| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: August, 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 797
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 20, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast f/2 aperture, small and light | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K2 and P3n
| |
I love this lens on film.
I got a bargain as my copy of the lens has sticky aperture blades. It will get a cleaning soon. But -- I bought this lens to use it wide open, so it hasn't stopped me from shooting with it.
My favourite focal length is about 40mm on film. Pentax has some choices here- the legendary 43mm (which is GREAT, tack sharp and may be one of the best lenses made in the history of cameras)
the famous 40mm pancake (which isn't as sharp as I'd like, and has a lacklustre f/2.8 maximum aperture
or one of the many 35mm lenses made by Pentax
I tried the 35's last because I thought they would be too wide; I really wanted a "wide normal." But the 35mm field of view is quite close to 40, and can always be cropped a bit.
The M series 35 f/2 gives all the metal bodied pleasure of a classic lens. That it's a bit bigger than the 40mm pancake is good, it makes it easier to focus (and use the aperture ring.)
Optically this lens is great. Nice contrast even without a hood. Image is sharp at both close and longer focusing distances. (I found the old 35mm Super-Multi-Coated Takumar weak on this, with poor performance in close-focus work.) The f/2 aperture makes it easy to focus accurately, and provides nice separation for middle-ground subjects (unlike the slower f/3.5 Super Takumar I had, which was sharp but couldn't separate subjects due to the slower aperture.)
 | | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: April, 2015 Posts: 3,522
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 18, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $240.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharp wide open, fast, great colours, nice focus | | Cons: | none (maybe lack of A-setting but one knows about this!) | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K5IIs, K3, K-01
| |
What I wrote about the A35/2 goes almost the same for the M35/2, just that the M35/2 is slightly different built on the housing, optically they are similar. But the M35/2 is 5mm longer, has 5 rubber-rows and is that bit easier and smoother to focus and easier to focus at infinity.
So again, one of the very best 35mm lenses Pentax ever made, aside of being fully manual it shares everything else with the A35/2.
I own 2 of the A35/2 and one M35/2 and I sold my FA35/2 in favor as I prefer both despite the FA being lighter and being an AF-lens. The only 35/2 lens which I do find better is the Zeiss Distagon T* 35/2, but this is quite a heavy lens, not at all the lens you chose for light travel. I also have the SMC Takumar 35/2 which is optically identical with the K35/2 and I own the DA35/2,8 Macro limited. There is no question, the DA35 Macro-Limited is a fantastic lens as well, great macro and an AF lens, but… AF hunts due to its macro ability and long focus throw. Most of the time I use it manually for that very reason.
At 2,8 the M35/2 is as sharp as the DA35limited but has the advantage to allow a great F2 and thus is more versatile aside its lack of macro ability. But if you add a Canon D240 52mm achromatic close-up lens plus a cheap 49-52mm adapter you get excellent close-up abilities of 1:2, not bad at all, particular because 35mm is not the most demanded focal length for macro.
At infinity the M35/2 is as sharp as the DA35limited. It does not have that micro-contrast which the Zeiss Distagon supplies. It is sharp enough wide open, if one likes portrait with 35mm on APC-C:
Bokeh with 6 blades is astonishingly nice wide open, I did not expect that. At F3.5 the M35/2 is as sharp as my K35/3.5 wide open! The K35/3.5 is of course very light and has this special 3-D presentation which it shares with the Zeiss, but it's use is limited. The M35/2 has almost the same 3D ability. If I would have to chose just one lens, it might well be the M35/2 or the A35/2. Choosing between those two would be very difficult because I managed to find an almost brand new version of the M35/2, the way it focuses is that nice, that smooth that it is such a pleasure and I would almost prefer this over the advantage of the A-sitting of the A35/2.
Built quality is excellent, similar to the A35/2, but as mentioned, my copy is almost new, so something quite unique for that ancient year of manufacture.
I am aware that a review is very subjective, normally I would rate this lens 9 or 9,5, but due to some rather "of-the-point reviews" it got I feel one has to balance this out. 10 points is what I would give the best Limiteds of the Zeiss Distagon and the K28/2. So a healthy 9.5 it is.
| | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2016 Posts: 1 | | Review Date: October 13, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | aperture f2/bokeh, sharp, hangleing | | Cons: | maybe aberations at f2 | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: a6000
| |
Nice small lens, but very rare, this is true gem, if you find it, grab this lens.
