[JeffJS]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I've pretty much filled out my lens collection, with the exception of a wide angle lens. My widest is 35mm (Super-Takumar 35mm f2.0 and Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5). I'd like something along the lines of 10-20mm. Ideally it'd be manual focus, fast, under $300, rectilinear and has low distortion. I don't think any lenses in the review section fits under those criteria so I'm open to suggestions....

In all seriousness, I wish you luck.. You Might find a Pentax 10-17 for your range but I don't think it's rectilinear. From a compare that someone showed in one of my photo threads, FL to FL, it shoots slightly wider than the 12-24 (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/97760-black-white-bent-out-shape.html Post #12, SpecialK)..

[Nass]

You Might find a Pentax 10-17 for your range but I don't think it's rectilinear

Correct, it is a fisheye

[Marc Sabatella]

There are 24mm f2.0 available for less than a quarter of that price.

A 24/2 for under $100? I've never seen one, but am curious.

But in any case, I got the impression that you were looking for 10-20mm, and there's a pretty big difference between 20mm and 24mm. I agree that if 24mm is to be considered, there are other choices.

Let's just say I'm not keen on that lens when you can get modern 10-20mm lenses for relatively the same price.

I'd agree, but again, taking everything into account and particularly the fact that modern lenses are specifically *not* wanted, this still seems the *only* choice that actually fits the bill.

[Marc Sabatella]

I enjoy using MF lenses. AF takes a lot of fun out of the process. I'm getting relatively fast at MF now and I'm pretty sure eventually I'll get it down to a speed on par with AF.

That's a reason to use MF, but I don't see how that's a reason not to choose an AF lens if it happens to be a better fit for your needs. No one forces you to use AF just because the lens has it.

[Ben_Edict]

Do you mean f3.5? Yeah these babies go for $600+, actually probably a bit more now. I really don't think they fit in my criteria of under $300, not until I rob a few banks.

I need to be more careful while typing! I certainly meant the 3.5, but not as a recommendation for you, just as part of my reply to another post by Kryosphinx (nice nickname by the way), because his assumption that lenses below 20mm fl were not needed on film cameras is not really true. There are quite many lenses with shorter fls "out there" and most of them are rectilinear.


Hangu: You should really have a look at either the Kiron or Vivitar 24/2.0. I know its longer, than you desire, but this is a very good lens and perfectly useable, even wide open. And as they are available in PKA mount, you get all the benefits of matrix metering and PTTL flash (though the benefits of THAT have often been debated).

One lens, that comes to my mind, which wasn't mentioned so far (if I haven't overlooked its mentioning), is the old MF Tokina 17/3.5. It is an excellent little lens and I have used it in film days very much. This lens is not too common, but also not so rare, that it became a collector's item. Even I have one lying in my cupboard from the "olde days". Good sharpness and contrast for a low price.

Ben

[hangu]

A 24/2 for under $100? I've never seen one, but am curious.

But in any case, I got the impression that you were looking for 10-20mm, and there's a pretty big difference between 20mm and 24mm. I agree that if 24mm is to be considered, there are other choices.

I'd agree, but again, taking everything into account and particularly the fact that modern lenses are specifically *not* wanted, this still seems the *only* choice that actually fits the bill.

It may not still be $100 anymore because of scarcity, but I can't imagine it going beyond $150. By $170, few people will touch it.

PENTAX VIVITAR RL 24mm f2 1:2 24 mm LENS DIGITAL/FILM - eBay (item 290425321783 end time Apr-22-10 17:18:08 PDT)

The Pentax reviews have it as $35 for one with oily aperture and $100 for one fully working. It may not be updated but it shouldn't be off by too much.

Yeah, I understand I'm asking for a lot here. My criteria are a bit bizarre and stringent to say the least, thanks for bearing with me.

That's a reason to use MF, but I don't see how that's a reason not to choose an AF lens if it happens to be a better fit for your needs. No one forces you to use AF just because the lens has it.

Very true, my reasoning is flawed but works in my own brand of twisted logic.

Reason 1:
AF lenses tend to be harder to MF, it's not dampened as well and the focus ring typically stinks.

Reason 2:
I'd be far too tempted to use AF if it's readily available. I keep my 18-55mm DA L locked away in a dark, moist place. It should have some fungus growing on it by now. When I first started photography with my Canon Xsi + kit lens, I got a lot of great shots that are actually superior to the shots I've taken recently using far superior MF glass and a superior K-x body. I know I could get much better photos with AF lenses or rather, I wouldn't be missing so many opportunities due to my slow speed in focusing but that's not my goal here. I want to become a better photographer down the line and the way I want to get there involves practicing with MF. I'm basically trading away good photographs now for great photographs later.

Silly, I know. AF lenses will only hinder me.

Reason 3:
I just know there are under $150 wide angle MF lenses to be had somewhere. I just need some names.

I need to be more careful while typing! I certainly meant the 3.5, but not as a recommendation for you, just as part of my reply to another post by Kryosphinx (nice nickname by the way), because his assumption that lenses below 20mm fl were not needed on film cameras is not really true. There are quite many lenses with shorter fls "out there" and most of them are rectilinear.

Hangu: You should really have a look at either the Kiron or Vivitar 24/2.0. I know its longer, than you desire, but this is a very good lens and perfectly useable, even wide open. And as they are available in PKA mount, you get all the benefits of matrix metering and PTTL flash (though the benefits of THAT have often been debated).

One lens, that comes to my mind, which wasn't mentioned so far (if I haven't overlooked its mentioning), is the old MF Tokina 17/3.5. It is an excellent little lens and I have used it in film days very much. This lens is not too common, but also not so rare, that it became a collector's item. Even I have one lying in my cupboard from the "olde days". Good sharpness and contrast for a low price.

