[frank]

Wow! Congrats Jay! What a nice finding

The M20/4 is indeed a great little lens. It's small and compact, much more useful on a film camera. But just watch out your fingers when using it on a film camera, you might see your finger on the final prints like this quite easily:

[frank]

Another good 20mm lens is Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 20/4.5. It's not as small as the M20/4, actually it's quite big comapring w/ M20, but its performance is one of the best 20mm lenses. I really love the colors produced by this lens even on digital camera. Here are several quick snaps w/ the SMCT20/4.5 on K20D (all straight out of the camera in JPG):












The lens has very close min focus distance, 20cm only, very fun to use. Here are some wide open shots at closer distances:

[jsherman999]

Frank, those are stellar. I love that M 20 f/4 shot, and the others have incredible pop.

I think SMC coating (or some good multicoating) is more important on wide-angle
lenses than any other FL - it seems to have the greatest effect, with the great
expanse of sky and stray light those front elements can bring in, so if you have
the S-M-C version of the Tak, that's quite a lens to own...

..

[Nick Siebers]

It isn't a prime, but if you are thinking about spending 300 euros, take a look at the FA 20-35mm zoom. It is a great lens, very sharp even wide open, has the SMC, will do auto focus, and minimum aperture f/4. I've really enjoyed mine.

[arpaagent]

Here's another example of what the S-M-C Tak 20/4.5 can do (you may have seen it before in the Takumar Club Thread). I shot RAW and played a bit in LR for the colors, but probably didn't do anything more than the JPEG conversion on camera would do. I also agree it is a fantastic lens. I snapped a few more yesterday with all the snow here in Raleigh, NC, and got a few with this lens, so if I remember to do so later today I will share a few of those as well.

[jsherman999]

.

.....

I also remember seeing a post listing original MSRP for a couple Pentax lenses,
including the M 20 f4, and they had it at $900 something. I'll look for that post,
but can anyone confirm or deny that figure? Seems pretty high for a retail
price in the 70's.


.

Lindy Stone from photo.net was nice enough to look up the MSRP of the M 20 f/4
in his 1978 Pentax Dealer Catalog for me - in 1978 dollars, $497.78 list, $298.67
wholesale to dealer.

So, in 2007 dollars, that's $1566 initial MSRP retail, and $937 wholesale to dealer.

That's not a cheapie! I think $250 - $350 for a mint copy sounds more reasonable
now, although the DA 21ltd at $400 or so makes a better alternative for most
people who have no intention of shooting film or FF in the future.


.

[Noisychip]

.

Apparently, I had put the lens into a pocket when changing lenses, and not
back into the bag. It's so small I guess I didn't notice, even when I took the
hoodie off.

I feel like I just found $200 in an old pair of jeans.

You did! Seems like you actually found $/€ 300!

Great you found it!

I'm starting to understand the quality of that lens, watching the images from all of you - great colors and sharpness!

I was wondering who in the world would steal a 20+ years old MF lens for Pentax ... Of course all of us know that it's a great lens, but is there a black market for stolen oldies? I can't imagine

[Noisychip]

Here's another example of what the S-M-C Tak 20/4.5 can do (you may have seen it before in the Takumar Club Thread). I shot RAW and played a bit in LR for the colors, but probably didn't do anything more than the JPEG conversion on camera would do. I also agree it is a fantastic lens. I snapped a few more yesterday with all the snow here in Raleigh, NC, and got a few with this lens, so if I remember to do so later today I will share a few of those as well.

Great shot!

So the Tak variant is f/4.5? So it isn't the same optical formula, as well as the K version?

[drewdlephone]

I found the Vivitar 20mm/3.8 at Kerrisdale Cameras for $99 (CDN). Was thinking about taking a look when I'm down that way, the pictures I see online show it to be a honker of a lens though. The SMC-Tak 20mm shots are amazing! Sadly I've never seen one of those around here.

[rparmar]

Jay, glad that lens popped back out of nowhere! I too was quite surprised that someone would steal such a thing, because how would they know it was as good as these shots show?

I must say though that the kit lens really shows its strength in the comparison above. Though it's fun to find bargains in older lenses, we should not forget that much has improved in mass manufacturing, computer aided design, lens coatings and so on. Providing one is shooting digital, the new lenses are very hard to beat, especially compared to older glass that commands such a premium.