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2010 Posts: 4
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 7, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, normal lens on APS-C, build quality | | Cons: | | |
Bought it along with a 150/3.5 from an elderly gentleman for aprox 80USD each, a great bargain.
Currently it is my favorite lens, quick to handle, normal angle of view on my K20D and produces beautiful shots even wide open.
Bokeh is not as nice as with the 50/1.4 but is nice enough, this lens seems sharper than the 50/1.4 at 2.0 and 2.8 and have nicer colors.
I use it alot for ambient light in-door and outdoor evening shots at f2.0 and get results that astound my kit-zoom friends.
There aren't many"bad" things to say about this lens - perhaps the focus ring operation is a bit less smooth than on the 50/1.4.
| | | | | | | Forum Member Registered: March, 2010 Location: Norfolk Posts: 85
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 17, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | quick handling, sharp | | Cons: | none | |
You'd be hard pressed to find a lens as quick handling and smooth as this. A better choice as a 'standard' than the 50mm especially with its f2 speed. Results for me have been faultless. A well deserved 10.
| | | | | | | | Review Date: May 21, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | easy to focus, compact, very sharp | | Cons: | | |
For me this lens is a real 10! After some experience with the hard to focus M50/1.4, the M35/2 was so joyful to use. Focus snap´s in so easy and even portraits in dimmed envirenment are almost all perfect sharp.
" target="_blank"> " target="_blank">
" target="_blank">
After having bought the FA50/1.4 and the FA*24/2 I thought to sell my M35/2, but if I want to go out with just one small "HighEnd" system, I put this old M35/2 onto my camera body. It gives me the best compromise in focal length (=standard lense with the 1,5x crop of my sensor) combined with enough speed for available light situations.
I´ll never sell this lense because I love it!
Btw, I (really) always use a sunhood!!!
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: April, 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,902 | | Review Date: December 15, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small, fast, very good IQ, very good build quality | | Cons: | Very slightly soft wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K3, K200D, various Pentax film SLRs
| |
This is a great little lens which I've used mostly on digital (K200D and then K-3) but I also use it on my Pentax film SLRs.
It's very, very slightly soft wide open and can show a little "glow", but it's very useable. This is more noticeable on the K-3 than on the K200D due to the extra resolution of the sensor. By f/2.8 it's very sharp indeed. The contrast and colour are superb and allow the lens to provide some fantastic, saturated, lifelike photos. I have never experienced any problems with flare. It has the typical "M" series build quality and handling. This is really the only lens I have which is capable of replacing the DA 35/2.8 ltd as a standard prime on digital. It's also very useful on film, and is converting me to the advantages of a fast 35mm lens over a fast 50mm lens on that format.
This lens has become my main lens to take on holidays within Spain where we're more relaxed and in less of a hurry to see sights compared to when we go abroad.
If you want a manual standard prime for a Pentax DSLR then this is probably the best there is. There's a "K" series version but it's extremely rare.
Some sample shots. The first two were taken wide open.
IMGP8203a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr
IMGP8217a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr
IMGP8735a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr
IMGP8495a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr
IMGP9215a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Early morning by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Early sun by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
IMGP5117a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
A size comparison with the slower f/2.8 M lens:
IMGP5666a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
| | | | | Giveaway winner! Registered: December, 2007 Location: beantown Posts: 944 | | Review Date: December 16, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp | | Cons: | none yet | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Received this as a gift and quickly, off I went to putting it to good use.
On the dSLR it is an easy favorite as it is much like a normal lens angle of view. The f2 makes it a more fast lens for indoors.
The film camera shot all look super!
Colors are no surprise and contrary to some reports out there, nope...lower contrast issues are not noticeable... or that I could tell. I suppose if I could compare with the S-M-C (K) or M42 SMCTakumar version 35mm/f2 that I can see that this is a bit lower in contrast? I think that the overall color is plenty contrasty and the sharpness is solid as you would want from f4 and up... however, wide open has been surprisingly good as well. It could be that some reports of low contrast might be from the need of a hood.
