[johnha]

Nobody's mentioned the M40/2.8 pancake yet, not the best prime but it's very compact (too compact for some). I had an M35/2.8 that had a sticky aperture, seems common to just this lens.

I'd agree a 28, 50 (I have both 1.4 & 1.7 - I use the 1.7 more for no real reason) and either the M75-150 or M80-200 if a 135 isn't long enough. The 200/4 is nearly as large as those zooms, the 150 might be a good option but tends to be more expensive.

Optically there's not much in it between the K, M & A series (although many have their favourites). The K's are more expensive, the A's use more plastic but are better on program bodies, leaving the M's as the best value - although some are easier to find than others.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Best set of 3 (or 5? what should i be looking at?

Bang for buck (and compact):
- SMC-M 28/f3.5
- SMC-M 50/f1.7
- SMC-M 135/f3.5
- SMC-M 200/f4 (bonus lens)

Best quality:
- SMC-K 28/f2
- SMC-K 50/f1.2
- SMC-K 85/f1.8
- SMC-M* 300/f4 (bonus lens)

---------- Post added 12-11-19 at 06:51 PM ----------

Nobody's mentioned the M40/2.8 pancake yet, not the best prime but it's very compact (too compact for some).

I've never quite been able to figure out the cult of the 40mm, when the M50/f17 is faster, sharper, much cheaper, has much better ergonomics, and is only fractionally larger... An MX + M50/f1.7 is still a pocketable SLR.

---------- Post added 12-11-19 at 06:58 PM ----------

Also, the M 50 f1.7 - is it that much different from the 55 F1.8 (which i assume is just a K mount version of what I have on my spotmatic...)?

The M50/f1.7 and Takumar 55/f1.8 have almost identical optical designs, and both are very good. I have the 50/f1.4 and 50/f1.2, and neither is noticeably better than the M50/f1.7 at shared apertures.)

[torashi]

Another vote for the M (miniature) series. You can build yourself a nice kit that uses 49mm filters with them.

[pres589]

The M 40mm, with a hood like what came on the DA 40mm Ltd, is much more slim than the same body with an M 50 1.7. I would rather shoot a camera with the M 50 1.7, I would rather pocket a camera with the M 40. 40mm is also a nice "compromise" focal length, more so I think than 50mm, on full frame. That's not always a plus but it definitely is if you're going out with just one lens mounted and nothing else in your bag. The 40mm isn't so bad if you're using some really contrasty black & white film; it falls down pixel peeping via a digital camera, especially a crop body like a KP or K-3, with their higher pixel densities.

[gofour3]

The charm of the M40/2.8 is the focal length, I like it better for a one lens walk around than a 50/55mm.

Phil.

[Ronald Oakes]

Not taking into consideration which series.....28mm , 35mm , 50mm , 135mm
That's about as simple as it gets.
With a little luck you should be able to do all for about $150 total.

[pres589]

Not taking into consideration which series.....28mm , 35mm , 50mm , 135mm
That's about as simple as it gets.
With a little luck you should be able to do all for about $150 total.

$150 seems low unless we're finding 3rd party glass that is not widely discussed. Vivitar 28mm f2.8, no idea who for 35mm, Vivitar 50mm f2.8 Macro, no idea who 135mm?

[Ronald Oakes]

$150 seems low unless we're finding 3rd party glass that is not widely discussed. Vivitar 28mm f2.8, no idea who for 35mm, Vivitar 50mm f2.8 Macro, no idea who 135mm?

Hmmm...I might be lowballing it ! Just used to swap meets , garage sales , and auctions on my end.
I picked up the last 4 lens "M" set for something like $35 at a garage sale complete with a ME Super that's fully functional.
Was going to sell the entire lens set for $100 , just never have got around to it.....yet.

[Eyewanders]

I went the opposite direction 2 years ago, performing the same exercise for M42 when I finally decided it was time to join the Spotty and S-series ranks.

I posted this some years ago. It isn't a cheap kit, but works more than a charm for me and has. (Compactness has always been one of my necessities.)



More recently I've been using just a two lens kit:
M 28/2.0 (this little gem has all but replaced my use of the FA31, not because it's better --it isn't, but it's close-- but because it is 1/3 the size.)
A 50/1.4 (I prefer the M variety for its build, but haven't had one in a long time. And the A is slightly lighter so I've stuck with it.)

