|
|
Antti-Pekka Virtanen - I've had it [15mm f3.5] for a couple of years and I seem to use it more and more compared to the other SMC lenses that I have. Seems like I go for the extremes, since the other SMC lens that gets very much use compared tothe others is the A* 300/2.8. The 15 for landscapes, halo and aurora phenomena and the 300 for nature and astrophoto.
- - - - - -
Michael Adams - I have had my 15/3.5 for two years now.
Very good. Makes a 28 look like a normal lens. Rectilinear correction is excellent.
Mostly fireworks, and Northern Lights. You can never have too much coverage with the Northern Lights.
The sheer 100 degree of coverage on one axis.
Heavy, must take precautions when tilting the tripod head for portrait shots that the camera does not rotate due to the weight.
Bokeh? I almost always use it wide open, at infinity. Not applicable. VERY PRONE to GHOSTING (flaring ?) when any source of light outside the field of view manage to reach the front element. I have had numerous shots of Northern Lights ruined by a lone street light some distance away that was not blocked properly. Ended up getting a gobo (Flare Buster) to try to improve things. Other than that, it is an astonishing lens, and my favorite one.
David A. Mann - Regarding the wide-open vs stopped-down performance, my own observations (from a brick-wall shoot) agree with Rob's comments. Sharpness and light falloff are terrible wide open but improve greatly when stopped down by any amount. The lens has a ton of contrast but the flare pattern is a little annoying (there's a _large_ pentagon which is hard to "hide" among the scenery).
tv - It is more flare-prone then other lenses, but I suspect that's because it's a fisheye. It's a little difficult to focus, since everything looks more or less focused. On shots when I can avoid flare and get it focused properly, it seems to be sharp and have good color and contrast. It's beautifully made.
michael.hubbard - . . . I love mine. It has a reputation as being one of the very best fisheye lenses available -- better than Nikon's fisheyes. The build quality is absolutely top-notch... definitely a professional-quality lens. An ebay rarity at that. If there arent any fungus or scratches, and no dents or dings its gotta be worth close to $400. Other features you should know about: this lens has three internal filters that you can flip between (red, yellow, sky) and a rear gel-holder.
Yoshihiko Takinami - an excellent lens, IMHO. It's spherical and coma aberrations seem far better than those of an A20/2.8. Its coma wings are also smaller than those of K24/2.8, K28/2, or K30/2.8.
Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - very sharp, good color saturation, well flare controlled, few light-fall-off even at wide open
- - - - - -
Pål - . . . I love the 18/3.5 lens. I bought mine new in 1978 and I'll guess I will keep it forever. . . Its a lens thats capable of sharp images. Avoid wide apertures and F:22, where corner sharpness really suffers. It also a bit warm in color; it has skylight, cloudy, red and orange filters built in and you have to use one of them.
Pål - [Again] . . . This is a lens with "faults". It isn't really sharp until F: 5.6 and it has very soft corners at F:22. Its also very warm and when I have shots one the same roll with this lens and my other lenses I can easily pick out the ones shot with the 18mm due to its color cast. These factors may be serious for some. For me it doesn't matter; I usually use a wide angle like this at F: 5.6 and smaller apertures and the color cast doesn't usually bother me much.
- - - - - -
Barry Brevik (From the Web) - Excellent lens, one of my favorites. I have been using the 18mm f3.5 for about 15 years. This is a superb ultra-wide. Flare is extremely low and the lens is very sharp. It is physically similar to the 20mm f4 (which I also use) except for a rear mount gelatin filter clip and a built in filter wheel. You are forced to use one of the four filters on the wheel, one of which is a skylight. The skylight does not seem to influence the color rendition in any way when compared to the 20mm f4 (with no filter) on the same role of film. Hands down, one of my favorite Pentax lenses, and one of my favorite lenses regardless of maker. Filter size is 58mm, but in practice most filters vignette.
- - - - - -
Joe Cali (From the Web) - The 18mmf3.5 is a very sharp contrasty lens even at fairly wide apertures. I occasionally use it at f3.5. The image quality suffers a little at the edges. Stop it down to f5.6 and wow, the images really pop out at you. The colour saturation is fantastic. I sometimes joke that it must have a built in polarizer. It has built in skylight, yellow and orange filters. The filter thread is 58mm. You can hold a bare cokin type filter in front of the lens but screwing anything in the filter thread results in vignetted corners. With the built in filters and the high contrast of the lens, I've never found this to be a problem. In Australia, I've only ever seen one of these lenses for sale second hand. I bought it and didn't regret it. It really is a superb lens.
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - An excellnet performer !! Few distortion, great flare control for an 18mm lens. It also has remarkable uniformity in image quality from center to corners. I really love this lens. :^)
- - - - - -
Pål - Hmmm. Mine is certainly soft in the corners wide open and at F:22. Otherwise I agree that its a great performer.
[and in another comment . . . ] Avoid wide open and F:22. Excellent quality at mid aperture. Very warm color rendition. Flare control good for an 18mm lens.
- - - - - -
Daphne - . . .this is a fan-tastic lens!!! resolution is great, light loss at the corners is minimal, it is sharp... and i just love the field of view.
Oh Cheng Yu [from the web-response form] - no noticeable light fall-off at full aperture, but softness at edges. Very sharp slides when stopped down to f/8
Ken Kuo - The SMC-A 24mm/2.8 is a gem . . . . . . it's my standard lens. Razor sharpness, no noticeable distortions, excellent contrast, compact, and has no "polycarbonate" parts.
- - - - - -
Douglas J Stemke - . . . I love this lens; I've only had it for a short time but really enjoy it. Very sharp. The biggest problem is the hood; Pentax sells it for $80 which seems way too high to me for something that is really that simple. . . Although I haven't used it a great deal, I can't yet claim to see any significant distortion on it, but will look more critically on some of my shots tonight and give you a better idea.
- - - - - -
> For mostly deliberate landscape shot, which do you recommend, FA or A, and why?
Yoshihiko Takinami - I prefer A20/2.8 to FA20/2.8, and actually own a A20/2.8. They are optically identical except the number of aperture blades. . . I recommand MF for this range of focal length because you would not tend to focus on the subject but on the hyper-focal distance. As for the number of aperture blades, you won't be able to distinguish between the two, five or six. The only one exception would be bright spotlights in background, six lusters by six blades, and ten lusters by five blades.
> A version is considerably more expensive than FA version, why?
I suppose the helicoid mechanism of MF lens is more expensive to produce than gears of AF lens.
- - - - - -
Rob Studdert - I also own the Pentax A20/2.8 and would like to add that it is of exceptional build quality and as a consequence is a joy to use.
[and in an added later comment from Rob] . . . It is a great lens (great contrast, high resolution and good flare resistance) but it is expensive (even used).
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . I own A20/2.8, which is optically identical to FA20/2.8 except the number of aperture blades; FA has 6 blades and A has 5 blades. This optic is the best one among the Pentax 20mm lenses, IMHO, with great contrast and excellent color rendition.
It's a pity but its not so good in resolution, coma aberration and contrast in corners as K15/3.5 or K18/3.5, even closed down. To confess the truth, I prefer K18/3.5 or K15/3.5 to A(FA)20/2.8 in terms of optical quality. Unfortunately K18/3.5 seems very rare and K15/3.5 is expensive.
- - - - - -
Patrick Rendulic - I did some tests with this lens and must say that its performance is quite amazing. I am also very happy that there is no visible vignetting when using a Pentax SMC UV filter (67mm thread) or my Contax linear polarizer. So tomorrow I will go and order some Pentax SMC 67mm filters for B&W photography. Just wished they were not so expensive (the UV cost $US65).
- - - - - -
Fred - At the 20mm focal length, I am familiar only with the A 20/2.8, but I can recommend it without reservation . . . It has become my most used wide-angle below 28mm. (In fact, I recently sold my A 24/2.8, not because I didn't like it, but I found that I just didn't use it as much anymore, after getting the 20/2.8.) While I am unlikely to dig out and lug around the A 15/3.5, unless I know I have a need for it, the A 20/2.8 goes with me everywhere whenever I'm "photo-equipped".
Except for the wide (67mm thread) filter mounting flange in the front of the lens (which nicely helps avoid vignetting when using filters, and I frequently do use a polarizer on it), the lens is actually quite compact. It is fast, . . . and that is useful, but it is also both sharp and quite low in distortion. Its flare performance is good and its contrast is quite high. On the other hand, its "official" "dedicated" hood is sort of a screw-in "big round pie plate with a hole in the middle", and I do wish that Pentax had come out with a rectangular hood for this lens instead. (I don't use the hood too often on the lens, but I am able to get 75 satellite channels on it when hooked up to the TV.) Oh, I almost forgot to mention, . . . the A 20/2.8's build quality is very high. . .
jostein.oksne Sep 1997. . . I've had the lens for one and a half years. It is rectilinear and pretty much so too. Hard to see any bending lines at all. It suffers from a weakness common to almost all super-wideangles, though. A kind of distortion that works like this: if you focus on a circular dot in the center of view, and move your camera so that the dot goes towards a corner, it will gradually change shape to a droplet. And I don't think it comes out excellent in MTF-tests either.
Nevertheless, I use mine often, and think of it as a very convenient lens. Manual focussing is ok (I've got an MX), and it can take Cokin filters without vignetting. . . The horizontal view is 118°.
- [additional, more recent, comment from Jostein] - I've had the lens for 3-4 years. I used it a lot the first six months, but less with time. These are my experiences:
Sharp, also in the corners. probably less than half a stop vignetting in the corners. Takes a Cokin P-series polarizing filter (4mm thick plus ring) without vignetting (tested this in a situation where I was sure there would not be any light falloff from the polarising).
Very low barrel distortion.
One problem, though: there is what I call "droplet distortion" towards the corners. It works this way: A circular spot will be circular at the center of the frame, but if you move the camera so that the spot approach a corner, the spot will take on the shape of a droplet with the pointy end towards the frame center. To me this is quite annoying sometimes, especially if there are highlights in the corners.
Rob Studdert explains . . . I think that you will find this "droplet distortion" apparent in any photographs captured with lenses with a wider than normal field of view. The design of a rectilinear wide-angle lens causes elongation of objects radially from the centre of the frame, the wider the angle of view (lower the lens focal length) and the further from the centre of the lens the distortion becomes more apparent.
This distortion can be minimised by re-mapping the rectilinear image to a cylindrical view (panoramic) using Panorama Tools from Helmut Dersch http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch however new (but possibly less distracting) distortion is introduced (vertical linearity is preserved but horizontal lines become distorted).
[Editors note: Imagine a cone of light . . . smh]
[Editor's second note: A polar bear is a rectangular bear after the appropriate transformation . . . smh]
- - - - - -
Daphne - . . . [this] was my favorite lens [since sold] - razor sharp excellent contrast no distortion..came in useful for both indoor shots and background foregrounds effects. Actually i liked it so much that i bought its A equivalent. . .
- - - - - -
Roberto Burgos S. - I do own this lens and find it superb. I recently shot some landscapes for a cliente, and while making a couple of 8 x 12 enlargementes (Kodak royal 25 film), ther was one white spec on the negative that seemed like dust. After close inspection and cleaning of the negative, it happened to be a house! about 3 miles away. We made an enlargement of the section (equivalente to a 40 x 60 inch inlargement) and surprisingly, found that not only the Kodak Royal 25 film is great (grain similar to a 400 ISO FILM on a 12 x 18 inch enlargment), but the little spec on the negative, had the house and we could count the windows!
Beware only of thick ring filters, even regular polarizers because they will vignette (67 mm filter size). I found that Cokin Optilight filters which have a thin ring do not vignette.
Yes the FA20/2.8 is a great lens, but its also very pricey (about $550 mail order) and more expensive than the FA24/2* (which I also have but I like the 20 better). I do not have the FA28/2.8 but I've heard its one of the best damm 28's ever built by any manufacturer. If you can go for the 20/2.8 (F, FA or A, they are all the same optically) you will never regret it. Its a superb lens.
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . I confirmed that A20/2.8 and FA20/2.8 are optically identical except the number of aperture blades. . .
Gerjan - please avoid this lens unless you want it as a fine 'collectible'. Also avoid the SMC Pentax-M 1:4 20mm. Both lenses have a double form of distorsion (barrel and pincushion). The edges of the image are unsharp unless you stop down to f/11 or higher. Edge contrast is quite fine though. If you want a good 20 mm you should buy the 1:2.8/20 A or the new 1:4/20-35 mm AF zoom.
Gerjan - [again] Although some mebers of this group tend to disagree on this 20 mm topic, I still think that the 2.8/20 or the new 4/20-35 are the only viable alternatives. I don't like the 4/20 K nor the 4/20 M for their distortion. The 2.8/20 and the 20-35 zoom are not 100% distortion-free either, but if you do not take pictures of walls directly from upfront you will not see any distortion. The 2.8/28 M/A is not one of Pentax' best products (except for weight and dimensions), the FA 2.8/28 is far better, but not 100% distortion-free either. If you really need an almost distortion-free wide angle lens, go for the 3.5/28 K or M. Distortion is under 0.5% for both.
