| Author: | | Unoriginal Poster Registered: November, 2016 Location: Espoo Posts: 3,182
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 1, 2020 | Recommended
| Rating: N/A |
|
The pancake. One really can’t make manual focus lens with aperture ring smaller. There’s barely room for focus ring. Still it’s nice to handle. Especially if you add collapsible hood on it. Put you pay the price from small size with long minimum focal distance. It’s clearly longer than in 35’s or 50’s. I must say that this isn’t chart monster. Again both 35’s and 50’s are sharper. But this lens has great rendering. It makes wonderful photos both on APSC and FF bodies. So good that some of my all time favorites are taken with this.
This makes great travel companion, if you want to go light. I’ve done some trips with only this lens on K5 and didn’t miss anything. It’s so small that I had to try to put my K1ii with it in pocket. Didn’t quite fit, but I had to try.
Reasonably priced fun lens that doesn’t take much space in camera bag, thought maybe most fun when you leave that bag home.
APSC SIC album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/154414256@N06/albums/72157668690937537
FF SIC album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/154414256@N06/albums/72157712928225327 | | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: November, 2018 Posts: 590
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 3, 2019 | Recommended
| Rating: N/A |
|
 | | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 11
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 28, 2015 | Not Recommended
| Rating: N/A |
|
I've owed my MX from new when it first came out and still going strong. It came with the standard f 1.7 50mm. Some years ago I purchased a f1.4 50mm , although excellent , it made the camera front heavy and unbalanced. Recently I began to use again an old f2 I had neglected .[All the above are manual SMC.] I find the f2 excellent in terms of lightness and compactness and seems to suit the design of the camera body . This lens I think is a better alternative to the pancake.I remember when the pancake came out I was warned off it by my camera shop . Now it seems popular. Times change. As an aside , I purchased the MX as a first SLR because of it's very compactness being used to rangefinder cameras all the hitherto SLRs , FTb , Nikon F2 , were monsters to me . [ Small hands.] And so the pancake attracted me but I was persuaded instead to buy the F2 . Quite right I think looking back.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: June, 2010 Location: Tromsø, Norway Posts: 886 | | Review Date: June 13, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: N/A |
| Pros: | small, light, sharp focus | | Cons: | the focus dial is fiddly | |
I got this lens along with my father's old Pentax LX camera, and i have had fun using it. along with a 13mm extension tube, it makes an awesome macro lens, but it is also very nice to use on its own, because of its small size. i haven't had much success taking closeups with it (alone), but it is a good lens to use for longer range portraits. I look forward to using it with my new K-m!!
| | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: Bondi, Australia Posts: 206 | | Review Date: January 29, 2008 | Not Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | small, good optically stoppeddown a bit | | Cons: | hard to use focus ring | |
Like nearly all Pentax lenses, it is soft wide open and hits its straps down 2 stops. I found it very hard to use the focusing ring - too small. Quite credible optically, good replacement of a 50mm as a standard lens for those that like it a bit wider. Have a 35 f/2 , so sold off the 40mm while it stil had its cult status. The cult status is probably only for the extreme compactness. In general, I have found the M lenses to be not as good as the K lenses optically.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: September, 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 127 | | Review Date: September 17, 2008 | Not Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | very small, good build quality, fun ? | | Cons: | could be sharper | |
The original pancake is a classic. Once again it seems like I did a good buy. It was bundled with a couple of other lenses, but if I split it up it was somewhere around $70 for this one.
It's a bit fun to use, and I don't have a problem with focusing. The focus ring is small, but well defined for you fingertips. To me it feels like it very quickly gets into hyperfocal range. Build quality seems good with metallic construction like other m-lenses.
It really looks sexy on my MG film camera - they are a great pair. However I don't think it is quite as good as a lot of the other m-lenses on a modern digital SLR. I have used it on a K100D, and produced a couple of nice pictures in the golden hour with results a bit like a typical 70s photographic wallpaper 
It's fun and easy to find for sale, but don't put too much work into getting one. It feels a bit harsh to say that I don't recommend it. It's not bad, but unless you want it for it's small size, there are probably better lenses out there to spend your money on.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: Tokyo Posts: 962 | | Review Date: February 7, 2007 | Not Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | small size, light | | Cons: | difficult to focus, so-so image quality | |
I bought my 40mm pancake lens with a (very) used MX body. I find it a good combination for street photography, as they make a lightweight combination and the 40mm size is just right for the sort of urban shots I like.