UPDATE: Had a quick chance to compare the M35mm/f2 with a M42-35mm/f2... thanks Mike. The sharpness is a tad better on the M42 version when wide open, but is so close to the M35/2 otherwise. I would agree that the M35/2 is slightly edged out by the M42 35/2 overall, but the bayonet equipped lens is too handy on a digits to quibble about the slight differences.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2008 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands Posts: 9,050 | | Review Date: December 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | light, easy to focus, sharp!, colour rendering wonderful | | Cons: | not discovered them yet | |
One of the best lenses in my line up, and about a normal angle of view on a 1.6 dSLR. It is light, and easy to focus due to the minimum aperture of f/2. The M 35/2 delivers very sharp photos and I love the colour rendering of this little gem.
I use this lens mainly for landscape and street photography, as well as for photographing architecture. There's nothing not to like on it. It's well build, and the feel is great. If I would loose it, or if it would be damaged, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a similar one as replacement.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 120 | | Review Date: July 17, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Build/Handling, Value | | Cons: | Some wide open issues | |
A solid 9.0 lens. When I purchased, didn't expect to use it as much as I actually have.
Sharpness
Wide open it is slightly soft. Stopping down to 2.8 resolves the softness. Images are definitely usable wide open and with some post processing the images look great.
Contrast
Wide open, contrast is lower and stopping down to 2.8 increases the contrast. Post processing again helps. Overall contrast is very pleasing
Flare
It is an old lens so if the sun is just outside the field of view it will flare up. After saying that, 99% of my shots have not shown any flare or veiling problems and I do not feel that I have missed any opportunities because of this.
Bokeh
Wide open, bokeh tends to have the double edge rather than a smooth blur. This behaviour depends on the lighting and subject matter, but stopping down also helps somewhat.
Build/Handling
Nice small size - makes even the Pentax Kx Kit zoom lens look bulky. Probably the best manual focus feel of all my MF lenses (second best would probably go to the K55 1.8). And the focus ring travel is just right -- not to short like most AF lenses, and not too long like some MF lenses.
Overall Comments
My go-to indoor available light lens. It is an M lens so not as convenient as the newer lenses on digital and some of the issues wide open, although eminently still usable, prevents the rating from being a 10. This normal (in digital) lens brings the best characteristics of a manual focus lens (cost/build/handling) along with very good optics. Highly recommended.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 509
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 2, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Intoxicatingly smooth focusing; portable; 49mm filter | | Cons: | A bit sensitive to ambient lighting | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
Focusing is very smooth. But for some reasons it is not as easy to focus as my K 85mm f1.8 and my M 50mm f1.4.
Well build. But not as well building as some of my K lenses (ever so slightly). Should be very careful with focusing when aperture is larger than f2.8. Sensitive to ambient light even with a lens hood. Generally pleased with the lens.
The mechanical component is quite unique. It is hard to describe. I think it was made that way to make it more compact. Bottomline is that please be very careful when to open the lens.
_______
Changed my rating to 9. The problem of focusing was largely due to my K10D. The focusing screen is a bit misaligned. Mis-focusing seems a wide-spread problem with K10D.
However, one does need to be more careful with focusing. Enjoy the lens more and more over time. It is great to use. Less flare than my Vivitar or Kiron lenses.
Compared with my K35/2 which is legendary on its own right. The M35/2 contrast at f2 is lower and the border IMQ is slightly lower than K35. But M35 is lighter and smaller.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 4,461
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 18, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Fast, light, good contrast, sharp, good colour, easy focusing | | Cons: | Fully manual, bit soft wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
I purchased this lens for my Pentax MX in the early 1980s. I paid about $200 for it at that time and in good condition it still commands about that price on EBAY at the time of writing. I can't think of many things I bought almost thirty years ago that still work and are still worth what I initially paid for them. Of the dozen or so Pentax Lenses I own this one is the smoothest and easiest to focus for some reason. It must be a finer thread, tighter tolerances or something but it works wonderfully well. Manually focusing a digital lens is like grinding pepper by way of comparison.