For example, how can one beat the DA16-45? One would have to find a cheaper faster lens. Anyone know of a good manual 16mm f/2.8 that is sharp and usable wide open? Didn't think so.

[Gooshin]

Jay, glad that lens popped back out of nowhere! I too was quite surprised that someone would steal such a thing, because how would they know it was as good as these shots show?

I must say though that the kit lens really shows its strength in the comparison above. Though it's fun to find bargains in older lenses, we should not forget that much has improved in mass manufacturing, computer aided design, lens coatings and so on. Providing one is shooting digital, the new lenses are very hard to beat, especially compared to older glass that commands such a premium.

For example, how can one beat the DA16-45? One would have to find a cheaper faster lens. Anyone know of a good manual 16mm f/2.8 that is sharp and usable wide open? Didn't think so.

dont forget lenses in the past were made for film not APS-C, speed, depth of field, and angle view requirements were different.


your 16mm is 24mm

your aperture of 2.8 provides the depth of field that 3.5 did back then (guestimating)

and pentax had 20's and 24's in in 2 and 2.8 apertures.


its all relative

pentax had a 15mm f3.5 lens

there is no 10mm f3.5 rectilinear lens that i am aware of.


having said that i think the 16-45 is an awesome deal.

[Gooshin]

just to add,

i did some basic jerking around with the depth of field calculator

basicaly

16mm on APS-C @ f2.8, shooting a subject 10 feet away, provides a near limit of 5.99 feet (meaning stuff wont start getting into anywhere near focus before 5.99 feet)

24mm on full frame, at F3.5, shooting a subject 10 feet away, provides a near limit of 6.54 feet, not much but essentialy you get more subject isolation with the full frame shot., with LESS aperture

buy a 24 F2.8 and you get 6.92 feet, almost a hole foot now

the pentax FA* 24 F2.0 will get you 7.6 feet, more than a foot and a half of subject isolation than the 16mm.

[Blue]

This was an interesting Bushnell 21mm f 3.8 m2 that sold on ebay. It looks a lot like an Auto Tamron adaptamatic 21mm that I have only the Tamron is f4.5. It is not quite as big of a honker as it looks though.

[jsherman999]

You did! Seems like you actually found $/€ 300!

Great you found it!

I'm starting to understand the quality of that lens, watching the images from all of you - great colors and sharpness!

I was wondering who in the world would steal a 20+ years old MF lens for Pentax ... Of course all of us know that it's a great lens, but is there a black market for stolen oldies? I can't imagine

Thanks - I also couldn't figure out why someone would grab the M20 out
of the bag, because I had some larger AF lenses in there also - why
weren't those grabbed? I figured that it may have just been a crime of
opportunity and the jerk wasn't really discerning about what he pulled out
of the bag.

Jay, glad that lens popped back out of nowhere! I too was quite surprised that someone would steal such a thing, because how would they know it was as good as these shots show?

I must say though that the kit lens really shows its strength in the comparison above. Though it's fun to find bargains in older lenses, we should not forget that much has improved in mass manufacturing, computer aided design, lens coatings and so on. Providing one is shooting digital, the new lenses are very hard to beat, especially compared to older glass that commands such a premium.

For example, how can one beat the DA16-45? One would have to find a cheaper faster lens. Anyone know of a good manual 16mm f/2.8 that is sharp and usable wide open? Didn't think so.

dont forget lenses in the past were made for film not APS-C, speed, depth of field, and angle view requirements were different.
....

having said that i think the 16-45 is an awesome deal.

Yes, especially that 16-45 that appeared in the marketplace the other day for
$225 CDN, which is about $177 USD. (I was too late )

But the 16-45 is a no-brainer for a quality wide-angle zoom, and it's pretty
light.

The M 20 f/4 is just special to me, though - so small, so easy to be a human
tripod with this thing, and it's just hard to get anything bad out of this lens.

Took a drive through downtown today and a quick walk by a Basilica with the
M 20 f/4 (noisychip, hope you don't mind us dumping bits into your thread! )









Shooting into the sun:

[Miserere]

I have an FA 20mm f/2.8. I've seen them go on eBay for $350 and less. In fact, the A version (same optical formulat) usually sells for a lot more than the FA version.