[florian-sdr]

Hi all!

I would like to get an "always on" prime lens for my travel and general film photography, and wonder which is best?

I do like the 40mm focal length, but since I intend to use it for film, I do want a faster aperture than the SMC M 40mm f2.8 pancake.

I have been looking at the K series 35mm f2, the M (or A) series 35mm f2, the 43mm f1.9 limited, and the Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f2

I want to use it as a standard lens, some travel, landscape, people (not close up portraits, more full body or half body), city, etc...

I have several manual focus Pentax camera bodies, so a good manual focus performance is a must.

I have a sigma 24mm, Pentax 28mm, 50mm and 135mm. With a 43mm I could maybe be alright with just the 24mm and 135mm as companion, with a 35mm I would take a 50mm with me in addition. 28mm is my least favourite length in the lineup.

Out of all of them the verdict seems to be:

K 35: some say it's sharper than the M, some say the opposite, what gives? It is supposed to be a bit narrower than the M (good for me), and have less vignetting. Bokeh looks good.


M 35: lighter, but mixed reviews, some say the K is sharper, some say the M 35mm f2.8 is sharper when stopped down to the same aperture.

FA and DFA 35: focus throw supposed to be difficult for manual focus

43mm limited: almost too long? Sharpness is less compared to the Voigtländer (allegedly)? Bokeh is OK to good. How is the manual focus experience on a film camera?

Voigtländer 40mm f2: supposed to have great sharpness and micro contrast, but just so so bokeh.

Can you help me understand what the lay of the land is with the 35mm K and M and if it makes sense to get one over the other, and how they both compare to the 43mm in image quality?

Thanks and kind regards!

PS: I threw in 31mm into the title because maybe there is a strong case for the 31mm that I just don't see?

---

Last edited by florian-sdr; 05-10-2023 at 05:10 AM.

[pres589]

Any reason you wouldn't consider the Samyang 35mm f1.4? It isn't much larger than the K 35 f2. I've not used the Samyang but it interests me as a fast lens that's slightly tighter than my 28's. The K 35 f2 is nice but I wouldn't call the rendering sharp & crisp wide open. It isn't bad, it's just, not those other things which seem to be of interest to you.


I wish there were more 40mm options for k-mount, as I really like that focal length on my film cameras, but I don't have anything fast in that focal length.

[florian-sdr]

The Samyang is double the size and more than double the weight as the SMC K series:
110mm long vs 56mm
700 gram vs 295 gram

But also,.... aesthetics.
If it's going to go on my MX, KX or Super A, it's gotta look the part.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I do like the 40mm focal length, but since I intend to use it for film, I do want a faster aperture than the SMC M 40mm f2.8 pancake.

The SMC M 40mm 2.8 was designed in the film era, so it should be perfect for using with film, which you want it for. And most of the time people do not shoot wide open. I really do not get this demand, unless it is your way of telling is that, although you state you love it, you do not really want a 40mm. Between (expensive) 31mm and (less expensive) 43mm there is really nothing, certainly not made by Pentax. Maybe you better stick with what you got and use a 50mm.

[florian-sdr]

Re/ the 40 f2.8 not sure if I follow the logic that if a lens was produced in a certain era, it would be "perfect" for that use case. A cheap lens is a cheap lens with cheap lens flaws.

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.

Shutter speeds are also limited, you have the choice between 1/60 and 1/125, not 1/90. There is more room to play with, to still handhold a photo with f2 at f1/125 with ISO 400, than doing that at f2.8, or having to reduce the shutter speed to 1/60.

It really isn't rocket science why f2 is better.

[pres589]

Whoa, that will teach me to not check a lens ahead of time for dimensions and weight. That is noticeably larger than the K 35 f2.

I don't agree on aesthetics and "needing to look the part" or whatever. I often shoot Sigma EX DG glass on my manual focus k-mount cameras. I wish I had more EX DG glass to shoot on those cameras, including my MX, but there's not much else to choose from. Tell you what, you send me a Samyang 35mm f1.4 and I'll mount it on my MX and let you know my thoughts on the aesthetics and how much that impacts the shooting experience.

[florian-sdr]

I don't agree on aesthetics and "needing to look the part"

Yeah, I understand. I know it's not a reasonable way of thinking to go for aesthetics.