- - - - - -
Barry Brevik - . . . for me this is a great lens. It is, in fact, one of my all time favorites in terms of image quality, and the coatings are superb. If the front element is clean enough, I can take pictures that contain the Sun without getting any lens flare. . . . As for polarizers, I have not yet found one thin enough to not vignette. My only problem with the 20mm is that the f4 max aperture coupled with the dim viewfinder of the MX is a drag, so you might want to look for the more modern 20mm f2.8 M series lens, depending on which body you are using.
- - - - - -
Gianfranco Irlanda - I do not use it very often due to its aperture (I tend to prefer something faster) but I think it is a good lens. The sharpness is great in the center, but it tends to be rather soft towards the corners when wide open (the corners do not satisfy me much but I haven't done any serious test). It has a noticeable light fall-off @ f/4 that disappears when closed around f/8. It is a nice lens for its weight and size. I payed something like . . . quite expensive for a very used one but it was the only 20mm Pentax I'd ever put the hands on...
[see Gerjan's comment on 20 mm f/4.0 above.]
- - - - - -
Texdance - I have the SMC-M 20/f4. I carry it everywhere. It is
extremely small, and certainly fast and sharp enough for my purposes.
My 20mm gets used less than my 24mm and more than my zoom that goes
to 18mm.
- - - - - -
Michael Sharkey - . . . At f/4 the corners are rather on the soft side. The corners are quite sharp at f/8 and then the overall sharpness seems to drop off a bit as you get to f/16 and beyond.
On the same roll of film, I shot the same wall area with my KA 28 f/2.8 just for comparison and got much more pleasing results toward wide open end. Anyway, I think the 20/4 will likely prove to be a nice lens for shooting outdoor 'scapes. :)
Darren Sutherland. . . I can tell you . . . that the 24mm is a dandy of a lens. It's my 2nd most used lens (Behind my FA*80-200 f2.8). It appears to be the sharpest of its kind around, not to mention having the fastest aperature at f2!
- - - - - -
David - ZX5Lx - The FA 24 f2.0 lens is a good performer...although not quite as exceptional as the 28 FA. Wide open it is quite soft and a bit susceptible to image degredation due to flair, but in the right type of light it can give an acceptable small print. At f2.8 it sharpens up a bit. Things really improve by f4.0 and by f4.5 and beyond it appears to have good sharpness. At f8-f11best resolution is obtained.
The lens generally exhibits excellent contrast.I was amazed at the performance of all the K (K, KA FA) Pentax 24's. Their performance characteristics are virtually identical, including the SMCT 24 screw mount lens. It makes a nice coupling with the FA 85 f1.4 and the new 43f1.7 would fit nicely in the middle of the two.
- - - - - -
Arne Lie - I have one [FA*24/2.0], and I do recommend it. I previouosly had a Vivitar 24/2.0 -- what a difference! The FA* has a VERY good mech. build. Optics are about the best 24mm for SLR you can get (with SLR you cannot make the wide angle lenses straight forward due to the mirror -- a real 24mm would have distance from film to lens centre = 24mm, only Leica M6 , Contax T2 etc have this...)
Beware of matrix metering and slides if you have Z1p or similar, large dark forest etc (i.e. dark backround in general) will make your subject overexposed, thats my experience.
- - - - - -
Paul G. Dileanis - I own both the FA*24/2.0 and the 17-28 zoom. I bought the 24 to replace a Sigma AF 24. The Pentax 24 is a very good lens, retaining good edge to edge sharpness even wide open. ( I could see the difference in 8x10 prints, especially those shot at f 5.6 and wider. At 11x14 the photos were unacceptable. I have enlarged images taken with the Pentax 24/f2.0 to 24x36.) The Pentax is however a very heavy piece of glass. If you are not in need of the wider aperture and you travel, you might considerbuying a used 24/2.8 Pentax A lens ( I've seen them for about $125-$140US). With the wider angle lenses Autofocus is not as critical. As for the 17-28 zoom, this is a great lens also and I use it a lot,especially for subjects which do not require lines to be straight.
- - - - - -
John Tollefsrud. . . The FA24mm is also a pleasure, if much heavier. . . I had the infamousSigma 24mm (see the archives) for a while, and it served me well. Mechanically it's a clunker compared to a Pentax product, though.
- - - - - -
Cameron R. Hood - Jan 1998 - Just got back my first roll of film taken with this lens, and it's FABULOUS!!! I had an F 28mm f=2.8 that I traded in on this. . . and I must say, it was nowhere near as sharp, contrasty, or as accurate as this lens is. The detail on close subjects is phenomenal, much like my F 300mm f=4.5, and the distant subjects remain sharp, clear, and highly detailed. It is an absolute delight.
I find all of the lens tests and postings on the 28mm 2.8 lens to be misleading; it is rated much higher than the 24mm is, but in my humble opinion, in real world use, the 24mm is a far superior optic. It is much sharper, and all elements in the composition, from front to back, are much more highly detailed than the 28mm was. I guess you just can't believe everything you read (except this post, of course).
- - - - - -
Ralf Engelmann - Sometimes there is more than one truth. The SMC-F 2.8/28mm is not identical to the SMC-FA 2.8/28mm AL, which has fewer elements, but additionally an aspherical surface. The price increased around 50% when the FA version was introduced. . .SMC-FA always got excellent results. Wide open it is even better than the FA* 2.0/24mm AL (IF), which has the "handicap" of the very fast speed here. Stopped down at f=8 or so, both lenses should be excellent performers.
- - - - - -
Carlos Royo - I have the FA 24 f2, and I can say it is an
excellent lens. I haven't used the M 28 f 2.8 I also own for years,
as I prefer so much the FA 24mm. It is optically excellent,. . . and
also very usable in manual focus, thanks to the broad manual focus
ring it has.
- - - - - -
Derek Rader - I have a FA 24/2 and although the color and sharpness are excellent there is curvature in the corners. I usually try to put as much in the center and then crop in to compensate.
- - - - - -
Stephan Schwartz - I take many architecture slides and use this lens mainly for indoor pictures in buldings like churches and pictures from illumaneted building in the night. I use it very often with wide apertures because I don't need to take a tripod with me. The lens is very sharp with all apertures and a little bit soft with open aperture. I is made from metal and very robust not as many FA plastic lenses like the 50mm or 28mm. I don't noticed the slight fisheye effect which is reported from other users. The angle of view is wide and phantastic. I am very satisfied with this lens.
- - - - - -
Alan Chan - This is an excellent lens for manual focus. I have been using this lens for 2 years mostly on manual focus bodies. The aperture ring feels very good too.
- - - - - -
Gerald Cermak - I really like the lens. I've gotten great pictures with it. The angle of view is wonderful. It's as sharp as my FA 1.4/50. Also, very nice looking lens on my ZX-5n with the tulip hood attached.
- - - - - -
Roberto Burgos S. - It is big, it is heavy, it is silver colored, comes with nice hood, it is optically a very good performer, super sharp from 2.8 to 16 and very expensive.Want honesty? If you do not need the f/2 speed, you will not tell the difference with a SMC-M 28/2.8.... which is another great performer.
- - - - - -
. . .between getting an FA* 24/2 or the FA 20/2.8, perhaps with a 35 to fill the gap up to 50. Is the 20/2.8 also comparible in quality to the other lenses mentioned?
David (Zx5Lx) - I have shot with both these lenses (simultaniously) and optically (f stop for f-stop) they are very close in performance (relatively speaking when distances are adjusted so they can be compared). In terms of handling, the FA 24 f2.0 in my opinion gets the nod, especially when used as a manual focus lens due to it's focus clutch mechansim whereby you pull back on the focusing ring which now has a relatively nice manual focus feel. In addition it's intergral matching pedal shaped hood is nicely designed and comes with the lens. Hope this helps.
- - - - - -
Henry Bloomfield - Just one more point - the 24/2 has a rather cool 'declutching' focus ring which enables you to switch from auto to manual focus very easily, and the feel of the focus ring in manual mode is very nice - not loose and rattley like some AF lenses.
- - - - - -
Mark Roberts - If I were forced to get rid of all my lenses (of all focal lengths) but one, the one I'd keep would be my FA*24/2.0. 'nuff said.
- - - - - -
Cameron - Great Lens!!! For best results, be prepared to get dirty, down low on the ground. Knee-pads and or a drop sheet are essential items. It can vignette with even one filter on it; I would recommend getting a good (B+W) circular SLIM-LINE polarizer. Remember the Ansel Adams maxim of the 'near and far' dicotomy of subjects with wide angle lenses. Also, if you spring for a reverse adapter 52mm and a couple of step up rings, you will obtain an incredible 4:1 macro ratio (albeit at a working distance of about 1 inch, with almost zero depth of field), great for fly's eyeballs, and such.
My favorite lens; depth of field about 12" to infinity! Keep the camera back parallel to the subject plane, or you will get distortions (converging verticals); ladders are sometimes necessary to get the right viewpoint. Be careful around cliffs; take your eye off the camera! Watch that rear element though; at extremes of focus it sticks out quite a bit, making it easily damaged when removing it. Also, don't EVER try this lens with a teleconverter; you'll ruin them both when the elements of each crush into each other. Good luck! It took me about a year to like it and get the most out of it. It is amazing just how different it is from even a 28mm.
- - - - - -
Bob S. - The FA*24/2.0 is truly special. . . . [it is] an especially sharp lens with an aspheric element. I have had extraordinary pictures with this lens, outperforming everything else I owned until I acquired some of the [other] * star lenses.
[later adendum] - Although I love the FA24/2, I have to . . . [admit that the] FA24/2 with hood attached is easily twice as big as anything else, twice the diameter and twice the length. . . . The tulip hood will store reversed on the front of the lens, making things more compact, but this is still a 'fat' lens. . . .
[additional appended addendum] - It's big. It goes on the PZ-1. And it gives great results.
- - - - - -
David Mann -
There's nothing wrong with your lens, Alberto. Mine does exactly the same thing. It's quite a weird feeling if you're used to the old manual focus lenses.
The ring isn't totally locked when in AF. You can still turn it but it has no effect on the focus, and "clicks" in similar fashion to the aperture ring (although it turns quite a long way between clicks).
Yoshihiko Takinami - very sharp, good color saturation/rendition, scarce distortion
- - - - - -
Michael Hubbard SMC K f2.8 24mm lens . . . optically the same as the A version. Apparently there was no M version of the lens. Its a really nice lens. Noticeably different view than the 28. Maybe a tad less contrasty than my A lenses, but great nonetheless. . .
- - - - - -
Gerald Cermak - . . .[My girlfriend] and I have had occasion to shoot the same subjects, her with a K24/2.8 on an ME Super, and me with my FA*24/2 on a ZX-5n. The13x18cm prints are essentially indistinguishable from each other (when shooting ~f/8 in daylight). I haven't tried any more extensive comparisons, but I know the K24/2.8 has never produced a disappointing picture from a technical standpoint.
- - - - - -
Paul.Stregevsky - . . . The lens makes me look like a better photographer than I am. What color! And it feels oh so nice in the hand. . .
Bruce Rubenstein. . . I bought a Pentax-A 24/2.8 . . . has no plastic anywhere and is built like the best KM lenses. . . it seems to be very good. A little soft wide open, but sharp by f4. . . . seems to have great contrast and saturation.
- - - - - -
Pål Jensen - The A 24/2.8 is not one of Pentax best lenses. It is fuzzy wide open and never really great. However, I would not trade in mine for the FA 24/2.0 lens. The lens is fair enough but nothing to write home about. It is recommended, but not enthusiastically.
- - - - - -
William Cornett - I have the A 24mm 2.8, and I would put the resolution and overall performance up against any other 24mm 2.8 on the market. I love it. As an added bonus, it focuses quite close.
- - - - - -
Glenn Swan - I have the Pentax 24mm f2.8 manual focus and I love it. It's well built, and has excellent optical performance. I almost bought the 24mm f2.0 but most of the time I am shooting landscapes with the wide angle lens and I have it stopped down anyway. Why pay for the extra speed and auto focus whenyou don't need it?
- - - - - -
Bruce Rubenstein - I have the Pentax 24/2.8 A lens. I don't think that you can get better than this in a Pentax mount. The color and saturation are better than any other Pentax lens I have. Like most Pentax lenses it is very resistant to flare and ghosting, which is important for wide angles because it is diffucult to make an effective lens shade. The construction is first rate. Also like most Pentax lenses, it doesn't get very sharp until it is stopped down a couple of stops, but most wide angles are used stopped down anyway. At typical f-stops it's good for tack sharp 11x14's (with fine grained film). A great percentage ofmy "keepers" are this lens, on my LX with Reala.
