[pid]

why not the FA 43 Ltd.? It is a small and legendary lens with pixie dust

[kypfer]

Ricoh made a full frame pancake 28mm f3.5 aspherical lens years ago.
It wasn't terribly fast, and I've heard it has issues with element separation, but it commands a very high price used.
So it is possible...and I wouldn't mind one...
-Eric

Fascinating!
I was unaware of that. Presumably it had some quite sophisticated glass in it to achieve that … possibly why it was only f/3.5 … less glass, to keep the price down!
Given the current Ricoh/Pentax relationship, it might be nice if they re-released it

[Kerrowdown]

28ish/2.8ish pancake to walk around with

Here's my aptly named "Street Lady" Pentax-A 28mm F2.8 with an "unholy alliance"

She's wee... but not pancake.

[Kobayashi.K]

I can also recommend the SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8. It is very sharp actually despite some critical reviews in the lens database. However, you must suppress the urge to omit the hood to keep this lens small. In this case a hood is essential to keep your contrast up. A beautiful combination is the metal MH-RA 49 screw-in hood (from the FA 43mm F1.9 Lim) which is much smaller than de square hood shown by Kerrowdown (Post #7).

[pepperberry farm]

Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2 SL II

dynamite pancake that does all the things that the SMC M 40/2.8 does.... but more....

this is it beside the DA 40 Limited:





Minolta did a nice pancake way back, too - the Rokkor-X 45mm f2 - tiny little thing...



(I do not use this lens on my Pentax bodies, however)

[northcoastgreg]

If you don't mind manual focus, the M & A lenses

Yes, several of the M primes are remarkably oompact — even if they don't quite meet "pancake" standards of slimness. The M 20/4 is remarkable svelte for such a wide angle lens.

[wadge22]

Olympus made some pretty slick wide angle 'just-barely-not-quite-pancake' lenses for OM mount, too, if I'm not mistaken.

[kiwi_jono]

The FA 43 f1.9 Ltd is a great lens and is basically a pancake.

Also I have a FA28 f2.8 which, while not actually a pancake, is pretty darn small.

[jgnfld]

My 40mm is a wonderful lens for rendering golden/blue/winter season low sun (47N Lat--don't know what your latitude is).

[Sandy Hancock]

Although the OP is after something in the 28mm range, this thread has evolved into a discussion about full frame pancake lenses in general.

So I'll mention the K 17/4.0 Fish-eye. Again, it's not quite a pancake, but you'll struggle to find a more compact lens of its type. With it, the FA28, one of the 40-43mm choices, and the DA70 Limited (which is *nearly* full frame), you're set!

[yucatanPentax]

Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2 SL II

dynamite pancake that does all the things that the SMC M 40/2.8 does.... but more....

this is it beside the DA 40 Limited:



Minolta did a nice pancake way back, too - the Rokkor-X 45mm f2 - tiny little thing...



(I do not use this lens on my Pentax bodies, however)

Clever -- Thin Mint cookies to measure the height of Thin Lenses.
Both seem like great lenses. It's a shame there's no way to get Minolta, Olympus, etc, lenses to work suitably on our Pentax bodies.

[wadge22]

It's a shame there's no way to get Minolta, Olympus, etc, lenses to work suitably on our Pentax bodies.

Leitax does sell mount conversions for Olympus lenses to K mount, so it should be doable for that make, at least. Not that I see much reason for all that effort just to get a wide pancake lens similar to the Pentax M offerings.

Now if I happened to stumble upon an under-priced Zuiko 250mm f2.0 on some dusty shelf at Goodwill, I would probably change my tune...

[yucatanPentax]

Leitax does sell mount conversions for Olympus lenses to K mount, so it should be doable for that make, at least. Not that I see much reason for all that effort just to get a wide pancake lens similar to the Pentax M offerings.

Now if I happened to stumble upon an under-priced Zuiko 250mm f2.0 on some dusty shelf at Goodwill, I would probably change my tune...

Interesting to know. I see an Olympus to Pentax mount converter runs around $70 USD before shipping or the lens itself. If I had a couple treasured Olympus lenses already, I might be tempted to try the conversion. My most vintage lenses are already M42 or K-mounts. There were Minolta lenses back in the day which were supposed to be really good (but I forget which). And then, I used an Olympus rangefinder for years, but not an SLR. Thanks for the link!

[TwoUptons]

There is also a Chinon 45mm f2.8 pancake that isn't bad.
I've found it decent on film but far inferior to the 40 xs on digital.
And it has an aperture ring for older cameras.

Based on what I've seen with the Pentax M-40mm, I would buy that if the prices were close, but I got the Chinon for about half of what those were going for at the time, and I'm happy with that bargain.

-Eric

[shyrsio]

From the ergonomic pov I would advise the M 4/2.8. It sits perfectly in the body of the K1. There are people who say its difficult to focus, but I find quite easy.