

[ChristianRock]

Except for zoom creep. My copy was so bad to be almost useless. If the lens wasn't level the zoom would slide like a well lubed trombone. I absolutely
had to hold the focus/zoom barrel at all times to avoid creep. I'll admit I prefer primes as a general rule and thus my experience with K/A/M series zooms is
very limited, starting and ending with the A 70-210/4. However, that zoom creep was bad enough to make me wary of ANY zoom with a push/pull zoom
barrel.

Otherwise, very nice comparison of the M & A series.

You can tighten up the barrel so it doesn't creep. I haven't needed to do that with mine as it's still very firm, but from what I've read it's not a complicated process.

I'll have to do it to a 60-300mm third party lens that I bought recently, though. That one does creep quite a bit.