- - - - - -
Bill in Saskatchewan - I love mine. Sharp, straight and really well protected from flare. I paid premium for mine. Worth every penny. One of the last things I bought out of the US of A before our $ became a nickel.
- - - - - -
Bob Waldken - this is a very good lens indeed. Mine has/had quite a lot of light fall-off at wide apertures though. There aren't many around, so grab it while you can, but please check the s/n first. If its 5205241 then it's my stolen lens, so arrest the seller, please!
- - - - - -
Pål - This is an OK wide angle thats not very sharp wide open.
- - - - - -
Bob S. - The A24/2.0 is truly special. It's wider and faster than the A28/2.8, but it's also an especially sharp lens with an aspheric element. I have had extraordinary pictures with this lens, outperforming everything else I owned until I acquired some of the * star lenses.
Joe Blumberg (from the Web auto-response form) - One of the great ones... sharp, contrasty, distortion-free and built like a tank!
- - - - - -
Paul Stenquist - I have one. It seems reasonably sharp, perhaps not quite as sharp as the K 28/3.5 but quite adequate, particularly at f8 or f11. Like all SMC lenses, it is quite good at handling flare. The focus feel and aperture ring movement are very nice. An excellent example of solid construction.
General Discussion of 28 mm lenses . . .
3.17.99 - Valentin observed:
> Now, it's interesting that Yoshihiko is mentioning the "F" in
the "keep away from" list.
>What's wrong with it ? Let's say when compared with the "FA" ?
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami replies:
F28/2.8 is optically identical to M28/2.8 (later model) and A28/2.8, if I remember correctly.
FA28/2.8AL was newly designed when FA lenses were introduced. FA28/2.8AL is a bit soft at wide open, and slightly soft at f/4, while K28/3.5 is very sharp even at wide open.
My personal ranking for Pentax 28m lenses are follows;
K28/3.5, K28/2 >= M28/3.5 >= FA28/2.8AL >>> M28/2.8 (old) >M28/2.8 (later), A28/2.8, F28/2.8
So F28/2.8 is never comparable to FA28/2.8AL in point of optical performance.
Yoshihiko Takinami [again] - I have something to add.
Try Hama rectangular hood (52mm) for this lens. It seems the best hood for K28/3.5 I have ever seen. It also works well with K24/2.8, K28/2, K30/2.8, K35/2, and K35/3.5 in my experiences.
[and in respose to another query . . .]
> I'm out looking for a cheap but good mf (28 or wider)
wideangle lens.
> I was thinking maybe one you have a good lens that you are
willing to
> give up, or maybe you couldjust give me a tip about what lens
I should
> buy.
Go for a used K28/3.5 (SMC PENTAX 28mm f/3.5), a cheap but optically excellent lens, IMO. It is the sharpest 28mm lens that Pentax ever made.
Or go for a used M28/3.5 (smc PENTAX-M 28mm f/3.5), a cheap but good lens, IMHO.
[and in response to yet another query . . .]
First of all, please note that a resolution test is a resolution test. It only shows a part of the optical performance of the lens tested.
As for the K-mount 28mm lenses of Pentax, I have/had experiences with K28/2, K28/3.5, M28/2, M28/2.8, M28/3.5, and FA28/2.8AL. I have resolution test results of K28/3.5, M28/3.5, and FA28/2.8AL among them.
I had been disappointed in the performances of M28/2 and M28/2.8 comparing then to the K lenses and sold them several years ago. So I couldn't test them in the recent resolution test. I actually tested K28/2. But after the test I found it need to be repaired, and deleted the K28/2 result. I will test it [again] . . .
The best among the lenses above, IMHO, is K28/3.5 in point of sharpness, contrast, resolution, and aberrations. The next will be FA28/2.8AL. This is just my opinion.
Bibi Kwa (From the Web) - Very good lens Very sharp, some distortion. Beautiful colors and bokeh.
JCO - I would chose a 28mm f2.0 vs. a 28 F3.5 everytime as the faster lens allows more accurate focus and composition every time, even in bright light. . . .
- - - - - - - -
[see Gerjan's comment on 20 mm f/4.0 above; he discusses several 20mm and 28mm wide angles.]
G.T.Addison - . . .like most SMC pentax primes, very good in every way.
- - - - - -
SUBHASIS - I find my SMC-M 28mm F2.8 excellent in every respect. It's probably the best lens I have ever used in my limited experience.
- - - - - -
tv - softer and less contrasty than my other Pentax lenses.
- - - - - -
Bob S. - just isn't as sharp as the M 50/1.7 or the M 135/3.5
David Collett - . . . I have an A28/2.8, FA28/2.8 AL and a 28/3.5. The f3.5 is probably the best of the three at f8 or f11 with nice crisp contrast. The A28 is a good all rounder, the FA28 is, I would guess as good as the f3.5 at f8 or f11. The FA has problems with light fall off in the corners when used wider than f5.6 but otherwise it is an excellent lens.
- - - - - -
Collin Brendemuehl (from the Web auto-response) - An underrated value. Excellent resolving power. Best at f8 and f11 -- one could easily use this as a normal lens. Good wide open and still respectable at small apertures of f16 and f22. Easy to handle and focus. Decent flare control, but a short hood would be practical as with any wide angle.
[Collin again . . .] Great color rendition. Excellent contrast. Very sharp, but perhaps a bit "rough" at large apertures. Light fall-off is typical of standard 28mm lenses. All-around, a lens you can't go wrong having.
Sterling Rorden - My understanding is that [ the Pentax F series 28mm lens] is slightly better optically than the FA series lens.
"Roberto Burgos S.". . . I do not have the FA28/2.8 but I know is one of the best 28's ever made. Front element does not rotate and it is optically superb.
- - - - - - - -
Bruce Rubenstein - I have the FA 28/2.8. The front element doesn't rotate. The plastic outer skin looks tacky and the focus ring is narrow: typical AF lens stuff. Manual focusing is OK: not much feel, but silky smooth. AF is reasonably fast on a ZX-5. Optical performance is classic Pentax: a little soft wide open, but super sharp a couple of stops down. Compared to my FA 28-105, the FA 28/2.8 at around f8 is a little sharper in the center and distinctly sharper in the corners. . . .
- - - - -
Michael Webber - Fri, 3 Oct 1997 - A little known oddity of the FA 28mm 2.8 (which has tested very sharp indeed) is that it is much more of a 30mm lens than a 28 according to Pop Photog's focal length test information (29.5mm? 29.8?). . . .most 28-? zoom lenses, for example, are more like 29 or 30mm at the wide end, it is common for lenses to vary from their stated focal length. And most "50" mm lenses are more like 52mm (Konica used to actually label their normal lens as a 52. . . ).
- - - - - -
ZX5Lx@aol.com - Having had the opportunity to use the FA 24/2.0 as well as the FA 28/2.8, I can say they are both fine lenses. In terms of absolute sharpness the 28 is definitly sharper, but its a little like comparing apples and oranges. . . .but in optical performance [ the FA 28] was excellent and left little desire for better performance. . . .
- - - - - - - -
John Tollefsrud - 1 Dec 1997. . . I love the sharpnessof the FA28mm as well as it's size and light weight.For the price, it's a great lens. I believe it is an improvement over their previous 28m designs, given the AL lens design.
- - - - - -
Ralf Engelmann - . . .The SMC-F 2.8/28mm is not identical to the SMC-FA 2.8/28mm AL, which has fewer elements, but additionally an aspherical surface. The price increased around 50% when the FA version was introduced. . .SMC-FA always got excellent results. Wide open it is even better than the FA* 2.0/24mm AL (IF), which has the "handicap" of the very fast speed here. Stopped down at f=8 or so, both lenses should be excellent performers.
- - - - - -
Marc Polman - Just got a mint, used FA 28mm f2.8 AL from a local shop. It looks very well built, better than my FA 50mm f1.7 .Feels good too, nice & light, focussing is just tight enough and fortunately no rattling or loose elements here! It has the same flat front element as my FA 28~70 f4 AL. Must be the AL element..
- - - - - -
Pascal De Pauw - Very sharp lens and almoust no distortion.
- - - - - -
Bruce Rubenstein - I got one of these about 6 months ago. I don't use it too much, but only because I tend to use my 24mm more. I find the build quality very high with very good AF and MF. Like most Pentax lenses, it's not great wide open. In more normal wide angle usage (f5.6 and smaller) it's excellent. Sharper in the corners than either the Pentax or Tamron 28-105 with less distortion. It's probably sharper in the center also, but just by a little. Perfect for landscape work where there's lots of detail and you want everything sharp.
- - - - - -
Bruce Dayton - I can tell you that the FA 28 f:2.8 really shows the light falloff at wider apertures. It looks as if you put a filter on and it vignettes. You really need to stop it down to about f:8 to get rid of that problem. It is not one of my favorite lenses.
Yoshihiko Takinami - There's very noticable light fall-off at f/2.8-5.6 though FA28/2.8AL is very good, or even excellent, at f/8-11, IMHO, with very well corrected aberrations and excellent contrast.
- - - - - -
David Collett - . . . I have an A28/2.8, FA28/2.8 AL and a 28/3.5. The f3.5 is probably the best of the three at f8 or f11 with nice crisp contrast. The A28 is a good all rounder, the FA28 is, I would guess as good as the f3.5 at f8 or f11. The FA has problems with light fall off in the corners when used wider than f5.6 but otherwise it is an excellent lens. [later addition . . .] the only thing that I don't like is the level of light fall off at f5.6 & wider. At f8 to f16 it works very well, no technical tests, just a critical eye on my slides!
> Yoshishiko: Did you notice this with your sample? I can't
remember if
> you mentioned it.
Yoshihiko Takinami - Yes, FA28/2.8AL has light fall-off at corners wide open. It is also quite soft wide open, and a bit soft even at f/4.
But wait, this lens is not a fast lens, and is even compact and light weight. It performs really excellent at f/8 and f/11. Aberrations are well corrected even wide open. Contrast and color rendition are quite excellent.
I think FA28/2.8AL is a very excellent performer next to K28/3.5 for general use. Just my opinion.
Yoshihiko Takinami - K28/3.5 is quite excellent, though there's . . . noticable light fall-off wide open, . . . I think K28/3.5 is best 28mm lens Pentax ever made because of its resolution, aberrations, color rendition, contrast, etc.
[a more complete review from Yoshihiko, 7.16.99 . . .] The . . . K28/3.5 . . . is really excellent in performance, IMHO, and is very comparable in size and weight to M85/2. Yes, it seems a big lens for a usual 28mm lens. Whereas M28/3.5 is also an excellent performer and is comapct in size. Comparing the performances of the two, K28/3.5 is a bit better in point of corner resolution, light fall-off towards the corners, and the correction of spherical aberration and coma, IMHO.
M28/3.5 is very comparable to FA28/2.8AL in my point of view.
The only two defects in K28/3.5, IMO; one is its size and weight, the other is some severe light fall-off towards the coeners, which seems better than M28/3.5 or FA28/2.8AL in comparison, but it does exist.
K28/3.5, IMHO, is the best 28mm lens Pentax ever made in opticalperformance.
Go for K28/3.5 when you concern performance, and go for M28/3.5, or FA28/2.8AL, when you concern size and weight besides performance.
- - - - - -
David Collett - . . . I have an A28/2.8, FA28/2.8 AL and a 28/3.5. The f3.5 is probably the best of the three at f8 or f11 with nice crisp contrast. The A28 is a good all rounder, the FA28 is, I would guess as good as the f3.5 at f8 or f11. The FA has problems with light fall off in the corners when used wider than f5.6 but otherwise it is an excellent lens.
- - - - - -
PAUL STENQUIST - I shot half a dozen rolls with the K 28/3.5 a couple of weeks ago. I love it. Very sharp for that wide a lens and great color and saturation. It seems to be far superior to the SMC tak 28/3.5. I've never tried the M version.
J Vanderaalst - absolutely the sharpest lens that I ever owned
- - - - -
fritz polesny (from input on this website)- an excelent optic, even for close ups. i like this optic. i get best results using it with extension tubes or a retro ring for close ups of insects, spiders and mites.
Joe McAllister - 23 Nov 1997 - I've had one in my possession for the past few months, and have enjoyed excercising it on the water tank across the street.. . . It works. . .It's sharp. . . It rotates as well as shifts (pick your shift from a rose compass of 12 directional settings) and shift far enough to get a 1.3 million 65' tall water tank corrected and in a vertical frame from less than 60' away.