Ben

I think Kryosphinx is right to some extent. Wide angle lenses are certainly harder to design/produce as they become wider and they were not as needed as they are today with our 1.5x crop bodies. Back then 24mm was perfectly serviceable and not a lot of people would need or have the money for anything under it. To get the same 24mm FF effect, we'd need a 16mm lens, that's not going to be cheap or easy to make.

I'm already on the 24mm Vivitar/Kiron. I just think under 20mm is going to make a big difference. The 18mm end of my kit lens was a real sweet spot for me.

Thank you very much for the Tokina name, I'll be on the lookout for that.

[Ira]

For sh*ts and giggles, I'll do some shots when I get out of work today with my Spiratone 18 3.5 and post here, but something doesn't make any sense:

This lens is on eBay now for $350. How could it be worth anywhere near that?

[Just1MoreDave]

It may not still be $100 anymore because of scarcity, but I can't imagine it going beyond $150. By $170, few people will touch it.

PENTAX VIVITAR RL 24mm f2 1:2 24 mm LENS DIGITAL/FILM - eBay (item 290425321783 end time Apr-22-10 17:18:08 PDT)

The Pentax reviews have it as $35 for one with oily aperture and $100 for one fully working. It may not be updated but it shouldn't be off by too much.

This is one of the 24mm lenses I have. It's made by Komine. Someone had a Vivitar/Kiron in PK/A mount up a month ago that sold for around $190. When I was bidding on mine, I fully expected it to sell above $150. I was shocked when it didn't.

This lens has a similar wide-open rendering to the Cosina 55mm f1.2, especially on point light sources. In a quick test, the Sigma 24mm f2.8 was a lot sharper at f2.8, sharper at every aperture. The Kiron 24mm f2.0 was also sharper wide open in the corners, about the same in the center, stopped down they get closer. After some use, I don't choose this lens for sharpness, but I like its rendering anyway.

[jslifoaw]

Another thought: what's wrong with the kit lens? It looks like you aren't looking for a classic lens wider than 18mm, nor are many readily available for a reasonable amount of money. I think it is one of the best wide angle lenses you can get for Pentax for the money (i.e. almost nothing). Getting a third party MF lens in that range might only gain you a bit of speed at F2.8 (unless you find a more expensive F2.0 lens), not gain any quality (the kit lens is taken for granted since it's "free" in a kit and contains the word "kit" in its given name), and gain you the ever dubious "build quality" and "silky smooth MF", which are both mostly brought up in the context of old MF lenses despite many new AF lenses being excellent in these departments. I used to have quite a few M, K, and M42 lenses, and most of them are gone now.

This isn't to say it's a bad idea, but is it really worth spending on a lens your kit lens covers while losing AF and possibly AE and only justify it because it's a smooth-focusing tank? About the only AF lenses that are really horrible for MF are the ones where the ring is about 2mm thick (see Nikon and Canon kit lenses) and the front element rotates and wobbles. If the AF devil is too tempting, tape the AF/MF switch over, or somehow jam it stuck to MF

The real value in old MF lenses lies outside of ultrawides. You can get fantastic 28s, 35s, 50s, 85s, 100/105s, 135s, etc that are manual focus but affordable and good quality. You will typically get either affordability OR quality when going wider, but not both. You might also need to wait awhile to find one. In the meantime, Pentax and 3rd party mfrs offer a myriad of modern ultra-wide options for quite moderate prices.

[hangu]

Jslifoaw, I haven't been happy with the sharpness of my kit lens. I think it's great for a kit lens but certainly a step down in image quality compared to almost any decent MF lens. I shot a few pics with my kit lens and quickly shelved it in favor of my A35-105mm f3.5 and A50mm f1.4 (these aren't even my sharpest lenses), the quality difference was evident on my camera LCD alone.

It seems my best choices are the Vivitar, Kiron & Tokina. I really like the DA 15 LTD but it is a crop sensor lens and will not work with film.

I know I sound like a sniveling whiner, objecting to every proposal of AF lenses but I have an unhealthy love affair with MF lenses that logic can not easily explain.

[Marc Sabatella]

It may not still be $100 anymore because of scarcity, but I can't imagine it going beyond $150. By $170, few people will touch it.

PENTAX VIVITAR RL 24mm f2 1:2 24 mm LENS DIGITAL/FILM - eBay (item 290425321783 end time Apr-22-10 17:18:08 PDT)

Thanks for the heads up. My interest in 24mm lenses is not what it was a few weeks ago, but a <$100 24/2 would be tough to turn down if one showed up at the right moment. So thanks for the heads-up on what to look for.

Reason 1:
AF lenses tend to be harder to MF, it's not dampened as well and the focus ring typically stinks.

Very true in general, I'll grant. Although perhaps not as big an issue for wide angle lenses as for longer/faster lenses.

Reason 2:
I'd be far too tempted to use AF if it's readily available.

And what a travesty that would be :-) OK, since you seem to recognize the "twisted" nature of your logic, I can't argue. We all have our slightly irrational preferences.

I just know there are under $150 wide angle MF lenses to be had somewhere. I just need some names.

You could well be right. I suppose at this point if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking at the Zenitar 16 and defishing in PP (a preset should allow that to be done at the touch of a button). I assume that's been suggested and rejected already (I forget), but that's what I'd be thinking.

[jslifoaw]

No worries; good luck in your quest for whichever lens is picking your fancy. The beauty of Pentax is that we have tons of old lenses to fiddle with (with SR no less)