[Cabessius]

M 50mm f/1.4.
Photography is my main hobby and this lens is to blame for it.

5 years ago I bought my first DSLR, the K30.
It came with the 18-55 and the 55-300 DAL kit lenses, which I liked a lot, specially the tele zoom.
Got some nice pictures with them, but one year later I felt kinda bored.
Then I came across this M and when I touched it... Instant love.
Since then, lots of manual primes checked in at home. But Taks, Ks and Ms are the ones I like most.

My "M" lenses:
28mm f/3.5
40mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.7
100mm f/4.0
135mm f/3.5
200mm f/4.0

[stevebrot]

I haven't needed to do that with mine as it's still very firm

Same here...no problems to date.


Steve

[Gimbal]

On my K-5 II I try to just trust the red blinking focus confirmation light.

You do know that the focus confirmation light is green though...

[pres589]

You do know that the focus confirmation light is green though...

Point of focus in the view-able section of the viewfinder is red. Green octagon at the bottom of the viewfinder is, well, green. I always use center point focus for this kind of situation.

[jcdoss]

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.

Ultimately, this is the point of almost any hobby, right? Once you declare yourself an expert, it becomes a job!

And I own almost every M- series lens and many Ks. Manual-only here. I love the tactile experience of shooting these lenses. Some have iffy IQ wide open, but aren't they supposed to? At least that was expected back in the day.

Modern lenses are just too huge for my tastes. And so are their prices.

Monochrome, do not mention the A*200 Macro I'm hunting for!

Cheers!

[Gimbal]

Point of focus in the view-able section of the viewfinder is red. Green octagon at the bottom of the viewfinder is, well, green. I always use center point focus for this kind of situation.

Right, and the green octagon is the focus confirmation light.
The red dot only indicates which focus point was used, not if you are in focus.

[jcdoss]

...It's too bad that there isn't a prime in the M range between the 50's and the 85. A small, fast 70mm would be nice sometimes.

I forgot to mention that I've used the M50/1.7 with a 1.4x-S TC frequently. You end up with a 70mm f/2.4 lens that is a little heavier and longer than the FA 77mm. IQ actually is pretty good two clicks down. Wide open, it's not good, but I haven't done much to compare the bare lens vs TC at wide open. I have considered getting a different TC since I never have been particularly impressed with the 1.4x-S anyway.

I remain on the hunt for the A*200 macro, and am considering a 'matching' A 100 macro since it goes to 1:1 (no, it doesn't go to eleven... it goes to 1:1). I'm convinced neither is worth the cost though... I'm admitted sufferer of GAS.

[lytrytyr]

I forgot to mention that I've used the M50/1.7 with a 1.4x-S TC frequently. You end up with a 70mm f/2.4 lens.

Ah, so that's how the DA Limited telephoto got its parameters!

[southlander]

Don't know much about the M series .

Just haven't had the time to try them out all that much on the K-1 as yet, sadly.

Most use to date has been on APS-C.

Each has its own quirks and character. Just plain fun/interesting to compare lenses across a single series. Do need somewhat different post processing technique compared to newer optimised for digital lenses.

The tele lenses have their share of colour fringing typical for their era but with care can be kept to levels that post processing can successfully deal with.

A few posts have discussed the M200/4.

I have a couple of M200/4's. Originally wasn't that impressed with the M200/4 but the newer to me copy seems sharper/better than the other. Just missing focus on the M200/4 by a smudge significantly detracts from the perceived image quality. Focussed well I like the second M200/4's rendering.

[cyberjunkie]

I just realised I have very few M lenses.
I sold most of them back in the eighties, including two objectives I should have kept: 2/85mm and 4/20mm. Both are among the best M lenses, and still well worth considering, cause they are quite special, each in its own way.
I'm not missing very much the others, cause they were either replaced with their "A" counterparts, or were not top quality (sorry, I prefer the A 4/200mm to the M 4/200mm, and the K 2.5/135mm to the M 3.5/135mm).
In the end, only four M glasses were left, the f/1.7 and f/1.4 50mm, the 40mm pancake, and the 2.8/100mm.
In hindsight, I should have kept the 20mm and the 85mm. Together with the M* 4/300mm they are the top trio of M lenses. They definitely punch well above their weight
An honorary mention for the 40mm pancake.
The difference with the Limited is quite small, and the average price has gone down lately, making it a worthy acquisition if you are looking for an inconspicuous lens for street photography.

[southlander]

@cyberjunkie. Yes I agree the 85/2 is a great lens (once you get over the tendency for it to blue fringe at F2 in high contrast settings). The colours from the 20/4 can really be quite something and in a way not shared with any other M prime lens I have. My copy is not great for distance detail though. Not a lens for panoramas. Much more suited for images where the subject of interest is reasonably close. I planned to get my 20/4 CLA'd to see if that improves resolution. It could simply have evaporated volatiles from the internal lubricants that have over time deposited onto the elements. I had this problem with my M35/2. It was a completely different lens once cleaned. The 120/2.8 is a bit of a sleeper - much better aberration control than the 135/3.5 yet very little given away in reach. My M40/2.8 is ridiculously sharp stopped down. I can create moire with it from the centre out to near frame edge on the K-1. Mine would seem much sharper than many reviews suggest.