[Additional comment from JoMac . . .] - It can shift enough to vignette the opposite end of the frame, if you let it. Built in filters. (3) I have and use the 28mm/3.5 shift lens with my LX and PZ-1p. There is a difference between measurable and percievable. I've never "noticed" any distortion in photos I've taken with buildings and towers using this lens. I've never seen any flare unless the sun was at the edge of the image. If you are shooting Pentax gear, then buy or borrow one of these lenses and see if it fits your needs. If you find it lacking, eBay will get rid of it for you for around what you paid for it. It is a desirable lens to a collector and to Pentax shooters. The techno geeks can find fault in any optic, any mechanism. And of course, they ARE there. . . .Even NASA has problems from time to time.
- - - - - -
Arnold Stark - The 28/f3.5 Shift lens is of course ideal for pictures of buildings, towers, etc., even though I sometimes prefer to go farther away and take the picture with a normal lens or even with a tele lens, if that is possible. The shift lens is not really very sharp until f11, but in most cases it is no problem to stop down to that value. Distortion is low, and flare is not much of a problem due to the SMC coating (but of course some flare exists when shooting directly at the sun). The lens is a mechanical dream like most orginal K lenses. The lens has so many rings [1.) Filter selection ring, 2.) ring for selection of the aperture, 3.) ring for stopping down to the selected aperture, 4.) focusing ring, 5.) shifting ring and 6.) lens rotation ring] that the handling requires some practice, but as soon as you are used to them, you will enjoy turning all those rings. However, the lens is rather large and heavy when compared to constructions of other manufacturers. It is recommended to use the lens together with a tripod and a grid screen, but I successfully use the lens without either most of the time when traveling...
- - - - -
Bucky - I have the lens. I find it easy to use, once you play with it a bit (like any equipment). use it at f/8 or f/11 for noticeably better results, although I generally find it quite a good lens to begin with. Not as sharp as my 28mm f/2.8 was (before I got rid of it). I has 3 built in filters: skylight, orange, and yellow, plus a clip at the back end for gels. Flare can be a problem, particularly because you can't use a hood on the lens due to vignetting with shifts
Dave Richards - . . . It seems to be plenty sharp although my 28mm f/2 is much easier to see through so I use that more. I suppose I'll keep it around for a curiosity.
- - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami replies - Fred, I own one and am quite happy with it. :^)
It is excellent optically; well corrected aberrations, very few distortion, very high actual/visual resolution, good color rendition. K30/2.8 is far better than M28/2 nor M28/2.8's, IMHO.
Recently I found the FA43/1.9 and K30/2.8 combo seemed great for snapshots, travel photography, etc.
I think it interesting that Zeiss Jena had 28/2.8, 29/2.8, 30/2.8 M42 lenses in their catalog sometime in 60s or 70s, though I doubt they needed all of the focal length. So it is never surprised that Pentax had K30/2.8 besides two 28mm lenses, K28/2 and K28/3.5, at the same time, I think.
[And Fred again . . .] I think you'll find the 30/2.8 to be a "typical" K (pre-M) lens in most respects. . . which is to say that you'll probably love its feel. It is built well, of course - I've never seen a K-era lens that wasn't. In my opinion, it would seem to be similar in overall performance to the K 28/3.5, the K/35/3.5, and the A 28/2, and it might be just a bit better than the M 28.2.8 and the A 35/2.
I really haven't used my own 30/2.8 all that much (using an A 28/2 or an A 35/2 more often, or the wide end of an A 28-135/4), and I hold onto it (inside of its dedicated SMC 2.8/30 case and box) mostly as a collector's item, I guess
Yoshihiko Takinami - I love this lens. :^) I like K30/2.8 better than any 28mm lens Pentax ever made. It's compact in size and very well built. It has great resolving power visually/actually, excellent contrast and good color rendition. Distortion and light fall-off seem very slight, and its bokeh is really good.
I have placed a sample photo taken with this lens at
<http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/gallery01/p&f0004.html>
It was dim, cloudy morning I take that photo. The lens rendered the scene with quite impressive contrast and color, IMO.
- - - - -
Alexander Krohe - . . . I use this lens and like the 30mm lens a lot (more than the A-35mm/2 that I also have) for two reasons: (1) It's optical performance, which is IMO a bit special: I like the color reproduction, which is a bit on the cool side (this very obvious on test shots on slide films side by side with the A-35mm/2 lens). Maybe the colors of the 35mm/2 lens look more "saturated", but I have the impression that the 30mm lens is better in reproducing fine nuances in color tones. The blue rendition is much better than that of the "ordinary" K- and M-series lenses. Also black and white shots with the 30mm lens appear to render extreme details and sharpness (but stop the lens down). All this together (color reproduction, details and sharpness) give the image a somewhat unique characteristics IMO (I dare to say "3-dimensionality"). (2) The second reason why I like the 30mm lens is its angle of view that is IMO ideal for 'environmental' portraits, street shots etc. In my biased view, the characteristics of the 30mm optics seems to be closer to a 35mm than to that of a 28mm lens (i.e. less distortion at close distances than a 28mm lens), however, with a noticeably larger depth of field compared to the 35mm lens. This is a plus when shooting at close distances (e.g. needed for environmental portraits) and when shooting with hyper-focal distance settings etc. I guess I use the 30mm lens about 4x more often than the 35mm lens.
Mike Wilson - Seems to be an excellent performer. Very little vignetting, no obvious colour cast, astonishing flare resistance, bright look in the viewfinder, fast and quiet in AF, easy to focus in MF, high resolution. Negatives: big, silver, expensive. . . a fixed hood and the lens cap pushes on over it. The cap is lined with green velvet and I suspect that, overtime, this would become quite loose. Feels good when it is new...
David Collett - My experience with 35mm has been with the A35/2.8, FA 35/2, and the K35/3.5. I borrowed an M35/2.8 a few years ago (as you can see I like 35mm lenses!).
Of the ones that I have used I would put them in the following order for sharpness and contrast (not scientific, just based on my own prejudice):
The K35/2 has had some good comments made about it although I haven't used one myself. If you are after a 35mm then I would suggest you look for a 35/3.5, they tend to be pretty cheap and are excellent - the only draw backs are the lack of A setting and the relative slowness of the lens.
ZX5Lx@aol.com - David. . . If AF wasn't a concern, then I would put Pentax's 35mm f2.0 in this group of excellent lenses [ FA's 50 1.4 and 28 2.8], with the provision that the 35mm f2.0 is soft at f2.0 but other than that is an excellent performing lens.
Ron Bhanukitsiri - I have the 35mm f/2 M lens . . .and I love it. . . . I really didn't like it on the AF body: too slow to focus, no aperture information in the finder. . .However, the 35mm f/2 is my most often used lens on my MX and it's a pleasure to use, easy to focus, a very fine lens indeed. . . The lens is sharp and very contrasty. I'll never part with the lens as long as I have a manual focus body to go with it.
- - - - - -
John Vanderaalst - I think the Pentax SMC M 2/35 is quite good at full opening. It seems that *every* wide angle lens of F2.0 or more has some minor problems at full opening, even lenses from Leitz. . . .
- - - - - -
Bibi Kwa (From the Web) - My favourite lens. Very sharp, virtually no distortion and nice bokeh. Beautiful color rendition.
rharris2@pipeline.com - I have a 35 f2 "A" lens, which I think is optically the same as the "M" with additional contacts added for camera interface. It is one of two MF lenses I kept when I shifted to AF . . ., and I still will carry the 35 when I want to go with only one fast lens, . . . I love it.
- - - - - -
Bill Robb - I use the Pentax 35mm f2 A. and have been very happy. Even have one Kodachrome I shot directly into the sun, and no flare is evident.
>How's the manual-focusing capability of t35 mm f/2.0 FA? Is it easy to grip, hold, and turn?
Doug Brewer - It doesn't compare very well with a good manual focus lens, but it's pretty good for an AF lens. The focus ring is about twice as wide as that on my FA50/1.7. . . With the hood on it, it's easy for the fingers to "know" where to grab for the ring; it's just behind the hood. Hood off, it's no problem either. I can rest the winder in the palm of my left hand, put the tip of my left middle finger on the aperture ring, my left index finger on the focus ring, and my left thumb can swing back and forth between the two rings. Your reach may vary. The damping is much better than that on the FA50/1.7. It has a slight whirring sound that may be similar to what Fred complained about on the 43/1.9 . . . but I had to hold it pretty close to my ear to hear it.
Conclusion: It ain't an old brass and glass lens, but manually focusing it probably won't cause hives.
Doug Brewer (again, later) - . . .thought I'd let y'all know my first feelings about it. . .
Build: It's light for its speed, maybe a touch heavier than the FA50/1.7. It's not a Takumar, but on the other hand, I bet a Tak would be a bitch to autofocus. [Later confession: I was being a bit goofy about AF on a Tak. All that brass and glass might take a heavy-duty motor to turn them. . .] I like the tulip hood, with the door in it like the 20-35/4 has for adjusting filters, though, again, I predict a whole machine at the factory producing nothing but replacement doors.
Design: The manual focus ring is wider than many of the previous FA lenses I've handled. It's roughly twice as wide as that on the FA50/1.7, and it's better damped. The MF is smooth and sure, with a high confidence factor.
But looking through it is where it shines. This lens seems to pop into focus. I ran it mostly on an LX with an FK-60 "Golden Section" screen, and man, the contrast and details just jump out at me when I focus. It gives an incredible dimensionality to the subject I've not seen in many lenses in this price range.
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - FA35/2AL is superior to K35/3.5 in point of correction, color saturation, and uniformity of image all over the frame. They are the two best 35mm (focal length) lenses Pentax ever made, IMO.
- - - - - -
Gerhard Fischer - . . . I have the new SMC FA 35/2. in my opinion, it is a superb lens. I photographed winter-forest. From the lightened parts to the dark trees and the snow-ground the slides I saw gave brilliant, sharp and contrasty results. I also photographed an old man (alzheimer-patient) for a newspaper-report. I am impressed by the detailed pictures. It is really a wonderfull optic. Unfortunately, I yet lost the little, reversable element of the lens hood that allowes filter-use. It is not verry well fixed and during a outdoor-trip I lost it in the snow. So pay attention, if you do the same. If lens hood is used, the manual focus ring is not easily to reach, not even for my small fingers.
You also have to hold the lens exactly horizontal during close photography to avoid non-horizontal, falling lines.
The 35/2 will be my standard lens. . .
- - - - - -
Ralf - As I have told a while ago, I have been looking for a standard (prime) lens for a long time now. Over the years I had bought and sold several 50mm F and FA lenses because of getting bored with them (what a problem... :-)). Now I got the 35mm, and I think this is it. The lens is great in any respect. Even though it's the typical FA plastic construction, the precision of fit and design of the lens is better than the older 28 and 50mm FA lenses. It's simply more intelligent made. The focussing ring is broader, a hood mount is included, the lens comes with matching bag and hood, automatic focussing and manual focus feel is very good. It is fast enough to be used indoors without flash (f2.0 plus 35mm-> 1/30s shutter speeds), and the focal length is truely universal. Generations of viewfinder cameras had a 40 or 35mm lens as the standard solution, and there is a reason for this. The viewfinder image is clear and contrasty, I have no doubts that this lens is sharp and an excellent performer. I'm very satisfied.
- - - - - -
Doug Brewer - . . . It . . . feels comfortable with my PZ-1p (with grip strap attached) and my LX (with winder attached) to give a nice balanced feel. Performance has been excellent in field use. . . . So far it has lived up to expectations admirably.
Whether it should be purchased instead of an FA50/1.7 is a personal choice . . . but it is certainly a consideration. I also own the FA50/1.7 and see the 35 as a complementary length rather than a replacement, simply because I can't imagine photography without a 50mm lens. The 35 is certainly an admirable lens that rivals the 50 for sharpness and contrast.
- - - - - -
Your descriptions of FA 35 f2.0 making me lust for that lens. Please let us know how the pictures come out.. . .
Stephan Schwartz - I have bought the FA 2/35mm AL at the end of december 1999 in Wolfenbüttel Germany for 649,00 DM. I took it with my MZ5-N at a short journey to Cologne at new-years eve. I used a Agfachrome 200 precisa. I made pictures in churches and outdoor pictures by rainy weather, so often I must use open or near open aperture (2.0 to 3.5). My first developed slides from this journey are very sharp and have very good brilliance. The lens seems for me better than my FA 1.4/50. I will take it as a standard lens, because it's angle is wider as from a 50mm and not so big as from a 28mm and it's very compact, light and the hood is encluded. Unfortunately it's made of plastic like the FA 1.4/50 or the FA 2.8/50, but it has not the ugly plastic feeling like the earlier power zooms FA 3.5-4.5/28-80 or the FA 4.5-5.6/70-200. My first impression and experience: The FA 2/35mm AL is a mechanically a good and optically a phantastic lens.
- - - - - -
Gerald Cermak - It has a cool looking tulip hood. The pictures are fabulous. You will like it.
