[stevebrot]

If you want a lens, that makes sense on the KP and the MX I would go with a Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 which is a complete different lens on both formats and is even more fun to use on the MX, then the KP. It is manual focus though and not easy to focus on the KP.

Ha! HA! I own that lens and it is hard to focus even on my film cameras having split-image finders.


Steve

[pres589]

It's probably easier with a DSLR and Live View + digital zooming. That said I always shot with it either at hyperfocal focused distance or at the infinity stop. I don't use mine very often though.

[AgentL]

The thing I haven't yet seen in this thread is mention of how awful most of the F and FA Pentax lenses are to manually focus due to the absurdly thin focusing rings. Not all of these lenses are like that but a lot of them are that way. They also often have short focus throws making them harder to manually focus as well as under/non-damped action at the focus ring.

This is something to be aware of. As for a lens I can personally recommend for both APS-C DSLR use as well as on manual focus bodies like the K-1000, I like my Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG.

That's a good point, I'm sure it's much like trying to manually focus the DA lenses on the KP. Not the most fun. I like short focus throws but not that short. There is virtually no differentiation from about 3-5 meters to infinity in the feel of the focus ring.

[mikesbike]

The development of shorter focus throws has been in the interest of faster AF response. One current example of this point is in the older HD DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 WR lens and the latest HD DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 WR PLM. The PLM lens features especially fast, quiet AF, for which is has become quite popular. The older lens has been noted for its slower, noisier, screw-driven AF. However, the new lens being better is not a slam-dunk. There are pluses and minuses. The image quality is very close between them. The older model has advantages of its own, if these are important to the user. Its slower AF is at least in part due to its quite large focus throw- but this makes it much better for finely-tuned manual focus. And unlike the PLM model, it is not an internal focusing design, so there's no "focus breathing" reducing the effective FL at closer range. So if you are say not all that far away from a bird, the bird in your shot will be larger than it would be if using the PLM model. It all depends on your priorities.

I'm not suggesting either of these lenses for your purposes, as neither has an aperture ring. I just used them for a good example of how there can be advantages and disadvantages that can come with faster AF.

[AgentL]

If you want a lens, that makes sense on the KP and the MX I would go with a Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 which is a complete different lens on both formats and is even more fun to use on the MX, then the KP. It is manual focus though and not easy to focus on the KP.

That's an interesting lens, to be sure! I have the K1000, not the MX, though I'd like to own one sometime. But a very wide angle might be nice to have, and I'm assuming that Samyang/Rokinon makes the focus ring well-damped and usable, as they typically do. Interesting.

---------- Post added 07-08-21 at 09:22 AM ----------

Ha! HA! I own that lens and it is hard to focus even on my film cameras having split-image finders.


Steve

Oh, so it's difficult to focus? How come?

[stevebrot]

Oh, so it's difficult to focus? How come?

The focus ring works great, but everything in the viewfinder is so silly small on a film camera such even the focus aids have difficulty at distances greater than a few meters. On the K-3, magnified live view does work, but DOF at any distance is pretty huge, even wide open.

FWIW...that is just how things are with ultra-wides.


Steve

[Papa_Joe]

I have the K1000, not the MX, though I'd like to own one sometime.

Sorry I, got a bit confused. Thought of my MX I guess, as I really look forward to use my new Samyang on it, when the MX has all of its seals replaced.

---------- Post added 07-13-21 at 01:58 AM ----------

The focus ring works great, but everything in the viewfinder is so silly small on a film camera such even the focus aids have difficulty at distances greater than a few meters. On the K-3, magnified live view does work, but DOF at any distance is pretty huge, even wide open.

FWIW...that is just how things are with ultra-wides.
Steve

Thank you Steve for the explanation!

I might ad, that even focusing in liveview with the focusing aid is very difficult, as long as you do not use the magnifier.
Best solution is to focus as best as you can and then close the aperture down to 5.6 or 8.0.

---

Last edited by Papa_Joe; 07-13-2021 at 02:02 AM.

[AgentL]

The MX would be highest on my list, because I fell in love with the Olympus OM-1, but the examples I was able to own for a little while had their set of problems. The Pentax MX is of very similar size yet seems a little more robust. In addition, K1000 bodies in as good a shape as the one I have now command quite a high price, higher than they are worth relative to something like the MX. But, the K1000 was given to me recently by a very nice client of the place where I work, and I feel like holding onto it is the right thing to do. Plus, it's a darn nice, simple camera, even if it's not as compact and the viewfinder isn't as good as the MX.

[stevebrot]

In addition, K1000 bodies in as good a shape as the one I have now command quite a high price, higher than they are worth relative to something like the MX.

K1000s in my region often sell more MORE than an MX in similar condition. Go figure.


Steve