[Derek]

+1 for the FA 77. Small and light, but oh, so sharp. I bought one off list member "monochrome" and I'm very pleased with it.

[southlander]

I also shot with a M120/2.8 on full frame during this May’s Single in challenge, the same month ihieramo used his M120/2.8.

I agree with ihieramo’s comments. The M120 is a pleasure to use: light, compact and a built-in hood. After fine tuning the Apply All focus adjustment on my K-1 the focus confirmation beep on the K-1 was quite reliable all month for sharp focus.

Like iheiramo I found F4 an ideal aperture. F4 clears away a slight softness that the lens has wide open while the bokeh remains nice (but with specular highlights revealing the aperture shape). It simply renders nicely and can create some lovely 3D pop with the right subject.

There is some purple fringing but more controlled than some of the other film era manual glass and generally cleans up quickly in post processing. Probably not an issue shooting on film. Longitudinal aberations are considerably better managed than the M135/2.8.

Ok but not fabulously sharp at infinity - l think Pentax prioritised short to mid-distance sharpness with the short tele lenses developed with portraiture in mind.

I really enjoyed using the M120/2.8 during the May challenge. As the June challenge draws towards a close with my use of a M series zoom, I miss using the M120.

[splash_fr]

The 77 is really nice, as is the 100/2.8 macro.
All the Samyang lenses are great: 135/2 et. al.
Or you could get Leice R lenses and convert the mount to Pentax K. I used to use an old 90/2 and liked it quite a lot.

Or you could get them all! Happy shooting,
gerd.

[Wojciech]

Haha, yes, the 77 (especially the silver one) would look great on the K1000. I didn't mention any budget, so formally it is a valid suggestion

[Papa_Joe]

Perhaps the M 85 / 2.0 ??
IQ is quite good, it is small and light and still affordable.

If you like the 135 mm as a focal length, I would suggest you to think about buying a M 3.5/135 mm as well. Good IQ, very small and lightweight. If you are lucky you can get it in first class condition for around 40 EUR on fleabay.

[clackers]

Perhaps the M 85 / 2.0 ??
IQ is quite good, it is small and light and still affordable.

I have one. It's good stopped down, which is what landscapes are all about. Wide open, it's only 'sharp enough;, and it can be made to generate lots of purple CA.

But none of those old 85s are cheap. The normal secondhand prices are high compared to say, 50mm, or 28mm. It's almost better to save a little longer and pay some more for a second hand FA77 and get all of its benefits, including autofocus, IMHO.

[pres589]

The M 85 f2 may not be the best thing wide open but I don't mind that so much when shooting film. I like my copy well enough but I never seem to grab it and instead go for my Tamron 90 f2.5. The size of the M 85 is nice and is why I bought it originally.

[Wojciech]

Last year I was seriously considering the M85/2 as a portrait lens but I could only find "experienced" copies that were above 160 euro. The ones in a very good state were well above 200. Since I was not too desperate to have another portrait lens I finally gave up on that one.
I fully agree with Clackers that it is better to spend more money on a better lens than less money on a worse one. I just can’t rationalize myself spending as much as they ask for a FA77 regardless I have the money or not.

[johnha]

I have the M135/3.5 (small & light) & K135/2.5 (bigger & heavier), neither is long enough for me. I also have the M75-150/4 & M80-200/4.5 - both too big for my small bag. Of these only the K135/2.5 is fairly expensive, the others were £20-£30 each.

I ended up going for the M150/3.5, as the best compromise of focal length, aperture, size, weight and cost. Although as mentioned, they're not very common.

[SSGGeezer]

Why, the FA77 Ltd, of course!

That is exactly what I was going to say! IQ, rendering, works with film cameras. Build is amazing. Portraits and landscape? Done.

[Wojciech]

I have an update: I got an M100/2.8. My initial impressions on handling are quite good - it seems to be easier to focus in the viewfinder compared to my 135mm JC Penney – my guess is that it is a combination of a more accurate focus ring and a higher light transmission (or just clarity).
It was really nice to see all the suggestions from you. What I really liked was to learn that even though in the reviews, the M100 has a higher numerical rating than M120, it was actually the latter one that is regarded as the “better” one by those who own both lenses. A great example of how numbers in user’s reviews can be misleading.
Although initially the M120/2.8 was my favorite, I settled on the M100/2.8 simply because it was for sale in the city I live in. But since it was a winner in the weight category and also was a bit further away from the 135 in focal length than the M120/2.8, I am happy with it. It will take a while though before I will finish my first roll with it and have it developed, so I have to wait with the final judgement.
Stay safe,
Wojciech