K vs. M lenses..... why do most if not all prefer K?

Blue · 04-01-2010, 02:48 PM

This young lady makes the M 85mm and photographer look very good!

Originally posted by yeatzee

I'll give a couple quick test examples from each of my M lenses:

M 85mm -

wideopen -

F/2.8 -

wideopen -

M 50mm -

F/2 -

M 200mm (only shot I have online) -

wideopen -

Note: These are all on the spot shots where I did not properly set up or anything. For example the M 50mm F/2 shot is inside a restaurant for my sisters birthday. The first M 85mm shot is a quick snapshot while on a walk.... etc. etc.

Smolk · 04-01-2010, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Recercare

*Today I have been shooting with my new K 35mm F3.5. It is an amazing lens, sharper than my DA 40mm F2.8 Ltd and there's no equivalent in the M-series.

There is the M 2.8/35mm. It seems to be valued less though. There also is a 2.0/35 version, however, in the K, M and A-series.

Quote:

*I have tested the K 200mm F2.5 (but only for a short time) and compared it to my M 200mm F4 (which is now sold). Well, the K is a lot better, and then I mean A LOT better.

Thanks for your impressions! Very useful.

Recercare · 04-01-2010, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

BTW, something I just noticed looking at Yoshihiko's site:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_tele.html

Check out the M85/2 results. I had always noticed that they look terrible compared to most others lenses in that range, and most at odds with what others report on DSLR's. But something I had never noticed before - his results (from film) show the lens being *better* in the corners than the center at larger apertures. That's unheard of. Makes me think something went drastically wrong with his test, or with his copy of the lens itself.

Yes, something is wrong. Maybe he tested a bad copy. I have this lens and it's very sharp.

Resolution is not everything anyway. I tried the M 28mm F2 today, which according to the test should have higher resolution than the K 28mm F3.5.....but my K 28mm F3.5 was indeed sharper.

Kind regards
.lars

**Just1MoreDave** · 04-01-2010, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Smolk

There is the M 2.8/35mm. It seems to be valued less though.

I like the M version a lot better because the K is 50% bigger and heavier. For a slow lens, I can't see carrying the K for a small IQ gain. If you believe one test, the K is 4% sharper in the center. Not enough for me.

8540tomg · 04-01-2010, 04:21 PM

I’m not sure I have much to offer to the K vs. M debate here beyond opinion but here goes. As you can see from my signature I have a number of M and K series lenses. I like them all and they are all fine lenses. I do prefer what I consider to be the more robust construction and heft of the K series. I also prefer the colour palette of the Ks I own as they seem to produce more pleasing images at least to my eye. This is all very subjective stuff of course and you can take it for what’s its worth.

I can’t speak with authority on any other lenses but I do own both the K 200/2.5 and the M 200/4. I have used both extensively. While the M is a nice lens I can state categorically that the K 200/2.5 is superior in every conceivable way. It should be, as you will probably have to pay 3 or 4 times as much to get one if you can find it. It is sharper, heavier, better built and remains the fastest 200 Pentax ever built. A big bonus is the extra brightness you get with the 2.5 every time you look through the viewfinder. It is a lot easier to focus as a result in low light situations. Whether you use the extra speed or not that brightness is always there. You do get what you pay for with this lens and if you have the need for a fast manual 200mm the K 200/2.5 is a good choice.

Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right.

This shot was taken hand held last summer.

yeatzee wrote

"I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses.

Soooo.... why K? "

Perhaps this might convince you?

Tom G

Recercare · 04-01-2010, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

I like the M version a lot better because the K is 50% bigger and heavier. For a slow lens, I can't see carrying the K for a small IQ gain. If you believe one test, the K is 4% sharper in the center. Not enough for me.

I don't measure in % when doing real life comparisons

I don't quite understand your point about size, but I guess it's a matter of taste. Both 28mm F3.5 lenses are small enough to be used hand-held without any problems. They fit easily in a small camera bag and they're not obtrusive when mounted on the camera. To me it does not matter whether a lens weighs 100g or 250g as any lens lighter than 300g will be comfortable to use unless it's too long. The same goes for length: Whether a lens is 1cm or 3cm long is not important as any lens shorter than 5cm is within my comfort zone.