The Pentax M 35mm f2 is fast, light, virtually distortion free and provides sharp, contrasty images with good colour. Here is a recent example from this lens:
The f2 speed makes it quite bright in the viewfinder and enhances manual focusing. It is a bit soft at f2 but very good from then on. It accepts 49mm filters. Like all Pentax K and M-series manual lenses it features an attractive checked rubber focusing ring, full metal construction and a wealth of engraved information around the front element's retaining ring. Boz Dimitrov's Pentax site provides further technical details:
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/wide-angle/M35f2.html
The M-series lenses are not as robust in build as their K-series cousins but they are still still very good in every regard. Most modern plastic digital lenses look like cheap toys next to this generation of Pentax offerings. It was designed for and works very well in the film format and it is in this area it should be evaluated. It will work in digital but expect all the usual shortcomings of a fully manual lens in that format. Metering will be stop down with no AF and no f stop information in the viewfinder. Expect as well some great shots with a little practice. Ben Edict has noted: "the M 35/2 is probably the one lens in the Pentax lineup that cause the most troubles with sticky aperture blades. I have yet to see a sample, that did NOT suffer from this at one time in its life..." Some recent posts indicate that this problem may be more common with the M35/2.8. My M 35/2 is still just fine after 20 years but as I respect Ben's opinion it might be prudent to take a good look at the blades before purchase.
| | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2019 Posts: 2 | | Review Date: October 23, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Its a 35mm f2, build, size, weight, image quality | | Cons: | difficult to focus at f2, busy bokeh wide open | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: Sony a6000 and Pentax me super
| |
This is my most expensive Pentax m lens. Substantially more expensive than the 35 f2.8 I also own. Then again, an f2 is always going to be rarer and more expensive than a slower f2.8 lens of the same focal length. In comparison to the f2.8, this lens is a little longer. It means the focus ring is wider which means that the handling is even better. It still balances beautifully on both my a6000 and Pentax me Super; both of which are a similar size. The bokeh is very busy on this lens. Not nice and circular but almost messy. I need to find the perfect shooting environment to get the best out of this lens. On my copy, the aperture ring is stiff going from f2.8 back to f2. The movement through the rest of the f stops is typically smooth and crisp Pentax m lens. Do I need this lens? Not really. But it's a 35mm f2 and I really just wanted it. And so should you. I recommend you pick one up if you get the chance.
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: June, 2013 Location: Utrecht Posts: 255
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 29, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Compact, sharp and contrasty stopped down | | Cons: | Misty full open, vignetting on Full Frame | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: K-01 and K1ii
| |
I bought this one 10 years ago for just € 40 because it had to be cleaned for sticky blades. All glass was infected with grease, probably vaporized oil because of extreme heat or so. So I dissembled it and cleaned it with pure ethanol and iso propanol, now it is snappy with clear glass in it. Despite this maintenance it is very soft wide open with a lot of vignetting on full frame. The sharpness is already there but it is really misty. Attached picture in the bush is taken full open on full frame, it results in a low contrast dreamy tube-style photo. For that situations it is quite nice. Don't shoot wide open in contrasty conditions, for sure you get blurred pictures with lots of blue ghosts in harsh areas. Stopped down to 2.8 it gets lots better and at F4-F8 this little lens really shines with contrasty sharp results. Always use a cap because this lens is very vulnerable for flare. The miniaturization compared with its K-sibling makes it better for APS-C than for Full Frame. I do not own that K-version but the K will do a better job wide open and at the outer areas of the image circle.
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2009 Location: Kansas City Posts: 576
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 13, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $170.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Small | | Cons: | F2 not 1.4 | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-5
| |
The DOF was not as shallow as I was hoping for on a cropped sensor. I am sure this would be amazing on a FF camera. Shots up close give you some good separation but if you back up a bit it’s just not enough. The sigma 30 1.4 really did a better job. The focus is supper smooth, the lens is very small and the build quality is very nice. I had the 35 2.8 and really could not tell much of a difference. The quality of the bokeh is outstanding when you are able to get the good separation.
 | | |
;)
;)