I have also used it on my *istDS body since I added the DSLR to my collection, where its 60mm-equivalent field of view puts it into the far end of 'normal'.
That said, I use this lens less and less with time.
For one thing, the focusing ring is quite difficult to use, as it is very thin. I've found myself with my finger on the ring and my thumb on the aperture ring as often as not. Also, the lens is so short that on the *istDS body the focusing ring is actually tucked under the flash cowling, further jamming things up.
My second reason for ignoring this lens is that it seems to drain a bit of the life from my shots. I don't get the colour or contrast I expect, either in film or digital. Sharpness is not an issue, but I've been disappointed with shots from this lens on a few occasions.
Price
-----
Ouch. What can I say, I live in Tokyo.
P.S.
----
If you're looking for a small and light street photography combination for digital, get a point-and-shoot. For film, I recommend an old rangefinder. No TTL, it's true, but they're tiny and kinda fun.
===
edit [2007/03/26]
I sold this lens, as I was no longer using it. I've bumped it down a notch to a '5', as well, because this is nowhere close to the SMC 28mm lens I use as my 'normal', and I only gave that one a '7'. 8)
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: North Idaho Posts: 696
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 9, 2007 | Not Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | small, exceptional construction quality | | Cons: | difficult ot find focus ring when used to 'normal' sized lenses | |
The SMC Pentax-M f/1:2.8 40mm is the original Pentax "pancake" lens. At the time, it was the only one produced (by Pentax) and was highly desirable for the M bodies. The combination made it the first "pocketable" SLR camera. (But, you needed a large pocket.)
The construction quality is typical of K and M series lenses. All metal and glass. No plastic here! Optically, it was not anywhere as good as the 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 lenses. Probably on par with the 50/2.0 lens. The lens attained 'cult' status and was desirable only because of its size, not because of its optical qualities.
Only rated at 5 because of the fair optical quality. Given a 'no' recommendation because of the price/performance ratio. Today, you should only purchase this lens for the 'collector value', and only if you have a MX or ME body to mate with it. The DA40/2.8 is a much better lens if you want to actually take pictures. This lens still sells for a premium price on the used market, and in my opinion, not worth the cost! It is an "okay" lens, just not worth the premium prices asked and paid.
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2014 Posts: 7 | | Review Date: May 2, 2021 | Not Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | small, light, nice focal lenght, sharp stopped down | | Cons: | soft wide open, weird bokeh sometimes, needs good hood | | Sharpness: 7
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 8
Value: 4
Camera Used: ME
| |
Long story short: I'd rather take one of the great 35 or 50mm lenses with me.
A 40mm prime is nice and useful, shame there aren't more of them!
I really wanted to like this one as it's such a cool little thing, but in the end, for me, there are too many flaws -
I agree with the others here that say it needs to be stopped down to f8 to really become sharp.
The lens does not like stray light at all, so you need a good hood in scenarios where the sun isn't behind you.
When you're ok with shooting soft wide open you still have to watch busy backgrounds as the lens doesn't render those too nicely I'd say.
For what it delivers it really is expensive right now.
That being said it can give you nice, contrast-y images when there's lots of light and you can stop down. Colors are also nice.
But still, as mentioned above, I'd just rather take a 50 or 35 instead, they're just better performers overall.
Attached there are some shots, straight from the scanner..
f2.8
f5.6
f8 - that one's actually really sharp, yet it seems the gallery function of this forum further compresses / softens the images unfortunately..
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: November, 2012 Location: Cosenza Posts: 42
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 11, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | compact, nice tonality in b/w | | Cons: | not too sharp | | Sharpness: 6
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 6
Camera Used: Canon Eos 5D Mark II, Pentax ME Super
| |
I had it for a year or so (I love the 40mm focal length), as it made a really nice and compact package on my 5d mk II and, better still, on the ME Super. But I ended up selling it. It has two flaws:
1st flaw (this one only for Canon users)
To use it on a full frame camera you need to remove (better, less messy) or file down the rear fin that commands the aperture, otherwise it will hit the mirror, and badly. I seems to recall that someone ended up with a lens jammed on the camera, too, from what I read elsewhere.
Once removed the fin there is not a problem whatsoever. From what I understand there are no problems in using it on a 1.6x camera, even unmodified (but I didn't try).