However, I do understand that people prefer the M 28mm F2 over the K 28mm F2 as the latter mentioned is 7cm long. The same goes for M 135mm F3.5 vs K 135mm F2.5 where the latter mentioned is so heavy and long that some people can find it uncomfortable to hand-hold.

Kind regards
.lars

jsherman999 · 04-01-2010, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by 8540tomg

Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right.

Tom G

.

This shot just kills me every time I see it. Look at the detail and tonal range in the feathers on the back, and of course the sharpness...

**gofour3** · 04-01-2010, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by 8540tomg

I’m not sure I have much to offer to the K vs. M debate here beyond opinion but here goes. As you can see from my signature I have a number of M and K series lenses. I like them all and they are all fine lenses. I do prefer what I consider to be the more robust construction and heft of the K series. I also prefer the colour palette of the Ks I own as they seem to produce more pleasing images at least to my eye. This is all very subjective stuff of course and you can take it for what’s its worth.

I can’t speak with authority on any other lenses but I do own both the K 200/2.5 and the M 200/4. I have used both extensively. While the M is a nice lens I can state categorically that the K 200/2.5 is superior in every conceivable way. It should be, as you will probably have to pay 3 or 4 times as much to get one if you can find it. It is sharper, heavier, better built and remains the fastest 200 Pentax ever built. A big bonus is the extra brightness you get with the 2.5 every time you look through the viewfinder. It is a lot easier to focus as a result in low light situations. Whether you use the extra speed or not that brightness is always there. You do get what you pay for with this lens and if you have the need for a fast manual 200mm the K 200/2.5 is a good choice.

Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right.

This shot was taken hand held last summer.

yeatzee wrote

"I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses.

Soooo.... why K? "

Perhaps this might convince you?

Tom G

Yes a great shot Tom, the “Jedi Master” of the K200/2.5!!

Phil.

8540tomg · 04-01-2010, 05:58 PM

Thanks Jay.

I always appreciate your comments and opinions.

Thanks Phil - my young padawan. May the K force be with you. Always.

Tom G

Pentaxor · 04-01-2010, 06:31 PM

why K? because the lenses are based from the SMC Taks which are great lenses optically and that some K lenses are part Carl Zeiss design which makes those lenses a bit more sought after. there are possible compromises to IQ on both sides. some have improvements while some got worse. it's a matter of telling which lenses are those. but for my part, I love the resolution, color and soft bokeh rendering of the K55 as opposed to the M50f1.4, M50f1.7 and M50f2. it would help if you are able to try it and what makes it tick for some owners. it's either you will find the images interesting or not.

unprocessed in-camera jpeg image taken with the K55. I love the bokeh of this lens.

8540tomg · 04-01-2010, 08:17 PM

I said above I prefer the "look" of the K series lenses to the M series. As a rule this is usually the case. I've got to admit the Ms do have their moments though. The M 400/5.6 really nailed the colours and hues of this Chickadee.

This old lens has a bit of "sharpitude" as well. I'd say it also has the "M" look to it.

Tom G

**monochrome** · 04-01-2010, 08:56 PM - **1 Like**

I started a response today then got interrupted.

I think there is a matter of taste - the M optical designs and coatings are different from the K - not necessarily conditional, just different.

Some K lenses are clearly the best at their FL Pentax ever made, at least in MF.
Same could be said for some M lenses and A lenses.

There is the subjective. Some people favor bokeh, some sharpness - that leads to different opinions.

There is the tactile pleasure of using a lens. Some people care about that, some don't. Generally, tactile people order the lens lines Takumars best, K next, M next, A can be great or not, F/FA generally pretty unpleasant in manual shooting.

