[avoir]

I remember there being a great thread with a nice list of Pentax 28mm lenses from the film era ranked quite well.
I don't think any of them are terrible, but I would advise you get one with A on aperture ring, so you get a little more automation.
Some third party 28mm lenses are a bit bad, but it is very difficult to tell, because there are so many. For example, there are many 28mm lenses labelled Vivitar, but they are very, very different from each other; some are great, others not so much. There is another thread (or website, something with "vivitar 28mm bestiary" in title), which has a list of these. You have to look at its appearance and serial number.


Those are both great lenses, and very affordable. And they have full automation, auto-aperture, AF, even lens CA and distortion profiles. But they are not very wide, at least not on APSC. While I recommend the DA 35mm to anybody (don't have the 50mm myself, but the reviews are good), you might want to look at DA 21mm or FA 20-35mm, or Samyang 16mm f2 for wide angle choices. That Samyang is great, good deal, very bright, really wide, but not awkwardly wide, great for indoors, landscapes, and astrophotography, but it has no AF (it does have auto-aperture, though).

I recommend DA 35mm and Samyang 16mm, and you have a solid wide to normal kit, great for travel and landscapes; blows away the 18-55mm and even most other zoom lenses in that range (pretty much all of them in terms of optics). A second hand Samyang 16mm can be found for a good price. 28mm is a good FoV, but unfortunately Pentax is not producing one at the moment, and neither is any other brand (at least not for Pentax K mount), so your options are quite limited. From the film era, there are many options, but it gets super complicated, so you have to do a lot of research. I don't know the lenses you mentioned specifically, but I do have an M 28mm f2.8 that I am happy with (despite some weaknesses).

Another tip - if you buy an old 28mm, buy a good tight lens hood for it! It will help a lot with the image quality, as lens coatings back then were nowhere near as advanced as now

What fantastic and thorough advice! Thank you. I believe I will start budgeting. Until then, being creative with what I have will only enhance my understanding of new options when I can afford the 16mm. Many thanks!

[clackers]

But to me the 28's aren't even really wide at all. The 24's are modestly wide but many break that budget.

Correct, UV, but $100 was specified.

At least the OP's attention has been drawn to the problem and they're now saving. ☺

[GUB]

My M28mm 3.5 is my default landscape lens when I am trekking. When you need wider try shooting panorama images and stitch it at home on the computer with the free program Hugin. Just 2 portrait format shots stitched gives you something wider than the 18mm end of your zoom. (The maths aren't simple) . Sure you get some unsuccessful attempts but a good stitch easily blows a single image for detail. Such is the result I have totally stopped pining for a wide angle. I have the M28 and tak28s and multiple other brands and the M28 wins hands down. I just have scored a Takumar Bayonet 28mm and it is up there with the M28 if not better.

[Na Horuk]

Actually, yeah, I got my M 28mm for around 60 euro, I think. You can buy one, and sell it later at a minimal loss to finance the next lens purchase. Or better yet, a Pentax A 28mm

[RKKS08]

@GUB
@Na Horuk

As far as I know, the Takumar Bayonet 2.8/28mm is a budget version of the SMC Pentax-A 2.8/28 (identical except that is has standard MC instead of SMC).
Could be made by (Asahi owned) Cosmicar in Taiwan instead in Japan.
IQ should be the same if light situation is not extremly difficult.

[clackers]

My M28mm 3.5 is my default landscape lens when I am trekking. When you need wider try shooting panorama images and stitch it at home on the computer with the free program Hugin. Just 2 portrait format shots stitched gives you something wider than the 18mm end of your zoom. (The maths aren't simple) . Sure you get some unsuccessful attempts but a good stitch easily blows a single image for detail. Such is the result I have totally stopped pining for a wide angle. I have the M28 and tak28s and multiple other brands and the M28 wins hands down. I just have scored a Takumar Bayonet 28mm and it is up there with the M28 if not better.

Yeah, I own the K28 f3.5 and it's nice. Not sure if it's $100 or not.

[GUB]

Mine is the 2.8 so is like the M28 2.8. At first impressions it deserves far more than the 7.8 in the reviews.
Edited -- ah so the other one is 2.8 too -- ok this one is the Takumar Bayonet not the Takumar A.

[GUB]

Takumar bayonet 28mm 2.8 probably stopped down a stop.

[RKKS08]

Mine is the 2.8 so is like the M28 2.8. At first impressions it deserves far more than the 7.8 in the reviews. Edited -- ah so the other one is 2.8 too -- ok this one is the Takumar Bayonet not the Takumar A

Sorry, I was not aware that the Takumar Bayonet 2.8/28 also existed as a M version.
A couple of years ago,I was nearly buying the A version. In the very last moment, I found a SMC-A on eBay for not much more (€68, I think). It turned out to be in mint condition (like unused).

[clackers]

I am also looking for cheap wide angle lenses for general landscapes. Any suggestions in film-era lens which will work on k-500 ?

Currently i use the kit lens but was thinking i could change to better lenses within budget.

It's a problem, Urnamaster.


A wide angle lens is harder to make satisfactorily than a tele.


From the film era, 24 was considered wide, and cost a bit more so that the 28 was easier to design and cheaper.


Neither are particularly wide on APS-C.


To go under 24mm from that era is making serious compromises in either price or performance.


Maybe you're better off going in a different direction - what about the DA 16-45 on your K-500?


If you've got a little more money and don't mind sending lenses back until you get a decent copy, the Samyang 14mm f2.8 is so good I'll be using it on the K-1 as well.

[Urnamaster13]

Ok thanks. The reason i was looking for a film era lens was because they were so cheap. I have a XR Rikenon 50 MM 1.7 and i am very happy with the performance i get out of such a low cost lens.
In landscapes i am thinking to learn and practice on a lens which is better then the KIt lens (18-55). It can be APS-C also...just wanted something not so costly.

[clackers]

Ok thanks. The reason i was looking for a film era lens was because they were so cheap. I have a XR Rikenon 50 MM 1.7 and i am very happy with the performance i get out of such a low cost lens.
.

Yep, but this is what I'm saying ... 50mm in a film era lens is cheap, 15mm is not.

[GUB]

Ok thanks. The reason i was looking for a film era lens was because they were so cheap. I have a XR Rikenon 50 MM 1.7 and i am very happy with the performance i get out of such a low cost lens.
In landscapes i am thinking to learn and practice on a lens which is better then the KIt lens (18-55). It can be APS-C also...just wanted something not so costly.

I have a 17mm Tokina k mount and it flares like a hippies jeans!! My 24mm tokina is not that good either. Neither are particularly sharp. While the midrange old lenses can outperform kit zoom the wideangle legacy glass can't.

[ChristianRock]

I bought my Tokina AF193 19-35mm for 90 dollars a couple of years ago. Very sharp at f5.6 and pin sharp at f8. I would definitely recommend that if you can't afford the 16-45 which I also bought recently. I paid 120 dollars for mine but they usually go for more.
My most recent lens is the Pentax 24mm f/2.8 (K version). I paid 80 dollars but it also usually goes for more. I think it is wide enough for landscapes, as I am a bit tired of the ultrawide look that I think has become a bit of a cliche in landscape pictures, with the exception of some people who still manage to be creative with it.

Tokina 19-35:

[Rebootoz]

Maybe not exactly the same position, but you get the picture!