[Femto1969]

Congratulations! The SMC(-M) 50/2 is a better lens than its reputation.

It does seem somewhat maligned online, but since the lens is frequently just given away, and the f/1.4 and f/1.7 only seem marginally better, I think I might save my $80 for this hobby outfit. If I end up relying on it, I may upgrade both bodies and lenses. But that's really what my Pentax 67 is for, anyway.

Do you like the f/2?

[pathdoc]

thanks Pathdoc for sharing that clean-up project.

Clean-up? LOL, that's the point - I never got started on the disassembly before I shot with it!! There were cobwebs in the mirror box, and for all I know there are tiny live spiders crawling around inside the bits of the camera I cannot see!!

[monochrome]

It does seem somewhat maligned online, but since the lens is frequently just given away, and the f/1.4 and f/1.7 only seem marginally better, I think I might save my $80 for this hobby outfit. If I end up relying on it, I may upgrade both bodies and lenses. But that's really what my Pentax 67 is for, anyway.

Do you like the f/2?

The 50/1.4's beginning with the Takumars were designed to offer a classic subject isolation, sharp in the center and a bit soft at the edges, with good bokeh (though they are quite sharp by f/4).

The 1.8/1.7 50's were specifically designed for flatwork, that is, taking a photo of a flat surface like a piece of paper with the camera mounted vertically on a copy stand. Flatwork was important before the advent of scanners and computers. The M50/1.7 is sharp edge to edge. We've adopted it's characteristics today as superior since sharpness across the frame is the contemporary style (Retina displays promote this style).

The 50/2's were less expensive, general purpose lenses that are still quite good for what they are. They usually have a simpler optical design with fewer elements than the faster lenses. The price delta for the M50/2 is more related to oversupply versus demand than a true quality statement, IMO. My CON for the M50/2 is open aperture focusing with old eyes. The more light the better, so Ipaid up for a 50/1.2 (which actually is inferior to the 1.4 until f/5.6).

You can examine the three optical formulas for the M lenses (actually all the normals) at the link below. Click on 'Optical Formula' in the lower box for each lens.

Pentax Normal Prime Lenses

[ChrisPlatt]

Despite many upgrades I have offered my wife she prefers her K1000 with M50/2 lens.

Many were introduced to the Pentax K1000 via a college photography course.
I suspect for some it is a touchstone, a reminder of those more carefree times.

I understand and admire the barebones "light tight box" appeal of the K1000.
However on an SLR I insist on DOF preview; for simplicity I choose a Pentax KM.

The Pentax M/A 50mm f/2 models have long been among the best values in lenses.
The M50 f/1.7 costs only a little more lately and is better still; excellent in fact.

Chris

[Femto1969]

The 50/1.4's beginning with the Takumars were designed to offer a classic subject isolation, sharp in the center and a bit soft at the edges, with good bokeh (though they are quite sharp by f/4).

The 1.8/1.7 50's were specifically designed for flatwork, that is, taking a photo of a flat surface like a piece of paper with the camera mounted vertically on a copy stand. Flatwork was important before the advent of scanners and computers. The M50/1.7 is sharp edge to edge. We've adopted it's characteristics today as superior since sharpness across the frame is the contemporary style (Retina displays promote this style).

The 50/2's were less expensive, general purpose lenses that are still quite good for what they are. They usually have a simpler optical design with fewer elements than the faster lenses. The price delta for the M50/2 is more related to oversupply versus demand than a true quality statement, IMO. My CON for the M50/2 is open aperture focusing with old eyes. The more light the better, so Ipaid up for a 50/1.2 (which actually is inferior to the 1.4 until f/5.6).

You can examine the three optical formulas for the M lenses (actually all the normals) at the link below. Click on 'Optical Formula' in the lower box for each lens.

Pentax Normal Prime Lenses

Thank you both so much for your run downs! I feel very confident in my f/2. If I need more I know where to go.

Monochrome, are you really in Kirkwood?? I live in South City! Schillers is my home camera store! Let me know if you are trying to unload any k-mounts or 67 lenses

[monochrome]

Thank you both so much for your run downs! I feel very confident in my f/2. If I need more I know where to go.

Monochrome, are you really in Kirkwood?? I live in South City! Schillers is my home camera store! Let me know if you are trying to unload any k-mounts or 67 lenses

Yes I am I go to CCC on Olive West - near where I work, but I drop in schiller's every so often.

I'll have some M lenses - pedestrian and hard-to-find -shortly (only my daughter does 6x7).

[Xmas]

Despite many upgrades I have offered my wife she prefers her K1000 with M50/2 lens.