Or just a single walk-around for me is nearly always the FA43. (I've *never* gotten on with the 40mm pancake. Don't like the rendering. Don't like the handling.)

All that said. Colton's original suggestion is where I'd start. For the price and availability if nothing else, and results that will speak for themselves.

---------- Post added 12-11-19 at 12:21 PM ----------

I'd also add that there's NOTHING wrong with the ubiquitous M 50/2.0.
You can find them for nothing, and frankly, I've always loved their rendering. Moreso than the 1.7 if I'm honest.

[Kevin B123]

Finding decent M 28 F2.8's can be tricky as they can suffer from sticky aperture blades from oiling, but they are nice lenses.
If compactness is a criteria, then is is some comparison between the M 50 f1.7 and DA 40mm (nee M 40)

[g026r]

(I've *never* gotten on with the 40mm pancake. Don't like the rendering. Don't like the handling.)

I've got one and I generally take it with my standard lenses when I travel — easier then a body cap & less prone to falling off — but I've felt much the same way. Perhaps a bit too small for easy use, rendering that I find uninspired, and a MFD that I find way too long for the FOV.

[Eyewanders]

I've got one and I generally take it with my standard lenses when I travel — easier then a body cap & less prone to falling off — but I've felt much the same way. Perhaps a bit too small for easy use, rendering that I find uninspired, and a MFD that I find way too long for the FOV.

Yup. I've had it twice. But let it go both times. I absolutley understand the appeal, I just don't like using it. The DA variety is a different animal - don't have to manually focus and no ring to think on. And the IQ is loads better.

---------- Post added 12-12-19 at 04:33 PM ----------

Finding decent M 28 F2.8's can be tricky as they can suffer from sticky aperture blades from oiling, but they are nice lenses.
If compactness is a criteria, then is is some comparison between the M 50 f1.7 and DA 40mm (nee M 40)

That's a mighty purdy black Super-A there. I've nearly picked up the DA40 again (I sold it along with the DA15 about 5 years ago) just for my SuperProgram, but I've just never loved the handling of the SuperProgram itself. It's the only "push-button" model I still have and this particular one was at the bottom of a dirt-cheap 6 camera lot, assumed non-working. Turns out it seems like it had *never* been used. Easily the cleanest K-mount body I own which is the only reason really that I hold on to it. (Though I wish it were black like yours.)

[Kevin B123]

That's a mighty purdy black Super-A there. I've nearly picked up the DA40 again (I sold it along with the DA15 about 5 years ago) just for my SuperProgram, but I've just never loved the handling of the SuperProgram itself. It's the only "push-button" model I still have and this particular one was at the bottom of a dirt-cheap 6 camera lot, assumed non-working. Turns out it seems like it had *never* been used. Easily the cleanest K-mount body I own which is the only reason really that I hold on to it. (Though I wish it were black like yours.)

Why thank you!, mine was cheap, boxed and and very clean but in need of CLA. The screen had been ruined by an attempt to clean it by the previous owner, so off it went to Harrow Technical at Pentax House. Cost a bit, but now it's great, I can use the D-FA 28-105 on it and everything. The DA 40 is not so great to manually focus wide open but I get by.

[Wasp]

A great K mount lens set in my opinion would be,

SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8
SMC Pentax-M 50/1.7
SMC Pentax-M 100/2.8

Excellent choice. At one stage back in the eighties I had exactly that in my bag. In my case, the M 50mm f/1.7 was later traded for an A 50mm f/2.8 macro, but we digress.

In addition to the above I also had the SMC Pentax M 200mm f/4 - not hard to find and it won't break the bank. Between these four lenses you can cover a lot of bases.

To round out he kit I added an SMC Pentax A 400mm f/5.6 (with matching 1.4x teleconverter) and an SMC Pentax M 20mm f/4. These lenses served me very well, and I still have them all.

[jcoat]

I would suggest your classic 28, 50, 135 for three lenses. Perhaps add a 35mm and a 70-200 or 100-300 zoom if you go with five lenses.

There are a lot of nice options for the 28 and 135. I'd suggest going with a faster 2.8 lens even if its third party. Vivitar made great stuff, but even unknown brands tend to give pretty good results as most are re-branded Japanese made lenses.