- - - - - -
Arnold Stark - I had this lens for a while. Optically it is great. Sharp, nice bokeh, little or no distortion, few flare problems (the hood does not really improve anything). However, the barrel is made of plastic, much like the FA50/f1.4 or FA28/f2.8, and this is something that I do not like. I much prefer the FA43/f1.9.
- - - - - -
Len Paris - I don't think there's another K-Mount lens in this focal length that performs nearly as well. It's a wonderful lens.
G.T.Addison - . . .like most SMC pentax primes, very good in every way.
- - - - - -
Jostein Øksne (From the Web) - Sharp, neat, and I like it. The lens likes to be cool, though...The lens has no vignetting, is resonably sharp at full opening, and razor sharp from f/5.6. Sharpness does not deteriorate at f/22. It is marked as having optimal performance at f/8, but the results at f/11 are indistiguishable from f/8 even at extreme magnification (I haven't compared any other apertures).
There is one negative thing to say too. Because of its construction, the lubricant can "leak"onto the aperture [blades] if exposed to heat (probably >30 celsius). This makes the [blades] sticky...
Pål - I'm not very happy with this lens. I don't think its razor sharp at any aperture and is soft wide open.
John Vanderaalst - The K3.5/35 is probably one of the cheapest in the K-series, and also one of the best. I have the K3.5/35 as well as the M 2/35 and to tell you the truth, I like the K3.5 better...sharp, contrasty, insensitive to back-light. The contrast of the K3.5 is that good that focussing is, despite its limited aperture, quite easy.
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - I have/had K35/2, K35/3.5, M35/2, M35/2.8 and FA35/2AL. Go for K35/2 if you do need the extra speed. Go for K35/3.5 if you do need fine prints. I prefer K35/3.5 to K35/2 in point of center resolution/sharpness and better correction of aberrations.
Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - very little light-fall-off even at wide open, amazingly sharp, good color rendition, great color saturation, scarce distortion, natural bokeh, great resolution
Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - . . . one of the best Pentax lenses. . . Its color rendition and 3-dimensionality are really great. FA35/2AL is superior to K35/3.5 in point of correction, color saturation, and uniformity of image all over the frame. They are the two best 35mm (focal length) lenses Pentax ever made, IMO.
- - - - - -
David Collett - If you get a chance buy a 35/3.5, IMO it is the best "cheap" 35mm second hand lens you can buy. It has good contrast and is very sharp between f5.6 and f11. This may push the price up then perhaps I can sell mine for an inflated price and buy a[new] FA35/2 :-)
- - - - - -
Timo Hartikainen - a really great lens! . . . I'm very pleased. The image quality is really good, even at f3.5. .
David Mann - . . .Its small, light and really sharp.
Christophe Birkeland. . . But the 40mm, while very handy since it's so small, does not qualify as superb or even very good optically IMO. My experience is that flare is a problem, and also the simple fact that it is just a f2.8 makes it not such a jewel after all. Oh, and the focus ring is so tiny that it's hard to get used to. . . .
- - - - - -
Samuel Tam - light weight, sharp, great for travel
- - - - - -
Mark Cassino [two comments merged] - . . . Well, it is an OK lens, about on par with the ~$25 M 50 mm f2. It's a little more than 1 cm smaller (no big deal, frankly) and the focus ring and aperture ring are annoyingly small to work with. the focal length is quite nice though. IMHO -- not worth it. While I like the perspective of 40mm, the other attributes of the lens undercut it's value. But, when coupled with an ME Super, you have an SLR not much bigger than most point & shoot cameras. However, if you don't care about the size, get a good 50mm and forget the pancake.
- - - - - -
Barry Brevik - It is a superb lens, but after using it for 15 years, I don't feel it quite lives up to it's reputation.
- - - - - -
Fred - I have had the chances over time to test five of these critters, for high-contrast resolution only (USAF lens targets), and found that the 40/2.8 is indeed not spectacular (despite some glowing claims I have read previously), but is certainly quite decent. Most notable result from the testing was that the sample-to-sample variation with the 40/2.8 was markedly less than in any other bunch of "identical" lenses tested.
Star tests show nearly-pinpoint star images at f/2.8, even near the edge of the FOV, and the images do become pinpoints at f/4.
Vignetting is fairly low at f/2.8 and absent at f/4. Flare rejection is pretty good. Distortion is not noticeable. Subjectively, I find the bokeh with this lens to be somewhat harsh.
> it's fairly slow at f2.8,
Yes. Definitely not much of a dim-light lens. (But, as a "snapshot lens", I'll bet that most 40/2.8's are used at f/8 and f/11 in bright light much of the time, anyway.)
> the angle of view is nice, but not much different than a 50mm,
...and even closer to the 43/1.9 - <g>.
> and the narrow focusing ring is a pain to use.
Perhaps, but I find the lack of a non-rotating surface on the pancake, which makes mounting and dismounting just a bit more difficult than in other lenses, a bigger pain. However, these pains (focusing and mounting/dismounting) have to be accepted as a necessity with a pancake-style lens, I guess.
> But, when coupled with an ME Super, you have an SLR not
much bigger
> than most point & shoot cameras.
I personally think that the A 50/2 would be a good "not-quite-so-small-but-otherwise-quite-adequate-and-a-helluva-lot-cheaper-besides" replacement.
- - - - - -
Peter Spiro - I notice several people claiming that this lens is a poor performer. Perhaps, relative to its price, if you don't consider its size, weight, and wider angle compared to a 50mm lens as advantages.
The magazine tests that were published when it came out, and more recent tests by PDML members, indicate that it is in fact quite a decent lens by most standards, although not quite as sharp as the standard 50mm lens. . . All in all, it's quite a good lens, with a very useful focal length for travel photography. It's angle of view is 21% wider than for a 50mm. I use it a lot on my MZ-M. The whole package fits neatly in a coat pocket without much of a bulge, and weighs slightly less than one pound.
- - - - - -
Fred - responding to the following question:
> Which is better (optically), the 40mm pancake or the 50mm f1.2?
Well, first, the K and A 50/1.2's are ~much~ better than is the 40/2.8 at all apertures wider than f/2.8 - <g>. For resolution, the 40/2.8 does not seem much different from the 50/1.2's at apertures such as f/2.8, and f/4. However, while the resolution of the 40/2.8 is (rather uncommonly) fairly constant at most apertures (and, therefore, does not keep rising very much at smaller apertures), the resolution of the 50/1.2's keeps rising through the mid-apertures, so that the 50/1.2's have a better overall resolution.
I have found the bokeh of the 40/2.8 to be a little harsh, while the bokeh of the 50/1.2's seems a lot smoother.
Fred - . . . if you want an ~AF~ lens with a slightly wider perspective than a 50mm lens, that is superb at mid-apertures (unless you're shooting something with straight lines near the edge of the frame), you just might find the 43/1.9 to be a good addition to your camera bag. . . . for some situations it's a great lens - but I just did not enjoy . . . its mechanical "whirring" while manual focusing . . .
- - - - - -
tv - I use mine *in place of* a 50mm. In some situations I might get the 50/1.4 out, but in reality I haven't touched it since I bought my 43 . . . if I can take a shot with the 43 I will. It's superb. Lately I've been carrying around the 20-35/4, 43 amd 85.
- - - - - -
Pål - I find that the 43mm can replace both a 50mm and a 35mm giving me one less lens to carry. It isn't that sharp wide open, but what Pentax lens in this focal length range is?
[later comment from Pål ]. . . I've spent the day organizing my slides from the last two years field work. (I'm a volcanologist working on processes and products from subaquous eruptions - more specifically subglacial eruptions. Most of my slides are therefore of various volcanic rocks and sediments). Last years shots was made with the A 35/2.8 while this years shots were made with the 43mm Limited lens. The quality difference between last years shots and this years are nothing short of astonishing.
The A 35/2.8 may not be the worlds best lens but its hardly a dog but the difference is huge. You do not need a loupe to see this; its totally obvious. The Limited lens resolution, contrast and three dimensionality has to be seen to be believed. It reaches this astonishing quality at mid apertures. Its not particularly good wide open but from F:4 to F:11 the lens is certainly among the best ever made. No wonder Amateur Photographer magazine use it as their new refernce. Its hard to admit but the sharpness of this lens really make Pentax 35mm system dangerously close to the quality obtainable with the 645 system. The medium format still has the edge regarding tonality and gradation but in pure sharpness the 43mm is very close. With more Limited lenses and a matching camera pentax is really up there with best quality 35mm can offer.
- - - - - -
Roger Stockton - I use and think very highly of my FA43/1.9; it sharpness is at least the equal of the best results from my 50mm primes, and its color and contrast are the best of any of my Pentax lenses. But, I don't own an AF body, so I can't comment on its AF speed, etc. (though I would expect a physically small, largish-aperture lens such as this to focus quite rapidly).
I would not hesitate to use it in place of any other "normal" prime, but I'm not sure it would be the best choice for "documentary-style travel and family pictures". "Documentary-style" for me brings to mind situations better served by a fast prime in the 24-28mm range, where smaller apertures and greater DOF (plus lower "safe" handholdable shutter speeds) allow capturing the subject and their enviroment more rapidly. While I realize your 28-70/4 does reach this range, it is not particularly fast, and is known to be weak at the short/wide end (besides, I can't imagine using a zoom in place of a small prime for this sort of thing). Good things have been said of the FA28/2.8AL here, so while I don't own one myself, I suggest it for possible consideration. The 24mm length is also supposed to be a Pentax strong point...
Of course, a 28 or 24 will be a bit on the wide side for conventional family pictures while the 43 is actually quite suitable for full-length portrait/small group family pictures. Perhaps the 43 would be a better choice after all (better still might be the 24/43/85 trio of fast primes).
- - - - - -
Pål - This is a terrific lens. Its razor sharp at F:8. Its not very sharp wide open where it also suffers from some light fall-off at the corners. Its sharp from F:2.8, very sharp at F:4 and razor sharp at F:8. Its start to soften up at F:11 (not much!). The lens has some different qualities thats hard to describe. Pictures have a more three dimesional feel than usual. However, I heard about people not happy with this lens. The arguments goes as follows: at the price you should expect better performance wide open. And, at mid apertures, all lenses are sharp in this focal lenght range. To each his own.
- - - - - -
George Stanley - I have been using both the 43mm and 77mm Limited lenses for more than a year. I have been fully delighted with the performance of both lenses, but have not done any formal testing with either lens. I regard both lenses as "Swell" optics--to use an ancient word. . . .
- - - - - -
David A. Mann - This lens is small, I find it almost too short for comfortable manual focussing. My long fingers naturally rest on the lens hood so I have to bend them back a little to focus. The field of view is good, slightly wider than 50mm (as you might expect:). . . It is also incredibly light. . . .This lens would suit an M- or MZ-/ZX- series body pretty well for a really nice, lightweight combo. . . . The manual focussing feel is really nice. I don't mind the whirring of the gears and I definitely like the knurled metal focussing ring (which I would have preferred to be a little longer). I don't think there's any plastic in this lens - it's just metal and glass, all that a lens should be :) I am surprised that there is no lens-mount index like every other Pentax lens has. . . The AF (on a Z-1p) is pretty fast but not as fast as I expected it to be. . . . . This lens just looks too weird on the Z-1p but it suits my chrome K2 pretty well. . . Adding filters makes it look even stranger (my filters have black rims). Then again, as far as I'm concerned, the view from behind the camera is more important :)
- - - - - -
Ed Mathews - Why buy the 43 over a 50?
1. It looks cool on a ZX series box.
2. Slightly more DOF.
3. Includes just a tad more of the scene.
4. It's a real good performer at mid apertures at any distance, and even better at almost all apertures at close distances.
5. It has nice bokeh (excluding actual light source renderings, which are sometimes donut shaped or round).
6. It has good MF feel (but talk to Fred about the mechanical noise which doesn't bother me). :)
7. It's really small and light, and very well built. Kind of sexy, huh?
8. It automatically enters you into the exclusive and elite "Pentax Snob" club.
9. It's not a "me too" lens.
10. It's a great conversation piece?
So, is it worth all the extra money? No way. But if anything above is important to you, then I feel sorry for you, because you'll never be happy until you get it. And by the way, those of us that own one have all made a secret deal to continue to justify it's cost by constantly reminding the list that it's special, so be prepared.
- - - - - -
Fred again - . . . The FA 43/1.9 Limited lens is extremely well built and finished. Its flare control seems superb, as does its contrast. Its resolution is not spectacular wide open, but is very high after stopping down just a bit. Its manual focusing action is just a bit "busy" for my tastes (though R2D2 would probably like it). Not counting its silver or chrome color (which I still can't get used to, though I guess I've now stopped trying), its major drawback is its slight barrel distortion, at least in my own humble opinion.
