[ebahle]

43 limited is the only lens anyone needs

[florian-sdr]

take a good look at the Voigtlander Ultron 40/2.8... I'm not quite sure what you meant by the bokeh is just so-so.....

Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2 SL II | Flickr

Uhhh, nice! Thank you, I was obviously wrong about the bokeh. I am just debating with myself, if I were to get the Voigtlander, if I should get it for Pentax or for Nikon...

[Sjak]

I know when I travel with my zoom lens on that most of my photos tend to be 24mm and 35-40mm.

Maybe I will give it a second thought to get a not so fast lens, the consensus seems to be that some f2.8 to f3.5 lenses are overall a better package?

If you're looking for a compact 24mm, the Tokina RMC 24mm 2.8 is nice and affordable, I use it a lot on my ME and K1000.

Re. aperture: if 2.8-3.5 is OK, why not simply stick to your M 40 2.8? Its compact size makes it a more or less pocketable combination when mounted on an ME or similar body. Or is there something about the M 40 2.8 that you are not happy with?

[florian-sdr]

If you're looking for a compact 24mm, the Tokina RMC 24mm 2.8 is nice and affordable, I use it a lot on my ME and K1000.

Re. aperture: if 2.8-3.5 is OK, why not simply stick to your M 40 2.8? Its compact size makes it a more or less pocketable combination when mounted on an ME or similar body. Or is there something about the M 40 2.8 that you are not happy with?

In actually don't have that lens. Quality at f2.8 and f4 is so-so from what I hear, bokeh isn't great and it's fidgety to use.

43 limited is the only lens anyone needs

I will see if I can try it out somewhere

[Papa_Joe]

Within reason of weight and size, a faster lens is usually a better choice, as it reaches the sweet spot also at a faster aperture. An f2 lens has its sweet spot likely at f4 or f5.6, while an f2.8 lens has it's sweet spot at f5.6 or f8. While with digital nowadays, especially with AI noise removal, you can easily shoot in ISO1600 and higher without many drawbacks. With film, you are running around most of the time with an ISO 100 - 400 film.

As an general assumption, that is not true. A lot of 2.8 lenses have their sweet spot at 5.6 as well. Some even earlier. The DA version of the Pentax 40/2.8 is sharp over the whole frame (on APS-C) wide open. The DA 70/2.4 leaves the FA 77/1.8 behind at 2.4.

[tonyzoc]

I assume you're using a K1 or K1ii since all your suggestions are full frame glass. The high end fast lenses, like the 50/1.4 DFA or Sigma 35/1.4 Art are big lenses. The 31mm is a nice lens, fast and compact though not inexspensive, or the older, but still good, 50 f1.4 FA or 35 f2 FA are good choices.

Yes, I'd buy a 40mm f/2 for Pentax full frame if available. I've got the Nikon Z 40/2 on my Z5 and it an inexpensive, sharp and compact lens. I don't have a K1, but I'm waiting for a K1iii. Currently the only FF DSLR I have is a Nikon D700.

[Sjak]

I assume you're using a K1 or K1ii since all your suggestions are full frame glass. The high end fast lenses, like the 50/1.4 DFA or Sigma 35/1.4 Art are big lenses.

As I understood the thread, the lenses would be used on a film camera. On those, these 2 lenses will not work.

For the K-1, these make sense indeed, but make sure there's a solid return policy when purchasing one of these.

[HoundFrog]

Does sharpness even matter that much when shooting film? The focusing accuracy will be not as good as with the LV. The film resolution is also a limiting factor. Plus, scanning will add more errors (and aggravate the grain). Analogue printing won't make photos sharper either.

I wouldn't consider lens sharpness as a factor here (unless it's a really hazy, decentered etc. specimen)

---------- Post added 05-12-23 at 09:53 AM ----------

43 limited is the only lens anyone needs

The limited part is correct, but there's a typo in 31.