A Canadian named J. Colwell consolidated the opinion first posted on the internet in the late 90's through 2005 and ranked (SPLOSdb.pdf) the Pentax lenses from Tak through the FA's then available. His consolidation of then-current opinion of the outstanding (!) non-* MF lenses was:

K18/3.5
M28/2
K28/3.5
K28/3.5 Shift
K35/3.5
A50/1.4
A50/1.7
K85/1.8
K135/2.5
K200/2.5

The next level (merely Excellent) contains virtually every other lens discussed in this thread. None of this is to say K is better than M generally, but that the best MF lens for a given FL is often the K series. In my limited experience the difference is often (but not always) de minimus.

This ranking purported to consolidate opinion from a number of sources and was specifically NOT driven by his own opinion. Take all of this with some salt - the FA77 Ltd was not ranked Outstanding (!) - merely Excellent ** - and shoot what you like the best!!

yeatzee · 04-01-2010, 11:58 PM

Wow guys! Great responses so far! Keep them coming.

Originally posted by jsherman999

This is part of the reason right here - the K's focus action feels like a Takumar - longer throw, maybe just a tad more dampened and 'smooth'.

Optically, at the lineup level - the K line vs. the M line - no real advantage.

I've been saying that for a couple years now about Yoshihiko's M 85 test. He either had a bad copy, or his test was basically hurried, or compromised in some other way.

My M 85 f/2 is better than my Nikon 85 1.8 and just about as good (if not as good) as my 77ltd.

Being as I've never used a Takumar im not quite sure what you mean about the above

I do agree about that fluked test.... the M 85mm pictures speak for themselves.

Originally posted by gofour3

My suggestion is for you to get one of the cheaper K series lenses, like the K28/3.5, K35/3.5 or the K55/1.8 and try it out. You won’t find three better lenses for the money and you’ll soon be converted to the “K” club.

Phil.

I'll have to look for them... though AFAIK they go for a fair amount more than their M counterparts and I am supposed to be saving for the K-7

My lens lineup has nothing wider than 50mm other than the Kit lens so I've been looking into a 20mm+ lens. Maybe I'll sell the M 200mm to dent the purchase

Originally posted by Blue

This young lady makes the M 85mm and photographer look very good!

Ha that she does

Originally posted by 8540tomg

I can’t speak with authority on any other lenses but I do own both the K 200/2.5 and the M 200/4. I have used both extensively. While the M is a nice lens I can state categorically that the K 200/2.5 is superior in every conceivable way. It should be, as you will probably have to pay 3 or 4 times as much to get one if you can find it. It is sharper, heavier, better built and remains the fastest 200 Pentax ever built. A big bonus is the extra brightness you get with the 2.5 every time you look through the viewfinder. It is a lot easier to focus as a result in low light situations. Whether you use the extra speed or not that brightness is always there. You do get what you pay for with this lens and if you have the need for a fast manual 200mm the K 200/2.5 is a good choice.

Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/3845144025_f7cf9f7668_o.jpg

This shot was taken hand held last summer.

yeatzee wrote

"I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses.

Soooo.... why K? "

Perhaps this might convince you?

Tom G

Nice sharp all around shot Tom... what aperture? No surprise its better than the M 200mm... I personally am not willing to pay that much for a manual 200mm lens sadly, unless it was a macro

. Now why don't i see any decent shots from any other K lens?

Originally posted by Pentaxor

why K? because the lenses are based from the SMC Taks which are great lenses optically and that some K lenses are part Carl Zeiss design which makes those lenses a bit more sought after. there are possible compromises to IQ on both sides. some have improvements while some got worse. it's a matter of telling which lenses are those. but for my part, I love the resolution, color and soft bokeh rendering of the K55 as opposed to the M50f1.4, M50f1.7 and M50f2. it would help if you are able to try it and what makes it tick for some owners. it's either you will find the images interesting or not.

unprocessed in-camera jpeg image taken with the K55. I love the bokeh of this lens.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll271/angkokok/dakota.jpg

Thats the key.....
And personally I think the M 50mm F/1.7 has fantastic bokeh. Look at the example I posted... if you look past the highlight bokeh its quite good IMO.

