[bubalero]

Hi everyone, I'm new in this forum.
I own a Pentax mx with the pentax-a 50mm 1.7 and I want to buy a new lens.
Is it worth buying the super takumar 50mm 1.4 or is better to save money and buy the 80mm super takumar or other lenses(50 or 80 mm). if you could advise me it would be grate!

[Ole]

Super Takumar lenses have an M42 screw mount. They can be used on the MX with an adapter, but I would recommend that you stick with lenses with the Pentax K-mount, which fits your camera without an adapter. So look for smc Pentax-M or smc Pentax-A lenses. Or smc Pentax (also caled "K") lenses. You can find them in our database here.

[bubalero]

thank you if you have any suggestions please let me know.

[titrisol]

thank you if you have any suggestions please let me know.

It depends a lot on what end result you want to achieve. Most of the SMC-M and SMC-A lenses are very good and you have a large pool to choose from at relatively good prices

if you want a wide angle the smc-A 28/2.8 is very good
for protraits a short tele (85 or 105mm) can work, but a 135mm will give you a lot more flexibility
For macro, Tamron 90mm or the Pentax SMC 100m Macro are excellent

[pres589]

Not a lot of information to go on; what's the budget? What are you wanting to capture? You seem interested in a longer focal length. I'd keep that Pentax 50mm f1.7 that you're using now, though the A series can have issues with the aperture ring breaking down, which is repairable if you're handy. In any case, something like the Tamron 90mm f2.5 Macro might be worth looking at. It's very versatile and compact and seems well made (at least the Adaptall versions are, I don't know about the later autofocusing variant of this lens).

A 28mm f2.8 might be nice as well, or a 24mm instead, for wide-angle duty.

[bubalero]

I own the 50mm smc pentax-a 1:1.7 and a 135mm. I would buy a new lens but not a tele and not a 28mm. My question is: is it worth buy a new 50mm (maybe 1.2 or 1.4, the 50mm is the lens that I use more) or the difference between smc pentax-a 1:1.7 and other better 50mm isn't so big. The other lens that I'm interested in is the 85mm.
My budget is under 300 €.
I hope I explained myself better, thanks for the support.

[pschlute]

I own the 50mm smc pentax-a 1:1.7 and a 135mm. I would buy a new lens but not a tele and not a 28mm. My question is: is it worth buy a new 50mm (maybe 1.2 or 1.4, the 50mm is the lens that I use more) or the difference between smc pentax-a 1:1.7 and other better 50mm isn't so big. The other lens that I'm interested in is the 85mm.
My budget is under 300 €.
I hope I explained myself better, thanks for the support.

Hi and welcome to the forums.

As someone who uses old lenses (SMC/smc; M;A ) lenses a lot I would suggest you save your money !

The old 50mm 1.7 lens is a classic in all its forms (smc-M/A). The lenses you mention like the 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 will give you more light and narrower depth of field. They will not give you improved resolution.

---

Last edited by pschlute; 10-17-2022 at 12:44 AM.

[tonyzoc]

For the MX I would look for SMC Pentax and SMC Pentax-M (or A) lenses. If all I owned was a 50mm (and the f/1.7 is one of the very best) I would first want a 35mm f/2.8 or a 28mm f/2.8 (both actually). The 35 is a very nice walk around lens and they run in the $80-120 range. The 28 is about 2/3 that price or less. In the telephoto range I'd recommend 3 lenses...the 75-150/4, the 80-200/4.5 and the 200/4. These 3 and the 135/3.5 can be had cheap...like $40-$60 range. Certain lenses are expensive and IMO not really worth it unless you're building a collection...these would include the 20/4, 40/2.8 and 85/2.0. I have these focal lengths in Nikon Mount at 1/2 to 1/3 the price.

Other zooms to consider... The 35-70/2.8-3.5 is one of the best from that era. Also the 40-80/2.8-4 macro can be had for under $30 and is a OK walk around lens.

[LesDMess]

I have the M42 mount 17mm f4 Fisheye and the 40mm f2.8 pancake and used on the MX they are the most compact combinations around.



To your point, all are exceptional performers . . .

[rvandenbrink]

I found that once I got other lenses (esp my first zoom), the 50mm didn’t see nearly as much use
Looking back I should have used it more, my first zoom (tamron 35-135mm circa 1975 ish) was not that great, the 50, 35 and 135 primes were all much better lenses, at least for IQ

[LesDMess]

I found that once I got other lenses (esp my first zoom), the 50mm didn’t see nearly as much use
Looking back I should have used it more, my first zoom (tamron 35-135mm circa 1975 ish) was not that great, the 50, 35 and 135 primes were all much better lenses, at least for IQ

But just how much better?

When I first acquired the MX and the Pentax M 50mm f4 Macro lens from a local CL listing for very cheap, I was blown away by the huge viewfinder. Shot a few rolls and started noticing how sharp the results were from the macro lens and made me wonder just how good was this lens? So I tested it using Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Kodak Technidol. Results below clearly show that the detail captured on this film using this lens cannot even be resolved by my Coolscan's 4000dpi nor a Nikon D800 @ 36MP.




The huge viewfinder of the MX will allow you to achieve critical focus which is very important when shooting the f1.2 lens wide open.

[TwoUptons]

Something of a wildcard, I have the Rokinon (Samyang) 85mm f1.4 that is quite good.
I bought it to use on digital, but it has an aperture ring and works great on the MX (though it looks huge with the hood on it)
And it was $250 new when I bought it a few years ago, so it should be available for a very good price on the used market.

I also suggest the Pentax 24-35 as possibly the best travel lens ever on the MX.

-Eric

[Arjay Bee]

If you are wanting the old three lens film camera ethos go with a 35mm, the 50mm (you've got one of the best already) and a 135mm and load them in an old canvas bag and you will be set for well inside your 300 euro. Add one of the 50mm macros if you have change.

[womble]

Sounds like you are interested in 85mm. The M85/2 is the cheaper option but still pretty good. The K85 is a little faster, a lot heavier, a bit more expensive, but also optically very good. I would avoid the A series lenses as the A gets you nothing on an MX, and the ease with which they can be used on digital drives the price up. The A85/1.4is a superb lens (I have been told) but is rare and expensive.

Hope that helps. K.

[Jonathan Mac]

I own the 50mm smc pentax-a 1:1.7 and a 135mm. I would buy a new lens but not a tele and not a 28mm. My question is: is it worth buy a new 50mm (maybe 1.2 or 1.4, the 50mm is the lens that I use more) or the difference between smc pentax-a 1:1.7 and other better 50mm isn't so big. The other lens that I'm interested in is the 85mm.
My budget is under 300 €.
I hope I explained myself better, thanks for the support.

The A 50mm f/1.7 is a fine lens, maybe the sharpest 50mm lens I've ever tried but the build quality isn't great and many suffer from problems with the aperture ring. The solution to that would be to get an M series 50/1.7 or 50/1.4, the former would cost around €40 and the latter around €80 but you won't see much, if any, difference in image quality compared to your existing 50mm. Why do you want to change? Is it broken? Not fast enough?

As for 85mm lenses for the K mount, you might find an M 85mm f/2 for under €200 but the prices for all old fast 85mm lenses has gone through the roof in the last few years.