[Robrocker]

Hi everybody!

I have a nice black MX together with the 50mm f/1.7 lens, great combo but I think it would be fun with more options.
I know that I can mount the Pentax-M lenses and Pentax-K lenses on my camera but what other lenses can I get for it?

Can I, without any problem, mount Pentax-A lenses on my camera aswell?

Sorry if this is a common uestion..

[baro-nite]

Can I, without any problem, mount Pentax-A lenses on my camera aswell?

Yes. You won't be able to use the A setting, but as long as it has an aperture ring you should be OK.

[Macario]

I have always used the following combo with my MX
M50 f1.4
M20 f4.0
K135 f2.5

A very nice combination, and very light to travel with

[Robrocker]

I have always used the following combo with my MX
M50 f1.4
M20 f4.0
K135 f2.5

A very nice combination, and very light to travel with

Wow! Yes, that sound like the perfect comination! That´s exactly what I would like to have in my everyday bag. In a bigger bag I´d like to add one more body, perhaps a LX and maybe 85/1.8 and 200/4.

[stevebrot]

You can mount and use any K-mount lens that has an aperture ring. This would include the following series from Pentax:

• K(simply labeled SMC)
• M
• A
• FA
• DFA

You can also use (with adapter) most M42 screwmount lens as long as they have provision for manual aperture stop-down. The choices are virtually endless.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I´d like to add one more body, perhaps a LX and maybe 85/1.8 and 200/4.

While the M 20/4 is a cool idea, I would suggest that a compact 28mm would be a practical alternative. Don't overlook the excellent compact offerings from Vivitar and Tamron in this focal length.


Steve

[Robrocker]

You can mount and use any K-mount lens that has an aperture ring. This would include the following series from Pentax:

• K(simply labeled SMC)
• M
• A
• FA
• DFA

You can also use (with adapter) most M42 screwmount lens as long as they have provision for manual aperture stop-down. The choices are virtually endless.


Steve

Ok, thanks! That is really good to know.

[Robrocker]

While the M 20/4 is a cool idea, I would suggest that a compact 28mm would be a practical alternative. Don't overlook the excellent compact offerings from Vivitar and Tamron in this focal length.


Steve

Thanks! Yes, a super-wide is always nice but often heavy so I guess a compact 28mm is easier to bring for everyday shooting.

[southlander]

While the M 20/4 is a cool idea, I would suggest that a compact 28mm would be a practical alternative. Don't overlook the excellent compact offerings from Vivitar and Tamron in this focal length.


Steve

I'll put in a plug for the M 28mm F3.5. Great little lens and not hard or expensive to find (a good copy should be <$100) while the M 20mm is fairly scarce and not cheap from what I have seen ($300+).

Have just used the M28 3.5 for the Single in September Challenge on this forum. Here is a link to the images posted: Southlander's Single in September Album

Note though that these were taken on digital, so the sensor cropping produces 42mm film equivalent FOV. You would have a much wider FOV on film. I tried to use the lens in as many settings as possible to illustrate its versatility - day/night, wide range of focusing distances, variety of apertures. Was very happy with it. Good colours and sharp at F5.6 and more so at F8-11. F4 quite usable when needed.

You will see from my signature that I have built up a bit of a holding in M lenses. Still working my way through learning how to best use each one, but for a short tele lens, the M100mm F4 macro is very sharp and also opens up the world of macro for you. It's good at all focusing distances and not confined to macro use in any way. Again, not that expensive or scarce. Early days in my hands, but seems better behaved with chromatic aberrations and purple fringing than say the M 135 3.5.

IMO, a 28 + 50 + 100 would be a good and versatile starter set.

[Robrocker]

I'll put in a plug for the M 28mm F3.5. Great little lens and not hard or expensive to find (a good copy should be <$100) while the M 20mm is fairly scarce and not cheap from what I have seen ($300+).

IMO, a 28 + 50 + 100 would be a good and versatile starter set.

Ok, yes.. something like 28, 50 and 100 would be great!

[stevebrot]

IMO, a 28 + 50 + 100 would be a good and versatile starter set.

Yes...The classic 35mm 3-lens kit (pre-zoom era) used to be 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm. As a result most lenses in these focal lengths are pretty decent optically, readily obtainable, and usually fairly inexpensive.

As for the M 28/3.5, I would also offer it as a good option. It is the better of the two moderate aperture Pentax-M 28s and often sells for less than the M 28/2.8. For what its worth, the M 28/2.8 was sort of a budget lens back-in-the-day and sold for about $45 USD new. The M 28/3.5 sold for about twice that amount.


Steve

[womble]

The classic 35mm 3-lens kit (pre-zoom era) used to be 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm...

I still like that combination when I can force myself not to lug too much stuff around. (I've never been good at travelling light!) I find either my ES/ESII with S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5, SMC Takumar 50/1.4 and S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 (first version), or my LX/MX with K28/3.5, K50/1.2 and K135/2.5 a good combination. At the moment, however, I'm just trying out my ME-F with the AF35-70mm f/2.8 lens and an Agfa Isolette II!

K.

[builttospill]

I use the K 28/3.5 with my MX and really like it when traveling light. I usually bring the 28, M 50/1.7 and FA 77 Limited. If I'm not worried about size I take the FA* 24, FA 43, FA 77, 90 macro and FA* 80-200. Our ability to use so many different lenses, both new and old, is very convenient.

Depending on your budget and other photography needs, buy the lenses you'd want to use across multiple bodies.

[jakeblues]

While the M 20/4 is a cool idea, I would suggest that a compact 28mm would be a practical alternative. Don't overlook the excellent compact offerings from Vivitar and Tamron in this focal length.


Steve

I have the M 20/4, and personally wouldn't recommend a 28mm as an "alternative". If you're looking for 20mm (which I often am), you'll need 20mm.

Thanks! Yes, a super-wide is always nice but often heavy so I guess a compact 28mm is easier to bring for everyday shooting.

The M 20/4 is nearly identical in size to the M 50/1.7 (and maybe just a touch lighter).

Surprised no one has mentioned the M 35/2. If you're looking for a lens to stick on your camera and shoot with all day, this would be my recommendation.

[stevebrot]

I have the M 20/4, and personally wouldn't recommend a 28mm as an "alternative". If you're looking for 20mm (which I often am), you'll need 20mm.



The M 20/4 is nearly identical in size to the M 50/1.7 (and maybe just a touch lighter).

Surprised no one has mentioned the M 35/2. If you're looking for a lens to stick on your camera and shoot with all day, this would be my recommendation.

You are absolutely correct. If a person needs a 20, a 28 would be a poor substitute. However, I don't know that anybody said the OP was looking for a 20mm lens. A 28 is a good recommendation for a wide-angle on 35mm film and is sufficiently wide to satisfy most subjects. Most available 28s are relatively fast, quite sharp, and have low distortion. They are also dirt cheap.

I personally like wide-angles and own several 28mm lenses. Every once in a while I have wanted a 24. Never, have I had a need for a 20. Given my personal experience, I don't know that I would point a noob in the direction of an expensive specialty lens and a 20mm is very definitely a specialty lens.

The M35/2 is a decent lens and would be my first choice for street photography using a 35mm camera like the MX. Again, what is an appropriate advice for a noob? I like my 35s (I have several in three different mounts), but would not point someone in that direction unless they already owned a 28 or a 50 and wanted something in-between. Traditionally, the classic kit is a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 135mm. All three are usually good, readily available, and dirt cheap.


Steve