GeneV · 04-02-2010, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Recercare

I don't measure in % when doing real life comparisons

I don't quite understand your point about size, but I guess it's a matter of taste. Both 28mm F3.5 lenses are small enough to be used hand-held without any problems. They fit easily in a small camera bag and they're not obtrusive when mounted on the camera. To me it does not matter whether a lens weighs 100g or 250g as any lens lighter than 300g will be comfortable to use unless it's too long. The same goes for length: Whether a lens is 1cm or 3cm long is not important as any lens shorter than 5cm is within my comfort zone.

However, I do understand that people prefer the M 28mm F2 over the K 28mm F2 as the latter mentioned is 7cm long. The same goes for M 135mm F3.5 vs K 135mm F2.5 where the latter mentioned is so heavy and long that some people can find it uncomfortable to hand-hold.

Kind regards
.lars

Size and weight do matter to a lot of us. The sharpest, most beautiful lens in the world does you no good if you leave it at home. My size/weight splurge is the SMC k135/2.5. I appreciate its magic, but I don't think I would haul a whole bag full of lenses of that kind of size and weight very often on a long hike or a travel excursion in a bus.

SteveM · 04-02-2010, 08:09 AM

I am one of the posters in the K club so I might be the guilty party as far as the quality of the pictures go.

I have had many M and K lenses but standardized on the Ks mainly as I had a few that I really liked as compared to the Ms I owned at the time. I still love the K85/1.8 and feel it is my favorite lens. I've never handled the M85/2 so I can't compare that one but here is a link hwere you can...

The Great Pentax 85mm Lens Shoot-Out

I don't think you can go wrong with a K or a M..

04-01-2010, 04:21 PM	#20
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	I’m not sure I have much to offer to the K vs. M debate here beyond opinion but here goes. As you can see from my signature I have a number of M and K series lenses. I like them all and they are all fine lenses. I do prefer what I consider to be the more robust construction and heft of the K series. I also prefer the colour palette of the Ks I own as they seem to produce more pleasing images at least to my eye. This is all very subjective stuff of course and you can take it for what’s its worth. I can’t speak with authority on any other lenses but I do own both the K 200/2.5 and the M 200/4. I have used both extensively. While the M is a nice lens I can state categorically that the K 200/2.5 is superior in every conceivable way. It should be, as you will probably have to pay 3 or 4 times as much to get one if you can find it. It is sharper, heavier, better built and remains the fastest 200 Pentax ever built. A big bonus is the extra brightness you get with the 2.5 every time you look through the viewfinder. It is a lot easier to focus as a result in low light situations. Whether you use the extra speed or not that brightness is always there. You do get what you pay for with this lens and if you have the need for a fast manual 200mm the K 200/2.5 is a good choice. Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right. This shot was taken hand held last summer. yeatzee wrote "I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses. Soooo.... why K? " Perhaps this might convince you? Tom G Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-01-2010 at 05:36 PM. Reason: typo

04-01-2010, 05:58 PM	#24
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Thanks Jay. I always appreciate your comments and opinions. Thanks Phil - my young padawan. May the K force be with you. Always. Tom G Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-01-2010 at 06:00 PM. Reason: typo

04-01-2010, 06:31 PM	#25
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	why K? because the lenses are based from the SMC Taks which are great lenses optically and that some K lenses are part Carl Zeiss design which makes those lenses a bit more sought after. there are possible compromises to IQ on both sides. some have improvements while some got worse. it's a matter of telling which lenses are those. but for my part, I love the resolution, color and soft bokeh rendering of the K55 as opposed to the M50f1.4, M50f1.7 and M50f2. it would help if you are able to try it and what makes it tick for some owners. it's either you will find the images interesting or not. unprocessed in-camera jpeg image taken with the K55. I love the bokeh of this lens. Last edited by Pentaxor; 04-01-2010 at 06:43 PM.

