[baro-nite]

By combination I meant this is the smallest diagonal fisheye combination I believe of any brand that I have seen. Of course the M40 and this Super Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm F4 are not in the same league due to their FOV.

Very true -- wonderfully compact for a fisheye.

[gofour3]

.
Interesting... I'll have to check these out. Have you by chance used the K 35 against other primes like the M 35/2?

I have the K35/2 as well and the K35/3.5 is sharper.

A couple other small lens choices that I have are the K30/2.8 and K24/2.8. Both are great wide angle lenses.

Phil.

[gabriel_bc]

Another option, though hard to come by, is the FA20-35/4 zoom. I'm not (usually) a zoom fan, but I really, really like this one. Great on APS-C, fantastic on film. The only downside is the slow(ish) f4 max aperture, though it is a constant aperture zoom. You could pair it with an M35/2 or an M50/1.7 for when low light is a concern.

[jakeblues]

I have the K35/2 as well and the K35/3.5 is sharper.

A couple other small lens choices that I have are the K30/2.8 and K24/2.8. Both are great wide angle lenses.

Phil.

I love 24mm. My most used focal length.

I'll have to pick up a copy of the K35 and check it out

[THoog]

The K35/3.5 can be a little hard to find. The SMC Takumar screw-mount version is fairly common, and optically identical. The Tak might be a little smaller in diameter, since it doesn't have rubber knurling.

What I'd heard on the Voigtlander 20 / 40 was that they were pretty much the same as their Pentax equivalents. Slightly different color, maybe a little sharper.

A fairly small UWA is the Cosina or Vivitar 20/3.8 (also labled as 19/3.8). The body is about the size of a M50/1.4, but with a 62mm filter ring (bigger than it needed to be, IMHO).

[demp10]

If 24mm is wide enough for you on film and F4 is fast enough, then get the Pentax F 24-50 F4 (constant). It's a stellar lens and if you ever get an auto focus body (film or DSLR) you can use its full potential.

This way there is no need to change lenses, and you will be press to see any difference in image quality from the primes. One small issue that may find with this lens (and all the other F series zooms) on manual focus, is that the focusing ring is rather small, but still workable. One alternative is to get a metal screw-on hood and use that to focus the lens since the front element rotates as you focus.

[ChrisPlatt]

The M28/3.5 is a terrific lens, and a bargain.

Chris

[Hilo]

Since the original post here, I have thought to write something. Because I like the question a lot. Since the mid seventies I have only really used quite small bodies with either 50mm, or 40mm, or 35mm. Then, and still now, it was and is for professional use. Although in the beginning I have gotten the faster lenses, 1.4, maybe even 1.2, it has been more than 20 years that I prefer the f1.8 or f2 versions. Simply because of the smaller size and less weight. And because I find the 'smaller rig' less intimidating to the people I photograph.

Most of this time I used Olympus OM1 and Olympus OM4(Ti) with these three focal lengths, and the Zuiko 40/2 is my preferred lens. The OM4Ti's began to give up on me about five years ago and I replaced them with the LX. I tried both K an M 50/1.4 versions, but settled on the 50/2 - for the reasons mentioned before. Getting into Pentax opened up quite a world for me, because of the M42 lenses and because of some third party lenses. Until I got the LX, I never thought much about different lenses, I was happy with what I had. I tried many different (Pentax and some other makers) lenses in this 35 to 50mm range, but in the end I kept only a few: a 58/2 Takumar, a Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8 and a Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (both the Icarex versions). I got a ME Super because with the 50/2 it is so beautifully small, I keep it for the bike rides (this is Holland). And I just got a K2 because the Ultron fits so well on that one.

I know that compared to today's digital cameras all the cameras mentioned are big and heavy. But, and finally I come a bit closer to the OP, I like the size of the analog SLR with a smallish lens. The LX or a bit smaller (ME Super), or a tiny bit larger (K2) . . . I think it is all much of the same thing. But some lenses, to me, do not fit so well on certain bodies. The Ultron or the K50/1.4 (now stone me) on the ME Super is not my idea of a 'small rig', I find the balance gone. But K2 plus Ultron or K50/1.4 is fine. So, perhaps a 'small rig' is not neccesarily the smallest camera/lens to me. And for sure the camera doesn't have to be super light, to the contrary.

Sorry for the poor quality (Iphone) pics

[jakeblues]

I tried many different (Pentax and some other makers) lenses in this 35 to 50mm range, but in the end I kept only a few: a 58/2 Takumar, a Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8 and a Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (both the Icarex versions). I got a ME Super because with the 50/2 it is so beautifully small, I keep it for the bike rides (this is Holland). And I just got a K2 because the Ultron fits so well on that one.

I'd love to see some sample images of the Zeiss-on-Pentax.

But some lenses, to me, do not fit so well on certain bodies. The Ultron or the K50/1.4 (now stone me) on the ME Super is not my idea of a 'small rig', I find the balance gone. But K2 plus Ultron or K50/1.4 is fine. So, perhaps a 'small rig' is not neccesarily the smallest camera/lens to me. And for sure the camera doesn't have to be super light, to the contrary.

I agree. Bigger, heavier bodies stay "balanced" with bigger lenses, but small bodies like the ME Super require a lens that's smaller and lighter to feel right. I have the M35/2, which feels a little bit out of balance on the ME Super. I like your approach of pairing a body with a lens. Unfortunately, I won't be buying more camera bodies as I'm trying to simplify.

Please please do add some Zeiss sample images!

[Hilo]

Here LX and the Ultron. Not really a good shot for you to judge anything really, except the feel this lens can give . . . not unimportant. I will send something else in the next days, need to scan a couple of prints.

btw, it is a double exposure . . .

[jakeblues]

Here LX and the Ultron. Not really a good shot for you to judge anything really, except the feel this lens can give . . . not unimportant. I will send something else in the next days, need to scan a couple of prints.

btw, it is a double exposure . . .

Great stuff. Keep the photos coming.

[tuco]

You're not interested in image quality, both by your own words and the film format you're shooting, yet you want high-quality lenses?

[jakeblues]

You're not interested in image quality, both by your own words and the film format you're shooting, yet you want high-quality lenses?

Yup. I want the best small lenses for the Pentax K mount and the 35mm film format. I refuse to believe that high quality, small lenses don't exist. Too many engineers were competing for too many decades for that to be possible. Heck, some engineers are still competing to make the best high quality small lenses for 35mm.

I also refuse to believe that I have to shoot digital or medium format to get good image quality. Call me naive.

[tuco]

I also refuse to believe that I have to shoot digital or medium format to get good image quality. Call me naive.

With film, the smaller the negative the more expensive the scanner needs to be to get what quality it has.

The lenses don't get much smaller for 35mm film than what you have. A few millimeters here or there on lens size seems insignificant to me, anyway. If you want smaller, go with a smaller film format. It's pretty much that simple.

[Hilo]

With film, the smaller the negative the more expensive the scanner needs to be to get what quality it has.

The lenses don't get much smaller for 35mm film than what you have. A few millimeters here or there on lens size seems insignificant to me, anyway. If you want smaller, go with a smaller film format. It's pretty much that simple.

Or get an enlarger and make a beautiful print !