- - - - - -
George Stanley - I own this lens, and have given it limited usage during the past 8 months. I agree with most of the comments from other list members here. Yes, wide open it is not as sharp as the SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, at f/2. This is disappointing. Flare is well-controlled. At f/5.6 and smaller, the 43mm F1.9 is very sharp. This is purely subjective-- but I like the feel and handling of this lens. I enjoy using it!
- - - - - -
Bruce Dayton - The build quality is quite awesome and the focus is very smooth. It felt good on both my MX and PZ-1p. I have to agree . . . that it looks odd on the all black PZ-1p. . . I know that Fred had mentioned the slight whirring sound when manually focusing. It is there, but doesn't bother me.
- - - - - -
Fed yet again - . . . Actually, I should have pointed out that it was not actually the whirring ~sound~, but the whirring ~feel~, that bothered me while focusing. I actually had a chance to try two 43/1.9's, and they were identical in this regard. And, I should point out that the subjective effect seemed less so to me than in the AF 37-70/2.8 and F 50/2.8 Macro lenses. Still, I much prefer the clutch arrangement of the FA* 85/1.4, which allows ~smooth~ manual focusing (even if the feel is a bit "light").
- - - - - -
Pål - I have not compared the Limited with any of the 50mm. However, the 50mm lenses are among the best out there and nothing compares to them regarding optical quality for the money. However, the 43 Limited have some superb qualities apart from built and finish; its excellent bokeh that gives subject a three dimentional look that provides depth to the photos hardly avaiable from other lenses. So you really have to decide what you want from a lens; value for money or that particular Limited look. Also, 43mm gives a quite different perspective than a 50mm and in my opinion is far more versatile.
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - I have/had experiences with almost all types of 40-55 mm lenses Pentax ever made.
I cannot say that FA43/1.9 Limited is better in point of optical quality than FA50/1.4 or A50/1.7; yes, I like these two lenses best in Pentax 50 mm lenses. It has very large coma wings wide open, and also has some distortion larger than expected as a modern normal lens. But still it creates exceptional image qualities as Paal wrote. I would recommend FA50/1.4 in point of optical quality and would recommend FA43/1.9 Limited in point of image quality. I would go for FA43/1.9 Limited if I had to choose one.
Mike Johnston - My take is:
1. That the 7mm difference in focal length is much more significant than one might think; 43mm is "dead normal" and seems much more relaxed and inclusive than a 50mm. The 50mm can be a slight challenge for some subjects because it's just a wee bit telephoto. 40mm is my personal favorite focal length, with 35mm a close second and 50mm third. 40 to 43 is a "same difference" kind of thing; 43 to 50 is not.
2. The mechanical M 50/1.4's from the S.-M.-C.-Takumar to the M lens are all wonderfully built, wonderfully balanced, and beautiful handling. (The A and FA lenses, while fine performers, don't give the same sense of quality or pleasure.) However, the 43mm is one of the nicest AF lenses ever made: great size, drop-dead looks, and a very pleasing metal hood and hood cap standard. The S.-M.-C.-Takumar is still the paragon of all manual-focusing lenses for me, but the 43mm is wonderful for an AF lens.
3. If cost is a factor, the 50/1.7's are great, generally underrated lenses, and quite cheap, especially used. The 43mm is pricey for a normal lens. (Of course, my personal motto for years has been "You can never spend too much on your lenses." In general I think it's more usual for cameramakers to suck value OUT of lenses than it is for them to put extra value IN, so any tendency towards the latter--of which the 43mm is certainly a good example--ought to be encouraged.)
4. I think the 43mm is plenty fast enough, although I do quite often use my 50/1.4-M wide open because I think it gives very pleasing results.
5. For me the "look" of the 43mm is better suited to color film, and better suited to slower, higher-resolution color films than coarser, faster ones. The SMC 50/1.4's in particular look spectacular with black-and-white, _especially_ with faster, coarser films. There is hardly a better lens for Tri-X. This is just my personal aesthetic judgment.
Imagine a 43mm on an MZ-S, rounded out by the 77. What a fantastic combo.
Valentin - Unlike some other companies, Pentax uses the same high quality standards for both the FA 50/1.4 and FA 50/1.7 lens. Any of them is a good one. . .
The most important differences you will notice between the two FA will be: 1) the brighter viewfinder image that the 1.4 produces - especially important if most of your photography happens in dim light 2) the shape of the out-of-focus highlights - hexagons for the 1.7 and octogons for the 1.4
If most of your photos are done at infinity/long distance (landscapes, citscapes, etc.), than the 1.7 is an excellent choice. If you like close-ups, with blurred backgrounds that you want smooth and nice, and are frequently doing photo in dim light, the 1.4 would justify its extra cost.
- - - - - -
Fred - In my own resolution tests (<http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/resolutn.htm>) of three A 50/1.4's, five M 50/1.4's, two A 50/1.7's, and three M 50/1.7's, I found that, in the case of the M versions, the f/1.7 lenses were slightly sharper at wide apertures, but they were virtually the same at all other apertures. However, with the A versions, the reverse turned out to be true - the f/1.4 lenses were slightly sharper wide open, but they were about the same at all other apertures. In these tests, the A lenses showed themselves to be a little sharper than the M lenses, but the difference from M to A was larger between the M and A 50/1.4 lenses than it was between the M and A 1.7's.
While the Pentax 50/1.7 lenses (M, A, F, and FA) all appear to be essentially optically identical to each other (small coatings differences notwithstanding), it appears that the longer series of 50/1.4 lenses does not show quite the same uniformity. While the Super Takumar, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, SMC Takumar, SMC Pentax ("K"), SMC Pentax-M, SMC Pentax-A, SMC Pentax-F, and SMC Pentax-FA 50/1.4 lenses all have about the same configuration 6 groups of 7 elements (with visually indistinguishable lens diagrams) (ignoring coatings differences over time), Yoshihiko has pointed out previously that the 50/1.4 design underwent a little bit of "tweaking" at the time the A 50/1.4 was being developed. Therefore, there is a slight difference between the M-and-older 50/1.4 and the A-and-newer 50/1.4 lenses, and the higher cost of the newer 50/1.4 lenses does reward with slightly higher resolution as well as a half-stop of higher speed.
- - - - - -
Mike Johnston - I have owned or used the Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4, the AF-Nikkor 50/1.4, the Canon EF 50/1.4, the Leica R 50/1.4 (the old one with the 55mm filter thread), a Yashica 50/1.4, The Leica M 50/1.4, and the Voigtlaender Nokton 50/1.5. For all-around image quality in real pictures, the Pentax 50/1.4 is my favorite of them all. The FA 50/1.7 (which I have used) is a very good lens. But the FA 50/1.4 is a great lens.
- - - - - -
> . . . K 50/1.2 vs. the A 50/1.2?
Yoshihiko Takinami - Basically K50/1.2 and A50/1.2 have the same optical design. The only difference is the number of aperture blades; K50/1.2 has eight blades and A50/1.2 has nine blades.
> I suppose A50/1.2 might have better or more advanced coating?
I once have both K50/1.2 and A50/1.2 and tried to compeare the two. I thought differences in the image qualities were so small that I scarcely pointed out which photo was taken by which lens.
The one apparent difference was the description of bright [highlight] in the background. [from a later message . . .] The difference between A50/1.2 and K50/1.2 is the number of aperture blades; A50/1.2 has 9 blades and K50/1.2 has 8 blades. I prefer A50/1.2 to K50/1.2 because the [highlights] in the back-ground is rendered more natural with A50/1.2 than with K50/1.2.
You can see the resolution test results of the two lenses in my web site at <http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/>.
They both are very soft wide open because of flare, IMO. I keep A50/1.2 because its image qualities at f/8 or closer are very excellent and very different from those of 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 lenses. I mean I will hardly use A50/1.4 lens wider than f/5.6.
I prefer 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 lens to A50/1.2 when I use one at f/2 or even at f/4.
- - - - - -
> . . . M vs. A?
Yoshihiko - "A" is not optically identical to "M".
The optical design of Pentax 50/1.4 lens was slightly changed mainly for better resolution in corners, I heard, when A50/1.4 was introduced. That means there are two different optics in Pentax 50/1.4 lenses; one is "K" and "M", the other is "A", "F" and "FA". My own experiences support it. My lens resolution test result also seems to prove it . . .
I would prefer "A" to "M" based on my own experiences of the two 50/1.4 optics. Just my opinion.
- - - - - -
Fred - Comparing the M's (and K's) versus the A's, amongst the 50mm lenses:
1. The 2 K f/1.2's were essentially the same as the 1 A f/1.2.
2. The 3 A f/1.4's were distinctly sharper than the 5 M f/1.4's.
3. The 2 A f/1.7's were slightly sharper than the 3 M f/1.7's.
4. The 2 A f/2's were slightly sharper than the 5 M f/2's.
From the data, it seems the biggest difference (improvement), from M (or K) to A, occurred in the 50/1.4's. (. . . Yoshihiko . . . explained previously that Pentax "tweaked" the optics of the 50/1.4 when designing the A version, which would suggest that the A, F, and FA versions should be slightly improved over the M, K, SMC Tak, S-M-C Tak, and S Tak [Model II] versions.)
However, while I've sold off most of these test lenses by now, I've still kept an M 50/1.4 (as well as an A 50/1.4), because using the M lens is simply such a pleasure. "They don't make 'em like this anymore" surely applies to the SMC Pentax-M 50/1.4 lens. The A 50/1.4 is a nice enough lens to use, but the M 50/1.4 is a ~really~ nice lens to use. If I were you, I'd hang onto that M 50/1.4 you already have, even if you do stumble into a good deal on an A 50/1.4.
As for the heavy, bulky 50/1.2 models (both K and A), they tested very much the same as the 50/1.7's overall (which is to say that the 50/1.2's are sharper than some have suggested, in my opinion, because the 50/1.7's are pretty good lenses, with a good reputation). I did keep one K 50/1.2 (to go with my black K2, to be used only occasionally when the K2 is out for "exercise"), and I did keep the A 50/1.2 (strictly as a dedicated dim-light lens, for occasions that call for it). However, the normal lens I take most places with me is either the M or the A 50/1.4.
- - - - - -
> . . . 1.4 vs. 1.7?
Fred - [Based on my tests,] the three A 50/1.4's were sharper than the two A 50/1.7's at most apertures, while the five M 50/1.4's were just slightly sharper than the three M 50/1.7's.
- - - - - -
Greg E. - In March 99 our own Thomas N. Vanveen quoted this from the Auto Extension Tube K manual:
"Lenses not included in the close-up tables are not appropriate for close-up work with extension rings. The 50mm f/1.2 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses are not suitable for close-ups of flat subjects such as documents, but can be used for regular close-ups in which the area of the subject does not reach out to the edges of the picture format."
From this it appears that Pentax is warning you that the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 lenses don't have as flat a fieldas the f1.7 lenses (f2 lens not mentioned).
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko - Go for FA50/1.7, if you look after visual sharpness even at wide open. Go for FA50/1.4, if you look after rich tonal color rendition.
Houston, Jerry - Sep 1997. . . I had [a 50mm f/1.2] many years ago. . . In recent years, as I've re-acquired Pentax gear, I've never been remotely tempted to buy another f/1.2. You'd have to really need the additional low-light capability to justify owning one. . . Unlike the relatively painless step from 1.7 to 1.4, the step up to 1.2 does mean lower optical quality, much higher cost (partly due to rarity), and much greater size and weight.
- - - - - -
John Mustarde - At f1.2, it is "not very good" in terms of the sharpness we like to see at f8. ..at f8 with the SMCP 50/1.2 it's a "very good" lens. . . would never actually buy the SMCP-50/f1.2. . . too expensive. . . the 50/1.2 is not a very good choice, and the 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 are equally good choices. . .
- - - - - -
William Robb - . . . My 50mm 1.2 is truly vile wide open, but down less than a half stop is already tightening up, and at f 2.8 is very good indeed.
- - - - - -
Gerald Cermak - I've used my K50/1.2 often, and like it. . . . It's true the K50/1.2 is a little soft wide open, but even with 1600 speed film, I've shot handheld in light that only offered 1/30s shutter speed. A 1.4 wouldn't have allowed the shot handheld. At f/8 and f/11, the K50/1.2 is truly very sharp, probably sharper than the 50/1.4s. Is it worth the extra money? It depends on what you pay for it. My used K50/1.2 was only slightly more than a new FA50/1.4. And the K50/1.2 also matches well with my LX. :)
- - - - - -
Alexander Krohe - I traded my old K-series 50mm/1.4 lens against an A50/1.2 and I have never regretted that. When stopped down, compared to the K50/1.4, I find images taken with the A50/1.2 sharper and much better defined. I found the K-lens was soft until f8 (at least my sample was).