04-01-2010, 08:17 PM	#26
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	I said above I prefer the "look" of the K series lenses to the M series. As a rule this is usually the case. I've got to admit the Ms do have their moments though. The M 400/5.6 really nailed the colours and hues of this Chickadee. This old lens has a bit of "sharpitude" as well. I'd say it also has the "M" look to it. Tom G Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-01-2010 at 08:21 PM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Which of the 3 would you prefer, if any?	m8o	Photo Critique	20	10-13-2010 07:51 PM
People Which One Do You Prefer?	jaieger	Post Your Photos!	7	09-16-2010 07:02 PM
Which one you would prefer, K-7 or K-x ?	cbaytan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	37	02-08-2010 04:02 PM
Misc Which one do you prefer?	YJD	Post Your Photos!	14	10-21-2009 05:51 PM
Which of the two do you prefer most and why?	LeDave	Photo Critique	10	07-24-2009 02:25 PM

04-01-2010, 02:48 PM	#16
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	This young lady makes the M 85mm and photographer look very good! Originally posted by yeatzee I'll give a couple quick test examples from each of my M lenses: M 85mm - wideopen - F/2.8 - wideopen - M 50mm - F/2 - M 200mm (only shot I have online) - wideopen - Note: These are all on the spot shots where I did not properly set up or anything. For example the M 50mm F/2 shot is inside a restaurant for my sisters birthday. The first M 85mm shot is a quick snapshot while on a walk.... etc. etc.

04-01-2010, 02:51 PM	#17
Smolk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Eerbeek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,857	Originally posted by Recercare Today I have been shooting with my new K 35mm F3.5. It is an amazing lens, sharper than my DA 40mm F2.8 Ltd and there's no equivalent in the M-series. There is the M 2.8/35mm. It seems to be valued less though. There also is a 2.0/35 version, however, in the K, M and A-series. Quote: I have tested the K 200mm F2.5 (but only for a short time) and compared it to my M 200mm F4 (which is now sold). Well, the K is a lot better, and then I mean A LOT better. Thanks for your impressions! Very useful.

04-01-2010, 02:52 PM	#18
Recercare Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 359	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella BTW, something I just noticed looking at Yoshihiko's site: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_tele.html Check out the M85/2 results. I had always noticed that they look terrible compared to most others lenses in that range, and most at odds with what others report on DSLR's. But something I had never noticed before - his results (from film) show the lens being better in the corners than the center at larger apertures. That's unheard of. Makes me think something went drastically wrong with his test, or with his copy of the lens itself. Yes, something is wrong. Maybe he tested a bad copy. I have this lens and it's very sharp. Resolution is not everything anyway. I tried the M 28mm F2 today, which according to the test should have higher resolution than the K 28mm F3.5.....but my K 28mm F3.5 was indeed sharper. Kind regards .lars

04-01-2010, 03:15 PM	#19
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Smolk There is the M 2.8/35mm. It seems to be valued less though. I like the M version a lot better because the K is 50% bigger and heavier. For a slow lens, I can't see carrying the K for a small IQ gain. If you believe one test, the K is 4% sharper in the center. Not enough for me.

04-01-2010, 04:35 PM	#21
Recercare Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 359	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave I like the M version a lot better because the K is 50% bigger and heavier. For a slow lens, I can't see carrying the K for a small IQ gain. If you believe one test, the K is 4% sharper in the center. Not enough for me. I don't measure in % when doing real life comparisons I don't quite understand your point about size, but I guess it's a matter of taste. Both 28mm F3.5 lenses are small enough to be used hand-held without any problems. They fit easily in a small camera bag and they're not obtrusive when mounted on the camera. To me it does not matter whether a lens weighs 100g or 250g as any lens lighter than 300g will be comfortable to use unless it's too long. The same goes for length: Whether a lens is 1cm or 3cm long is not important as any lens shorter than 5cm is within my comfort zone. However, I do understand that people prefer the M 28mm F2 over the K 28mm F2 as the latter mentioned is 7cm long. The same goes for M 135mm F3.5 vs K 135mm F2.5 where the latter mentioned is so heavy and long that some people can find it uncomfortable to hand-hold. Kind regards .lars

04-01-2010, 05:13 PM	#22
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by 8540tomg Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right. Tom G . This shot just kills me every time I see it. Look at the detail and tonal range in the feathers on the back, and of course the sharpness...