Many were introduced to the Pentax K1000 via a college photography course.
I suspect for some it is a touchstone, a reminder of those more carefree times.

I understand and admire the barebones "light tight box" appeal of the K1000.
However on an SLR I insist on DOF preview; for simplicity I choose a Pentax KM.

The Pentax M/A 50mm f/2 models have long been among the best values in lenses.
The M50 f/1.7 costs only a little more lately and is better still; excellent in fact.

Chris

Smaller and lighter, @/5.6 ISO400 film no detectable difference?
If you got hands like Yeti maybe not.

[gofour3]

A KX has what, a timer, a lever to stop down the aperture for DoF Preview, another to raise the mirror and a third to move the blue aperture indicator? The little prism to see the aperture ring on the lens itself?

My KX has had one CLA since my grandmother gave it to me in 1977. Nothing was broken. It just needed seals and settings.

My daughter took my KX and her K1000 as a backup to a film landscape photography camp in New Mexico. A fully mechanical camera was a requirement (3 fl lenses and O2 and Y2 filters were the others). One assignment was a self-portrait . . . . the K1000 users had to borrow a camera and few students were willing to lend.

I understand this is blasphemy spoken by an iconoclast - but really, I don't get it and I never have.

I would agree, as I have never warmed up to the K1000, though it probably has a lot to do with owning a KX for so long.

Since you can get a KX for around the same price as a K1000, I'd choose it every time. The KX's DOF preview, Judas window and matching needle metering is something that I miss on the K1000.

The KM is also a better choice over the K1000, but still has the same feel as a K1000 if your into that.

Phil.

[Eyewanders]

+1 for the KX. Same basic camera with a few additions you'll absolutely grow to want, if you don't already. Who doesn't want a self-timer at least now and again? DOF preview? Duh. Not a knock against the K1000, the thing is that even if the DOF preview and self-timer fail on a KX, you're still effectively left with a K1000 for all intents and purposes. So..... yeah.

But I'd just get an MX and call it a day.

M50/2.0 is an EXCELLENT lens. I've always had a few kicking around as they're so ubiquitous but currently don't. I honestly prefer the rendering of them and M50/1.4 to the 1.7 versions. More classic look, but the difference is negligible when stopped down in general use. The M50f2 has to be the very best rendering, fastest, most robustly built $20 dollar lens anywhere by anyone. That's my experience.

[Jonathan Mac]

I would agree, as I have never warmed up to the K1000, though it probably has a lot to do with owning a KX for so long.

Since you can get a KX for around the same price as a K1000, I'd choose it every time. The KX's DOF preview, Judas window and matching needle metering is something that I miss on the K1000.

Phil.

Don't forget the shutter button lock - probably the most useful feature that the K1000 lacks. I get tired of having to change my order of "shoot - wind - wait for next shot" to
"shoot - find I can't - wind - shoot (if opportunity not gone) - wind - curse and think I now have to shoot something else before putting the camera away".

[ChrisPlatt]

I never use self-timer. FWIW it is a common failure point on many older cameras.

Chris

[wbsmith200]

I have a pair of KX's (one chrome, one black), if you have the budget grab one of those, it's a K1000 with all the bells and whistles. Now having read through this thread, I'm trying to keep my camera GAS in check. Do I really need a K1000, ok a KM......

[Pioneer]

Cameras, lenses and personal preferences are funny things. I just prefer the K1000. Others prefer other cameras and that is great.

I really don't consider it a cult of simplicity, though it certainly is a very simple camera. It is more that the K1000 and the 50/2 still outperform me. The viewfinder is not the best, the meter has quirks, and it is missing a whole bunch of features that most people find handy. But with the right light I still cannot see any difference between what another 35mm camera does with that light vs the K1000.

As for how tough they are? I really can't say they are any tougher than any other camera. What I can say is this. These cameras were the first choice of teachers for years and years. They were handed out to young high school and college students and they largely survived the experience. I know what I was like at that age, I know what my kids were like, and I now know what my grandchildren are like. These cameras largely held up to that level of care and handling. So though I don't know whether other cameras can hold up to it, I do know that K1000 cameras did hold up to it. So even though they were Pentax's most basic entry level SLR, they were still built very, very well. Well enough that I am pretty confident that it will put up with whatever I do to it.

[ChrisPlatt]

Simply stated, the simpler the camera the less there is to break, fail or be misadjusted through user error.
The K1000 is the proverbial "light tight box" with only the features required for complete creative control.

Chris

[Jonathan Mac]

Up to the K series cameras, the lower models did not have any lesser build quality that the higher models. The chassis was exactly the same. The difference was the features, not the quality.