At maximum aperture, the major problem of the 50/1.2 lens are, apart from low contrast, coma wings around light sources. This seems to be typical for all such fast standard lenses . . . So this lens is not suited (wide open) for sky photography, fire works and such kind of photography, where light sources form a main subject of the image. However wide open, the A50/1.2 is able to deliver nice results when used for high contrasty scenes such as night street scenes. The build quality is superb.
- - - - - -
William Robb - I love my 50mm 1.2. It sure is soft wide open, but most leses are. Down two stops and its real nice. I didn't buy a 1.2 for it's open aperture performance. I bought it because it is easy to focus in dim chrches and dark auditoriums during wedding dinners and dances. I don't think I ever actually use it wider open than 5.6, where it is more than adequate for my anal retentive eye, Truth be to tell, I don't like any lens . . . wider open than f 5.6.
- - - - - -
Daphne - yielded astounding pics in all weather, WAAAAY better than my 50/1.4-K and in spite of some dust inside which almost made me return the lens untried . . .
Pål - Pentax made SMC Pentax 50/1.2 and SMC Pentax-A 50/1.2 lenses (I guess they are of the same optical design). The A-lens is not particularly good unless stopped down to about f:8. It's particularly bad wide open (useless if you ask me). However, the lens is absolutely beautifully built and gives an extremely bright viewfinder and is a joy to focus with. . .
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . A50/1.2 is an excellent performaer at f/8-11 with very high resolution and very good visual sharpness. Its visual sharpness at f/8-11 seems comparable to K55/1.8, or K55/2, at the same apertures in my own experiences.
Fred - I agree, Yoshihiko, but all of the A 50mm lenses seem to do very well at f/8-f/11 (and, in fact, this is where most lenses, of any variety, tend to do best). My testing (both for resolution figures as well as for "normal" photos) with the A 50/1.2 shows that it is a good lens at such apertures, but not better than its less expensive siblings (and not as good as the A 50/1.4).
The A and K 50/1.2's really are nice to use for their focusing ease, and in dim light they may be the only lenses that can do the job at all, . . .
- - - - - -
Lu San-Hwan (from the Web) - the lens feels very nice and it is an
item worth having, and it actually is not very heavy nor large.
Downsides: the aperture is not that different from an 1,4, neither in
regard of lowlight use nor in regard of DOF; also there is noticeable
pincushion distortion
Mark Roberts - . . . it's a beauty. Great optically of course, but the heft and "feel" of the thing is just unsurpassed. . .
[and in a later thread . . .] It is a *great* lens optically, and what's more, it's mechanical construction is simply magnificent. Manual focus at its finest.
Aaron - I have a 50mm f1.4 M, and I love it. It performs fabulously in flare-y conditions. It is very very very solid. I've never had reason to complain about the sharpness, and I usually shoot with it at 1.4. I have a nice 16x20 from it on the wall of the store if you find yourself in Oakville. :)
- - - - - -
[Editor's note: This is a site for other people's opinions, and I have tried to avoid putting too much of my own opinions into the comments or the way I have edited/presented the comments. However, I cannot let this fine lens sit quietly here with only one favorable comment! This is the lens that everyone should buy as their first lens when they buy an older Pentax camera - i.e., one without Program and AutoFocus features. It's wide aperture will allow you to see what you are shooting, it's fine optics will yield a good undistorted image of what you shot. See Fred's comments in the general discussion of 50 mm lenses above, and go buy either this lens or the 50 mm f/1.4 A. Or both. . . smh]
Collin Brendemuehl - An excellent, general-purpose lens. Good flare control, easy to handle and use, easy to focus. Given that the price is a modest amount on top of the A50/1.7, it's a really good value as well.
Frantisek - . . .my SMC F 50/1.4 is optically superb. With slow low-grain film, It almost rivals a MF for quality. From 2.8 to 8, it is supersharp (only corners improving to f/8, where they are _as sharp_ as the center). At 1.4, 13x18cm or 20x25cm (8x10") are entirely possible, especially at f/2. At smaller apertures than 2, 30x45cm are entirely possible, and good larger enlargements too (although medium format has the edge from 30x45cm for my taste)
Of the several 50 primes I owned, this is the sharpest. And it picks up the sharpness very quickly upon stopping down even a bit. Although photodo rates the FA and F 50/1.4 differently (4.6 and 4.2), I simply don't believe them. The A,F,FA are same optically and any variations in sharpness are IMHO only from condition or batch variations. . .
mwebber@juno.com Aug 1997 . . ., both the 50 1.7 and 1.4 are great lenses from Pentax,. . . The 1.7 isn't even expensive. And if you are willing to buy used and go non-autofocus, the 1.7 gets even more reasonable. Stay with an "A" mount version, though, so you can use program and shutter preferred modes on your camera; the older (and even cheaper!) "M" mount lenses will only run in aperture preferred and manual mode (and on the latest MZ50 won't even do that).
- - - - - -
Houston, Jerry - [RE: f/1.4] It's an amazing lens, truly legendary. . . .
- - - - - -
PETERSON. . . a very good lense. . . . I use one on my PZ-1p fairly often.
- - - - - -
William Ashbless - We're talking a f0.3 increase in your aperture. It ain't gonna make any noticeable difference in shooting ease. As for quality, I find they're about the same and sometimes contrasty wide open. Mind you the rubber grip on mine has come unglued from the lens barrel, just spins on its own, but I doubt that's common.
- - - - - -
Christophe Birkeland - I agree that the 50/1.7 is a nice lens, and most 50mm are since it is the simplest lens design !. . .
- - - - - -
"Roberto Burgos S." - I have the FA50/1.4 and it is superb. SHARP SHARP SHARP lens. Front element does not rotate (uses 49mm filters). Fast focusing. . . .
- - - - - -
Arne Lie - The FA50/1.4 does not have inner-focus, but the front element does not rotate. Excellent performer, compact, good built. I can recommend.
- - - - - -
David M Anthony - Sep 1997 - Last week, I had an opportunity to try out an FA 50/1.4. . .. the focus ring was snug, yet smooth, and nicely, slightly lightly, damped. I liked it better in feel than my SMC-A 50/1.4, in fact. The main difference was that the FA had a thinner, smooth rubber focus ring. . ..
- - - - - -
Joachim Hein - . . . after doing research on this list and elsewhere, I got a new FA50/1.4 recently. I am completely taken by the results I get out of it. So far I took pictures of peoples and scenics. It is just amasing how theobjects stand out of the photograph. It looks 3-dimensional. Some of thepictures look like paintings. I like the way the lens handles contrast andcolour. The flare controll is excellent especially for such a fast lens.
The focus ring is very well damped when using it manually. Not quite likemy old MF lenses (Minolta MD), but very well done. The aperture ring has too strong dents for my liking, I would like it to run more smouthly, but that is a minor nigle to me, since the rest of this lens is very satisfying.
I use the lens with a MZ-5n. It gives a pretty tiny unit, almost a compact camera. The small and discrete size of the camera together with its large lens aperture opens new opportunities in ambient light shots. Compared to some hugh cameras around you can get back into why 35mm photography was invented in first place. . . .
The tiny flash of the MZ-5n becomes actually quite usefull with this lens, even when using ASA 100 film. In P mode it selects aperture 2.8 which gives a range of 4m, I doubt you want to use it for much longer distances because of the red-eye issue. This 4m distance corresponds to a field of view of 2.9m, which is a very reasonable value in my view. This large aperture has the advantage, that it integrates a lot of the ambient light. For sure you don't get too much depth of field.
Due to the high speed of the lens, you can use high quality 100 speed film handheld in overcast conditions and get good results. I have severe doubts even a 2.8 zoom delievers that. Anyway, the 2.8 zoom would destroy the compactness of the unit.
In my view a MZ-5n with the 50/1.4 gives you plenty of photographic opportunities in a small and compact package. I question why Pentax doesn't promote its possiblities more. I hold the money I spend for the lens to be well invested.
John Papandreou - M-1.7 50mm is one of the sharpest lenses Pentax made, . . .
- - - - -
Stanley Sun -Sep 1997 - I am planning to buy a fast standard lense for my ZX-5, because I frequently take photos on dim light situations and I seldom carry tripod. I have two candidates :
1) Pentax SMC FA 50mm/f1.4
2) Pentax SMC FA 50mm/f1.7
I have read the Practical Photography Test of Pentax SMC F 50mm/f1.7. And its performance is quite good. Does the FA 50mm/f1.7 have the same optical design? How about the FA 50mm/f1.4 ? Does it perform as well ? Or better? Or worse?. . .
- - - - - -
Dario Bonazza - According to MTF tests the F (and I bet the FA) 1.4/50mm is better than the 1.7/50mm at all diaphragms, not much better but better.
- - - - - -
Ling-N. Zou - A FA 50mm/1.4 costs between US$60-100 more than a FA 50mm/1.7 and almost twice as heavy. I don't think the incremental image improvement and extra 1/2 stop is worth it. . . .
- - - - - -
Jonathan N Winkler . . .Why are autofocus 50-mm f/1.4 lenses so much more expensive than the manual-focus Super and SMC Takumar equivalents? Is a lens design other than Tessar used, or does the bayonet mount require more glass. . . How much . . .does the autofocus mechanism add?. . . I'm used to buying used 50-mm f/1.4 lenses for no more than $30. . .
- - - - - -
topaz1@ix.netcom.com . . . In 1969 the Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 lens was priced at $121.00 If you convert that to 1997 dollars, the price of a new AF model isn't that bad. . . .
- - - - - -
Dario Bonazza - I believe the main reason is production batch. Once upon a time all cameras were sold together with 50mm lenses, while today's SLR's have 28-70 or 35-80 zoom lenses, so that 50mm lenses are manufactured in very limited quantities, strange but true.
- - - - - -
John Mustarde - The SMCP 50/1.2 is, in fact, both "not very good" and "very good". Let me explain. At f1.2, it is "not very good" in terms of the sharpness we like to see at f8. But - if you need f1.2 it's the only way to go. With today's good ISO 800 print film, there is not much need for a lens as fast as f1.2.
If you shoot at f8 with the SMCP 50/1.2 it's a "very good" lens.
But - I would probably never actually buy the SMCP-50/f1.2. It's too expensive, and there are a lot of excellent Pentax 50mm f1.4 and f1.7 lenses available for a fraction of the cost. I own the SMCP-50/f1.2, but I got mine essentially free attached to a nice used K2 that I bought for $150 US.
As the owner of many Pentax 50mm lenses, I most often use the F 50/1.7 on AF bodies, and the SMCP-A 50/1.4 on MF bodies. These lenses are sharp, fast, and very affordable on the second hand market.
Normally, I choose the lens that is smallest in size if speed and optical quality are suitable for my purposes. . . relatively small lenses like the M 20/4, F 50/1.7, and F* 300/f4.5.
Beware of "speed lust". This is the mental event that I experienced when I all I could afford was the SMCP-A 50/f2 on a simple A3000. I looked at brochures with the beautiful Pentax lenses, and that compelling "f1.7" on the lens ring, and pined to own the SMCP-A 50/1.7. I wondered how I could ever justify the cost of it. I could not bear to even look at the SMCP-A 50/f1.4 - its astronomical price made it totally unthinkable for me at that time.
The bottom line is that the 50/1.2 is not a very good choice, and the 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 are equally good choices depending on your present and future needs. Eventually, you probably won't use the 50mm for much except snapshots, so don't worry too much about which one you buy.
- - - - - -
Yoshihiko Takinami - I agree with this opinion. But IMHO, I prefer Ricoh's Rikenon 55mm/F1.2 to any Pentax 50mm lenses. It's really a great lens, I think.
- - - - - -
Douglas J Stemke - I agree with most of what John says, but not his last statement. I sort of 'rediscovered' my 1.4, a SMC 1.4 Takumar I dislodged from my dead Spotmatic. I use the screw to K mount adaptor and use this as my lens of choice on my P30T or Super Program in museums that shake their head at tripods and flashes. Generally I don't like to use flash anyway as it disturbs not only others at the museum, but ruins the lighting they have used to present the museum's artwork.
And this old screw mount lens is sharp; my photots blown up to 14X11 (inches) handheld are really fantastic. . . .I've sold a fair amount of glass-lit artwork all with my old 50 mm 1.4. . . .
- - - - - -
Houston, Jerry. . . Other things being roughly equal, faster IS better. Since you already have the 50mm range covered with an f/4.0 zoom lens, I assume that if you go to the trouble to remove that lens, put it somewhere, and attach the 50mm prime lens it's because you need its sharpness, ease/speed of focusing, shallow depth-of-field, or its light gathering ability. All those things are enhanced in the f/1.4 lens over the f/1.7, so if spending the extra $50 doesn't constitute a big sacrifice . . . it's probably well worth it.