04-01-2010, 05:49 PM	#23
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by 8540tomg I’m not sure I have much to offer to the K vs. M debate here beyond opinion but here goes. As you can see from my signature I have a number of M and K series lenses. I like them all and they are all fine lenses. I do prefer what I consider to be the more robust construction and heft of the K series. I also prefer the colour palette of the Ks I own as they seem to produce more pleasing images at least to my eye. This is all very subjective stuff of course and you can take it for what’s its worth. I can’t speak with authority on any other lenses but I do own both the K 200/2.5 and the M 200/4. I have used both extensively. While the M is a nice lens I can state categorically that the K 200/2.5 is superior in every conceivable way. It should be, as you will probably have to pay 3 or 4 times as much to get one if you can find it. It is sharper, heavier, better built and remains the fastest 200 Pentax ever built. A big bonus is the extra brightness you get with the 2.5 every time you look through the viewfinder. It is a lot easier to focus as a result in low light situations. Whether you use the extra speed or not that brightness is always there. You do get what you pay for with this lens and if you have the need for a fast manual 200mm the K 200/2.5 is a good choice. Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right. This shot was taken hand held last summer. yeatzee wrote "I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses. Soooo.... why K? " Perhaps this might convince you? Tom G Yes a great shot Tom, the “Jedi Master” of the K200/2.5!! Phil.

04-01-2010, 08:56 PM - 1 Like	#27
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I started a response today then got interrupted. I think there is a matter of taste - the M optical designs and coatings are different from the K - not necessarily conditional, just different. Some K lenses are clearly the best at their FL Pentax ever made, at least in MF. Same could be said for some M lenses and A lenses. There is the subjective. Some people favor bokeh, some sharpness - that leads to different opinions. There is the tactile pleasure of using a lens. Some people care about that, some don't. Generally, tactile people order the lens lines Takumars best, K next, M next, A can be great or not, F/FA generally pretty unpleasant in manual shooting. A Canadian named J. Colwell consolidated the opinion first posted on the internet in the late 90's through 2005 and ranked (SPLOSdb.pdf) the Pentax lenses from Tak through the FA's then available. His consolidation of then-current opinion of the outstanding (!) non-* MF lenses was: K18/3.5 M28/2 K28/3.5 K28/3.5 Shift K35/3.5 A50/1.4 A50/1.7 K85/1.8 K135/2.5 K200/2.5 The next level (merely Excellent) contains virtually every other lens discussed in this thread. None of this is to say K is better than M generally, but that the best MF lens for a given FL is often the K series. In my limited experience the difference is often (but not always) de minimus. This ranking purported to consolidate opinion from a number of sources and was specifically NOT driven by his own opinion. Take all of this with some salt - the FA77 Ltd was not ranked Outstanding (!) - merely Excellent ** - and shoot what you like the best!!