I do use the F 50mm 1.4 on my MX and would consider the HD FA 35mm 2.0 too.

Anybody know how the latter performs with manual focus? I think it's not really made for that, no? I am staying away from the "SMC FA" series (not HD FA, haven't tried that), as the FA ring is almost impossible to use for me personally for manual focus.

[VictorDA]

HD FA 35mm 2.0 too.
Anybody know how the latter performs with manual focus?

The HD FA 35 has a much improved dampening on the focus ring compared to the the smc FA.
However, it remains an AF lens and the comfort is not on par with K, M or A series. Think of it as similar to FA limiteds, or DFA 100mm WR, if you've used them.
Then, it is a plastic body. It does not look bad but kind of out-of-place on an MX. I still like it though

With your requirements, and if you are going to use it also on a DSLR, to me it's the clear winner.

[pres589]

I agree, the HD DA FA 35 is pretty nice to focus, but it's never going to be mistaken for a screw-mount Takumar by feel of the focus ring. It seemed extremely usable on my manual focus film camera the bit I played with one at a store a year ago. If I liked the focal length and was okay with max f2.0 I would sell my existing 35's for one.

[vandergus]

I regularly use the SMC 43mm Limited on my MX and really enjoy the setup. The focus feel is light but still smooth and precise, much better than a FA 50mm. I actually enjoy that I can focus it with one finger, which makes it very quick to cover large distances. It's got to be one of the best cross-over lenses available and that's how I use it (on manual focus and auto-focus bodies). But if you are using it primarily as a manual focus lens and want something with a really premium feel, it might not meet your needs as well as something else.

[johnyates]

I'm out almost daily with my camera, prepared for whatever catches my eye. I don't have an 'always on' lens--I tend to select a different prime every time I go out. In the last week I've been walking about with the K28/3.5, K35/3.5, DA20-40 and Takumar 50/1.4.

If I did have an 'always on' lens, it would probably be the DA 20-40; it's a great lens. But it doesn't quite meet your requirements.


Out of those you've listed, I have previously owned the K35/2, which I sold. I like the K35/3.5 better. If you can find one I recommend you buy it--I really like mine. It may be hard to focus with a split screen focus screen, but I manage quite well with the green octagon on my K5iis. And image quality is outstanding, even when minimally stopped down half a stop from wide open. I can also shoot wide open in Av mode with pleasing results. So, yeah, I'd say "go for the K35/3.5".

[florian-sdr]

I don't have an 'always on' lens--I tend to select a different prime every time I go out.

"go for the K35/3.5".

The 35mm f3.5 gets a lot of praise

Thank you.

It wouldn't really be "always on", but 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?

[KoenR]

Re/ the 40 f2.8 not sure if I follow the logic that if a lens was produced in a certain era, it would be "perfect" for that use case. A cheap lens is a cheap lens with cheap lens flaws.

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.

Shutter speeds are also limited, you have the choice between 1/60 and 1/125, not 1/90. There is more room to play with, to still handhold a photo with f2 at f1/125 with ISO 400, than doing that at f2.8, or having to reduce the shutter speed to 1/60.

It really isn't rocket science why f2 is better.

I have that lens, bought it second hand when I was still taking pictures with a film camera. I do not remember that it was “cheap” when it was produced, but I can be wrong.

The first review by Volosong states (and I agree):

“The construction quality is typical of K and M series lenses. All metal and glass. No plastic here! Optically, it was not anywhere as good as the 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 lenses. Probably on par with the 50/2.0 lens. The lens attained 'cult' status and was desirable only because of its size, not because of its optical qualities.”


Read more at: SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[James O'Neill]

I regularly use the SMC 43mm Limited on my MX and really enjoy the setup. The focus feel is light but still smooth and precise, much better than a FA 50mm..

Owning both I'd back that up. The My 43 needs a visit to the service centre so recently I've been using the 50 which has been neglected for 4 or 5 years - I had forgotten how much better engineered the 43 feels. The FA 50 isn't as good to drive manually although that doesn't bother me. The 43 is optically better though sometimes the out of focus areas have rough "choppy" feel - I now have sense of when it's likely to do that. It also has the big advantage that it can be be new, or as a used model that is fairly recent. Some of the others are old, and finding good specimens can be difficult.

[pepperberry farm]

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