Originally posted by analogpics Hello!
I currently have the 35mm f2 SMC-M and was curious if anyone has compared it's optics vs the 35 f2 SMC-A? Noticed it's REALLY glowy wide open, and curious if the A version would basically be the same? If so, wondering how the 2.8 SMC-M and A compare to it? I also have the SMC-M 85 f2 which is so so, but nowhere near as good as my olympus 85 f2 (though better than my nikon 85 f2 ais). The reviews on that lens are pretty stellar on here so wondering if i got a lemon?
I will say, the 50mm 1.7 SMC-M is just about the sharpest manual slr 50mm i've used! Anyways, in regards to the 35 f2 SMC-M, i may try either the SMC-A options, or if nothing else, some of the older K lenses.... 30 2.8 (though i'd prefer a 35 over 30), the 35 f2, or smaller 35 3.5. Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
I have had the M 35/2 for a number of years and on APS-C it is my favourite "normal" manual prime and has served me well for many years. I have often taken it on trips here in Spain and used it as my main lens. It's not sharp wide open but by f/2.8 it's good and that's where I most often used it if I wanted subject isolation.
Last year I bought the A version as a mint copy came up locally for what I considered a reasonable price but earlier this year I changed to a different main camera system and the A went in order to raise funds, so I didn't own it for long. It's possible that it was a better lens than the M but my history and attachment to the M (and it's poorer cosmetic condition and market value) meant that I kept the M. The A was certainly sharper wide open but I didn't have the opportunity to test if the rendering and other qualities were fully up to the standard of the M, so I played it safe and sold the A. Ideally I'd have really liked to do some side-by-side tests but in my few months with the A I concluded:
(1) It's sharper than the M wide open
(2) Bokeh wasn't fantastic (not a surprise for a wide angle) but I can't say if it was any better or worse than the M as I wasn't able to test it in similar conditions
(3) It's a beautiful lens and lovely to use - well built, very smooth focus, nice clicks to the aperture ring
(4) Image quality overall was good, certainly nothing to complain about
The M 35mm f/2.8 is also a good lens and wide open probably on a par with the f/2 at f/2.8 in terms of sharpness. Beware, many report problems of sticky aperture on this model, though my copy doesn't suffer from it.
But if I were to recommend a manual 35mm lens other than the M or A 35/2 it would without doubt be the
Ricoh Rikenon XR 35mm f/2.8. There are two versions of this lens - the second is a re-branded Pentax M and the first (which I have) is an original Ricoh design that can be identified by: an aperture that goes to f/16, 6 blades and minimum focus distance of 35cm. This lens is absolutely superb and I suspect if I test it against the M 35/2 it will trounce it in many respects. It's sharper, has more contrast and is at least as well built. My copy is also in mint condition and a real beauty. Focus is super-smooth.
Here are the links to my Flickr albums for each though the A and Rikenon albums don't have many photos since I've owned them for much less time.
M 35/2:
Pentax M 35mm f/2 | Flickr
A 35/2:
Pentax A 35mm f/2 | Flickr
Rikenon 35/2.8:
Ricoh XR Rikenon 35mm f/2.8 | Flickr * * * * * *
The K 30mm f/2.8 I bought this year and haven't used much. I can tell you that the bokeh is worse than any of the aforementioned 35mm lenses and that I suspect it's less sharp at f/2.8, at least outside of the centre. For what it costs you could get an M 35/2 or maybe an A 35/2 and I'd say they're both better lenses.
* * * * * *
The M 85/2 is a great lens but not super-sharp wide open where it suffers a loss of contrast and rather extreme blue fringing in high-contrast elements of a scene. Stop it down a little and it has superb rendering, nice bokeh and probably the most "3D feel" of any lens I've used. I'd never sell mine.