2nd flaw
It is a good lens, just not exceptional. And given that you can buy, for a tenth of its money, a Pentax 50mm f/1,7 that not only will be almost the same weight and size but it will be faster, and probably will beat it to death, this pancake it's not a smart buy.
Please, though, take this with a grain of salt: my copy had the focus ring jammed after the previous owner let it fall, and I was able to repair it in a crude but effective way. So maybe my sample was in desperate need of a collimation  . But what I read about his lack of sharpness mirrors my own experience with it.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2006 Location: Belgrade Posts: 656
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 26, 2007 | Not Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Small, excellent focal length on film, good for MX/ME/ME Super | | Cons: | Low corner sharpness below f/5.6 (see the review) | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 4
Value: 5
| |
I mostly agree with previous comments: the lens is overrated and price should not go over $100 in my opinion.
The major negative aspect is that M40/2.8 does not reach very good corner sharpness until f/5.6 (tested with *istDS) but it is not bad either. Note that center sharpness is good to excellent at all apertures, while I would rate corner optical performance as average at apertures below f/5.6. At f/5.6 corner sharpness improves drastically and the lens performs very well over the range f/5.6-f/16 on both DSLR and film SLR (tested with Pentax MX and ILFORD XP2 film).
However, I would not recommend this lens for use with DSLRs. If you are looking for a compact DSLR lens consider DA40/2.8 Limited. My main reason for getting M40/2.8 is to use it with MX if I decide to shoot a roll of film without carrying my other M lenses: 40mm is very convenient "universal" focal length on film, the lens itself is much smaller and lighter than M50/1.4, and performs very well stopped down which is not a problem at all if shooting in normal daylight conditions (I keep it at f/8 most of the time).
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: September, 2014 Location: United States Posts: 35
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 29, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $95.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Super-Slim, great walk-around lens | | Cons: | focusing is a bit difficult due to size, okay bokeh, min. focus distance | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 7
Value: 8
Camera Used: Sony A7
| |
Got this lens with a bit of balsam separation. Fixed it and functions well. profile is super slim even with an adapter for the A7. It is a great walk-around lens, but other than that, you wont have too much creative license with it. The most disappointing aspect is the quite long min. distance focus. Other than that, I think it's worth the money, especially if you just want a lens to tack on and head out the door.     | | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2014 Posts: 1 | | Review Date: January 14, 2015 | Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Tack sharp from f/5.6 | | Cons: | A tad soft wide open | | Sharpness: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 6
| |
Judging from previous reviews, I only expected mediocre sharpness from this lens. And sure enough, at f/2.8 the lens is somewhat unimpressive.
However, when stopped down to f/4 the quality improves vastly, and by f/5.6 the lens is sharp across most of the (APS-C) frame, with an exceptionally sharp center.
Handling is similar to other M primes, although the focus ring is almost a bit too small.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: August, 2012 Posts: 90 | | Review Date: April 7, 2013 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Small, well built | | Cons: | Mediocre optically, very small focusing ring | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 5
Value: 6
Camera Used: LX, ME Super, *ist DL, K-01
| |
This lens has only one claim to fame - its size. The downside of this was that the focusing ring is very narrow. Optically it is not stellar although good enough for most purposes, especially when shooting film. I used it a bit back in the film days but it never was one of my most used lenses, I mainly used it when I wanted a compact package. The ME Super with this lens was as compact as you could get with a film SLR. The focal length makes more sense on film than on APS-c digital cameras.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: November, 2012 Location: East Coast, Canada Posts: 26
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 4, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Compact, Lightweight, Color rendition | | Cons: | PF wide open, Soft wide open, Fiddly to focus for someone with large hands | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 7
| |
Got this lens paired with a Pentax MX (yes.... for $25  ) Quite a compact lightweight combo. Great for street photography because of its small size and unobtrusive looks and the color rendition is also pretty decent. However compactness and good looks come at a price. This lens gives a "normal" FOV, being 40mm and f/2.8 it doesn't give a wide enough angle of view to really use it over the much sharper (and faster) M 50mm f/1.7 or even the f/2. The 40mm exhibits more purple fringing than both 50's, and is much softer wide open. This lens does have a cult following and prices have managed to stay heightened despite its sub par performance compared to other M lenses of similar "length".
| | |
;)
;)