04-01-2010, 11:58 PM	#28
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675 Original Poster	Wow guys! Great responses so far! Keep them coming. Originally posted by jsherman999 This is part of the reason right here - the K's focus action feels like a Takumar - longer throw, maybe just a tad more dampened and 'smooth'. Optically, at the lineup level - the K line vs. the M line - no real advantage. I've been saying that for a couple years now about Yoshihiko's M 85 test. He either had a bad copy, or his test was basically hurried, or compromised in some other way. My M 85 f/2 is better than my Nikon 85 1.8 and just about as good (if not as good) as my 77ltd. Being as I've never used a Takumar im not quite sure what you mean about the above I do agree about that fluked test.... the M 85mm pictures speak for themselves. Originally posted by gofour3 My suggestion is for you to get one of the cheaper K series lenses, like the K28/3.5, K35/3.5 or the K55/1.8 and try it out. You won’t find three better lenses for the money and you’ll soon be converted to the “K” club. Phil. I'll have to look for them... though AFAIK they go for a fair amount more than their M counterparts and I am supposed to be saving for the K-7 My lens lineup has nothing wider than 50mm other than the Kit lens so I've been looking into a 20mm+ lens. Maybe I'll sell the M 200mm to dent the purchase Originally posted by Blue This young lady makes the M 85mm and photographer look very good! Ha that she does Originally posted by 8540tomg I can’t speak with authority on any other lenses but I do own both the K 200/2.5 and the M 200/4. I have used both extensively. While the M is a nice lens I can state categorically that the K 200/2.5 is superior in every conceivable way. It should be, as you will probably have to pay 3 or 4 times as much to get one if you can find it. It is sharper, heavier, better built and remains the fastest 200 Pentax ever built. A big bonus is the extra brightness you get with the 2.5 every time you look through the viewfinder. It is a lot easier to focus as a result in low light situations. Whether you use the extra speed or not that brightness is always there. You do get what you pay for with this lens and if you have the need for a fast manual 200mm the K 200/2.5 is a good choice. Jsherman999 once said this lens has “sharptitude.” I think he is right. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/3845144025_f7cf9f7668_o.jpg This shot was taken hand held last summer. yeatzee wrote "I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses. Soooo.... why K? " Perhaps this might convince you? Tom G Nice sharp all around shot Tom... what aperture? No surprise its better than the M 200mm... I personally am not willing to pay that much for a manual 200mm lens sadly, unless it was a macro . Now why don't i see any decent shots from any other K lens? Originally posted by Pentaxor why K? because the lenses are based from the SMC Taks which are great lenses optically and that some K lenses are part Carl Zeiss design which makes those lenses a bit more sought after. there are possible compromises to IQ on both sides. some have improvements while some got worse. it's a matter of telling which lenses are those. but for my part, I love the resolution, color and soft bokeh rendering of the K55 as opposed to the M50f1.4, M50f1.7 and M50f2. it would help if you are able to try it and what makes it tick for some owners. it's either you will find the images interesting or not. unprocessed in-camera jpeg image taken with the K55. I love the bokeh of this lens. http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll271/angkokok/dakota.jpg Thats the key..... And personally I think the M 50mm F/1.7 has fantastic bokeh. Look at the example I posted... if you look past the highlight bokeh its quite good IMO.

04-02-2010, 07:16 AM	#29
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Recercare I don't measure in % when doing real life comparisons I don't quite understand your point about size, but I guess it's a matter of taste. Both 28mm F3.5 lenses are small enough to be used hand-held without any problems. They fit easily in a small camera bag and they're not obtrusive when mounted on the camera. To me it does not matter whether a lens weighs 100g or 250g as any lens lighter than 300g will be comfortable to use unless it's too long. The same goes for length: Whether a lens is 1cm or 3cm long is not important as any lens shorter than 5cm is within my comfort zone. However, I do understand that people prefer the M 28mm F2 over the K 28mm F2 as the latter mentioned is 7cm long. The same goes for M 135mm F3.5 vs K 135mm F2.5 where the latter mentioned is so heavy and long that some people can find it uncomfortable to hand-hold. Kind regards .lars Size and weight do matter to a lot of us. The sharpest, most beautiful lens in the world does you no good if you leave it at home. My size/weight splurge is the SMC k135/2.5. I appreciate its magic, but I don't think I would haul a whole bag full of lenses of that kind of size and weight very often on a long hike or a travel excursion in a bus.

04-02-2010, 08:09 AM	#30
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	I am one of the posters in the K club so I might be the guilty party as far as the quality of the pictures go. I have had many M and K lenses but standardized on the Ks mainly as I had a few that I really liked as compared to the Ms I owned at the time. I still love the K85/1.8 and feel it is my favorite lens. I've never handled the M85/2 so I can't compare that one but here is a link hwere you can... The Great Pentax 85mm Lens Shoot-Out I don't think you can go wrong with a K or a M..