[florian-sdr]

I assume you're using a K1 or K1ii since all your suggestions are full frame glass. The high end fast lenses, like the 50/1.4 DFA or Sigma 35/1.4 Art are big lenses. The 31mm is a nice lens, fast and compact though not inexspensive, or the older, but still good, 50 f1.4 FA or 35 f2 FA are good choices.

Yes, I'd buy a 40mm f/2 for Pentax full frame if available. I've got the Nikon Z 40/2 on my Z5 and it an inexpensive, sharp and compact lens. I don't have a K1, but I'm waiting for a K1iii. Currently the only FF DSLR I have is a Nikon D700.

Alright, Forum Pros!

Thanks for all the input. For now I did follow the advice to not be too concerned about the max aperture. In the end I went for the SMC M 35 f2.8, as this has the best reviews regarding image quality and bokeh. I got it for a fairly good price, around £80.

I will see if I pick up a 43mm then as well soon, maybe.

Thank you all!

And yes, @tonyzoc, I currently shoot Pentax only on film, having sold my *istDs and K20D over 10 years ago. Maybe I'll look into a K1 at some point, right now I just switched from Canon to Fuji for digital photography, but I have a lot of Pentax prime lenses (24x2, 28, 35, 50x3, 55, 100, 135x2), so a K1 would make sense for me

[pres589]

In actually don't have that lens. Quality at f2.8 and f4 is so-so from what I hear, bokeh isn't great and it's fidgety to use.

Your post here had me wondering. So I grabbed my copy of the M 40, which I believe is in very good condition optically, and my Fuji X-H1 which I've been using a lot lately with my manual k-mount glass. Went looking for a subject that might be useful outside so a bit of bright light and busy background rendering could be evaluated. The images are crops to show what I think would be the most interesting and cropped down to the max 1280 x 1024 allowed without resize by this forum's photo gallery.


These were taken as RAW's with no correction but there is a mild film simulation applied. I wasn't using a tripod so the subject moved a bit in relation to the camera. I think it's still useful. Again, this is a crop body camera with a 24mpix sensor, so this should be as demanding as almost anything from Pentax or film would ask of the lens.

f2.8, at minimum focusing distance on the lens;




f5.6, at minimum focusing distance;



f11, at minimum focusing distance;




I wish I could have used an FA 43 for this exact same subject, because from what I've seen, it would have made that somewhat busy background even more erratically rendered. My issues with this lens are; it's too small to easily focus quickly, like the feature is actually a fault. And I wish it was faster, at least f2, if not something like an f1.7, because I really wish I could use this hand held in low lighting situations. And f2.8 is just too slow for film to pull that off in my hands with my abilities as they stand today with film. I *love* this focal length on a full frame camera; Nikon coming out with a 40mm f2. for the Z is, like, perfection. If they had a 90mm f2 1:2 macro....

p.s. From what I've seen of the DA 40 XS and Ltd., they will render everything just slightly nicer than the M 40. And they work pretty well on full frame. This is why I recommend these lenses for a full frame shooter as long as they're cognizant of the limitations of an f2.8 max aperture. And they're autofocusing so the whole "this lens is too small to use easily" issues are largely gone.

[florian-sdr]

For completion, a few sample crops and images from the SMC M 35mm f2.8:

35mm-test hosted at ImgBB ? ImgBB

Download to be able to zoom in 100%

This is on a Fuji X-T4, and surely will look great on my Pentax film cameras

I'm happy

[ryanM]

An always on prime from the early film era of pentax cameras would be, for me, the SMC 35mm f2 or the SMC 50mm f 1.4. I much prefer a 50 over a 35mm though, so I would probably go with the f1.4. I'd run a M version of the 50mm f1.4 too.

I think the image quality of the SMC 35mm f3.5 is better than the f 2, and it is a smaller lens. Very nice for color photography. It is slower and the viewfinder can get a little too dark for my aging eyes though.