Those who want to defend their decision to buy the f/1.7 instead will remind you that there's only 1/2 f-stop difference, and that the f/1.4 is heavier as well as more expensive. The half stop, however, may make the difference between shadow detail or no shadow detail in a picture, or it could mean being able to shoot at [a faster shutter speed]. It definitely makes a dimly lit image pop in and out of focus easier. I really don't think that small difference in weight really matters, given all the advantages that you get in return. . .
- - - - - -
Martin Puranen (From the Web) - Sharpness, balance, usefulness - it´s all there!
- - - - - -
Michael Zirngibl (From the Web) - Fine lens. Good to start with, relatively cheap on the used market, sharp and focusing feels good.
Bill Cassleblad - I have the F50mm f1.7 & it is a very good lens as far as I can tell. easily as good as my 55mm Takuma lenses, if not better. Got it for $25 at a 2nd hand & am well satisfied w/ the expenditure.
Ralf Engelmann - Excellent lens optically, good mechanical construction too, but the small focus ring is a pain.
Ralf Engelmann - Compared to autofocus lenses, this affordable standard lens uses astonishing amounts of metal and has a good built quality. Optical performance is as good as the faster 50mm lenses.
- - - - - -
Roger Stockton - the best bang-for-the-buck K-mount normal lens . . . sharp, contrasty, and *dirt* cheap!
- - - - - -
Dan Johnson (from the Web auto-response form) - The 50mm f2.0 is as good a buy as one will ever find. It's tack sharp, well-made, and contrasty. It is very cheap, new, and a great buy as a used lens. Unless you really need a faster lens, this one is the one to buy. I used Nikon for years and this lens is as good as anything I ever used with that system.
Fred - . . . If speed is not a really important issue, I'd suggest looking into the 50/2.8 macros. I've found that the A 50/2.8 is quite sharp and rugged, as is the F 50/2.8 (I have no experience with the FA 50/2.8), and would be of course very versatile (macro to infinity), while being only a stop slower than the 50/2's, a stop and a half down from the 50/1.7's, etc.
Roberto Burgos S. - I have the FA50/2.8 macro and when using it a macro range, I always turn to manual focus and use the focus lock mechanism on the lens. Autofocus is simply not up to macro work, especially with moving subjects (insects, wind blown flowers, etc.) I also use it as a normal lens, always with autofocus.
Phil - I have both these lenses [FA50/2.8 Macro and FA 100/2.8 Macro] and use them a lot. I can't compare them to any other brand lenses because they are the only Macro lenses I've ever used but I can say (although a little expensive in comparison to some other macro's) I've never had a problem with either of mine. They have preformed flawlessly for about 2 years now. The FA 50/2.8 is really good for flat work and general photography in small rooms. The FA 100/2.8 is my all time favorite lens, I've used in not only for macro photography . . . So far as sharpness both are very sharp although I think the FA100 is a tad sharper. No scientific proof here just an observation. . .
Fred points out that I was hasty in my judgment - Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the ol' 50mm macro lens. As part of an upcoming "special" in the Lens gallery, I've been spending a lot of time with five macro lenses (the M 50/4, A 50/2.8, F 50/2.8, A 100/4, and A* 200/4). For something like flowers, at focus magnifications such as 1:2 or farther, there's a decent amount of working distance in front of the 50's.
It is true that, at 1:1 with the F 50/2.8, the lens does have to get pretty close to the subject (while the 200/4 could be still in the next county - <g>). However, remember that a lot of macro lenses are used at usually more modest magnification ratios, especially for a lot of casual hand-held flower shots, and the like.
On a recent late afternoon, I burned 3 rolls of film at a friend's house, taking photos of her fantastic flower gardens and of her brand-new kittens. The light was of a nice quality, but there was not a whole lot of it, and I found the A 50/2.8 macro lens to be very useful for all the (hand-held) shots. A 100/2.8 (which I didn't have in my arsenal, anyway) would have made hand-holding a bit more difficult, with its longer focal length (for greater danger of shaking and its reduced DOF). If I had used my 100/4, I would also have lost a stop in speed, making these two problems even more likely. If I had tried using the 200/4, hand-held under these conditions, I think I would have been ~very~ frustrated.
Now, admittedly, I was not trying for 1:1 magnification (but how often do most of us use a macro lens at that ratio, anyhow?), and I was not trying to get very close to bees, or aphids, either. But the A 50/2.8 lens made for easy framing and focusing for moderate close-ups of flowers and kittens, and I don't plan on getting rid of it, due to its ease of almost "casual" use for macro photos.
I think I'll probably end up keeping just the A 50/2.8 and the A* 200/4 macro lenses. The F 50/2.8 goes to 1:1 (while the A 50/2.8 only focuses to 1:2), but I don't care much for the look or feel of the F lens (though it's construction is actually pretty decent), and the M 50/4 loses a stop of speed to the 50/2.8's without appearing to be any sharper. The 100/4 is not a bad lens, but I think I'd want the speed of a 100/2.8 more, if I were to stick with 100mm for a macro focal length. The A* 200/4 is a ~really~ sharp lens (probably the sharpest lens, overall, that I've ever owned, macro or otherwise), but I wouldn't ordinarily plan on trying to use it for macro work without a tripod (although it is easily handheld in reasonably bright light when merely employed as a superb telephoto lens for "normal" telephoto subjects).
I do think that there's a definite, useful niche for the 50mm macro lens.
- - - - - -
Arnold Stark - Optically it is the best Pentax lens I own...
Macro work of course, and sometimes also as a normal lens. If I can take only one lens with me, I often choose this lens...
Optical quality. Compact size. Solid feel. . .The lens feels solid, as good as it can get with non-star FA lenses. The barrel seems to be a mixture of metal and polycarbonate. However, I had to bring the lens to Pentax once because of mechanical focusing problems. . .Weight and size are just right for a 50mm macro lens. AF is very fast. Manual focusing feel is good and smooth with tightened "clamp" screw, however, that screw will not stay permanently in the clamp "on" position. A switch or FA*-lens type focusing clutch would be much better. Best resolution of all my lenses (veryfied by my own formal resolution tests) Very good even wide open. Equally good at infinty and at 1:1. Very homogeneous from corner to corner.
Barry M. Wilson Sep 1997 - I've used one for more than 20 years. I also have used the screw mount lens with the old spotmatic years before my present 50mm Macro. Both are good, sharp lens. . . one drawback is that you are very close to an object at 1:1. In flash situations you may be throwing shadows onto the scene. . . I have also used many of the brackets that are made for macro work and again, at close up you may have problems with shadows if you aren't careful. . . Pentax also made a 100mm macro lens . . . I used one for 5 years until it got stolen and I also highly recommend them.
- - - - - -
George Stanley - Optically, this lens is a real gem! I had one, and used it for many years as a normal-distance lens, not as a macro lens. The tiny glass lens is very deeply, deeply recessed inside this large focusing barrel. This makes it a perfect lens to use to minimize flare (late afternoon beach shots), and allows some shots that would be totally washed-out with most other lenses. The optics are also very, very sharp. This is a classic Tessar/type design, with 3-group, 4-element construction.
- - - - - -
Rodger Whitlock - It's a great lens. It was the first Pentax lens I ever bought . . . and I was thrilled to pieces a couple of years ago when I got a replacement for the original, which had died in a flood. . . It is a true macro lens with flat focus plane and optimized for close up work, but I had great success with it photographing all sorts of neat things. Ah, those were the days! . . .
- - - - - -
annsan - It is a great lens - sharp as a tack, easier to hold steady than the 100mm macro but to get real super close ups of little beasties they best not mind you being up close. I used to put that guy on one camera and my 28.mm on the other for quick access and just walk around with those two if I didn't want to lug more, with TX in one camera and PKR 64 in the other.
- - - - - -
Jaros"aw Brzeziñski [editors note: I think I don't have the right font to properly display this person's name; sorry . . .] I have this lens and it's really good. Since it's relatively slow, the front element is small and so deeply recessed that the lens is very resistant to flare and ghosting. . .
Anthony Farr - I have both this and the M100/4 Macro, and regard this as the sharper of the two. Whether the focal length is as useful is another matter, though, as it gives rather close working distances when working "in the wild". The 100mm makes it easier to get lighting in, or not to frighten the wildlife too much. Where it once shone was on the copystand when the original artwork was around 8in x 10in and bigger, and the 100mm called for too much height. That sort of copywork is now mostly done by scanners if the desired result is a print, so unless you're aiming to get 35mm slides out of large (A4 to A3) artwork it might be better to look for a 100mm (or 90mm depending upon the brand).
- - - - - -
William Robb - . . .I have found this lens to be most excellent at close distances, at any aperture. However, it is not a really great lens beyond a few feet focusing distance. In normal shooting distances, I would put it on par, optically, with the 40mm f/2.8. . .
- - - - - -
Stephen J. Krogh - This is a fine flat field macro for close up work.
- - - - - -
annsan - I have it - I love it. Sharp as a tack. . . easier to hold steady than the 100mm macro but to get real super close ups of little beasties they best not mind you being up close.
Fred - . . . very soft from maximum aperture until about f/8, when all-of-a-sudden it [gets] very sharp throughout the middle apertures.
- - - - - -
Todd Stanley - I have this lens, but haven't really gotten a really good feel for how it performs optically yet. It is a well built solid lens (typical of the K series). It seems to have a weaker version of that 3d affect of the limited lenses are noted for. No tests, but it's sharp, but I feel my A 50mm F1.4 is sharper, and maybe the A 50mm F2 also. One really nice thing about the lens is that it has a long throw on the focus, which makes very precise focusing a breeze. As for pespective I don't see any difference. Magnification I can tell a difference when shooting with both eyes open. It makes my Ricoh's viewfinder close to lifesize, which is why I like to use it on that body. It is also fairly easy to use on the KX in this regard, but 50mm seems more comfortable to me. On the ME the magnification is higher so a 50mm is the normal lens of choice.
Long Prime Lenses
(SMC K-Mount)
>I'm interested in purchasing another lens (this time an SMC
Pentax-
>version) and am wondering what people's preference for the
best
>all-around portrait lens is. From the standpoint of focal
length as
>well as recommendations for specific Pentax lenses.
>Usage will be for one or two person portraits of the wedding
and high
>school senior variety.
Pim Rietbroek - My all-time favourite is the SMC-A* f/1.4 85mm (usually stopped down, although it's already very good for portraits at f/1.4). Beautiful results in all circumstances.
Before I had that one, I used the old SMC f/2.5 135mm (the Pentax K version, not the Takumar!) quite a lot. Contrast and sharpness are superb. Heavy and bulky for a 135mm, but build quality is second to none. If you don't need the A setting, this is a good candidate. Can be bought quite cheaply, too.
If you can find one (it took me more than three years), the SMC-A* f/1.8 135mm is also very good: good contrast & good sharpness for such a fast lens. But if you are not into available light photography, get the old SMC-Pentax f/2.5 135mm (K).
(The consensus of opinion seems to be that the SMC Pentax A f/2.8 135mm is not a very good one. And personally I do not like the SMC-M f/2 85mm very much: you really have to stop it down quite a bit to get good sharpness. But its contrast is good, and it is light and compact.)
- - - - - -
Bruce Dayton - I have found that 135 is just a little too long. My 135 gets very occasional use. For portraits, especially more than 1 person, you will want to be in the 85-100 range. I am extremely pleased with my FA85 f1.4 lens. It was really made to do portraits. Some on the list have had less than expected results, but these were when the lens was put to other uses. I also have the FA100 f2.8 macro. It does a decent job as a portrait lens while also doubling as a great macro lens. Neither of these lenses is cheap or light. I also use to have a M 100 f2.8. This was a lovely lens for portraits. Pluses are weight and size (49mm filters) and price. Typically goes for about $170 on KEH. The FA's are nice but are more than twice the weight and many times the price.
Again, when having more than 1 person in the picture, 135 is going to be too tight unless you have a lot of working room.
- - - - - -
Fred - We've "kicked around" the effect of focal length on portrait distortion on this list before. Despite a lack of unanimity on this, I think you might like the 85mm focal length for your intended use ("one or two person portraits of the wedding and high school senior variety"), although I would think that anything from the "new 77mm lens" (<g>) up to the 135mm length would be OK. Personally (and not everyone agrees with these impressions), I find that 135mm may tend to flatten a subject's face just a bit, while 50mm or 55mm tends to distort (exaggerate) facial features somewhat, and I think that 85mm to 100mm or so provides the most pleasing portraits for most subjects. Also, if you go for the 135mm focal length, keep in mind that you may need plenty of working room in front of the subject (behind the photographer), since you may find yourself backing up quite a bit, more so that with, say, the 85mm lens.
I think I could modify the famous photojournalist quote for a portrait recommendation - "85mm and be there". <g>
Coincidentally, I have started work on a . . .comparison of seven 85mm lenses that I've (temporarily) collected together (FA* 85/1.4, A* 85/1.4, M 85/2, K 85/2.2 Soft, K 85/1.8,