SMC Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special on Leica M10 Monochrom ...

[Godfrey]

I continue my walks with the M10-M camera and "oddball" lenses.

This time a rather rare beast: a Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special. This lens has the same optics as the Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited that I loved when I worked with Pentax cameras … it was one of the special lenses that I almost kept a Pentax DSLR body around just to be able to use. I discovered some years ago that Pentax had done a run of 2000 or so in Leica Thread Mount somewhere in the 1990s-early 2000s and started hunting. Most are way too expensive, still-in-the-box collectibles now, but I managed to a user without the special 40mm finder for an almost reasonable price… I mount it with a 35mm LTM->M-mount adapter and frame tightly.

But let's walk and do pictures rather than gibble on gear. All on my walk in Santa Clara 2022.

Trees at Parking Lot
ISO 160 @ f/2.8 @ 1/1500


Frieze of Leaf
ISO 160 @ f/2.8 @ 1/250


Climbing Vine
ISO 800 @ f/4 @ 1/125


Fence, Bench, Slide
ISO 160 @ f/2.8 @ 1/1000


Cypress Afront Construction
ISO 160 @ f/4 @ 1/750


Canopy #1
ISO 400 @ f/4 @ 1/125


Canopy #2
ISO 250 @ f/4 @ 1/250


Roots
ISO 1250 @ f/4 @ 1/125​

All: Leica M10 Monochrom + Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special + Orange filter.

A short video presentation of these photos is on YouTube as well: https://youtu.be/kNuRdUGCRcA

Enjoy! G

 

[Pál_K]

Those are wonderful. I love the trees in the parking lot and the background bokeh.

 

[David Murphy]

Pretty darn sharp oddball lens!

 

[Godfrey]

Thank you both!

Yes indeed: the 43mm Special (and Limited) is a very sharp lens with beautiful bokeh. It almost never seems to produce anything jangly or rough in its out of focus zones, at any aperture. It and the Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited were my two absolute favorites in the Pentax SLR lens lineup.

I think they made around 2200 SMC Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special lenses, about half each in silver and black finish. The last time I looked, they were going for around $1500, in the box with the 43mm matched optical finder. I found this one sans finder and unboxed for $750 or so, and have been very pleased to have it. 🙂

G

 

[agentlossing]

Seeing the rendering from the M mount version makes me desire the K mount version for my K-1... I just have a lot of ~40mm lenses right now. I think it might be different enough from my 35 f2 to complement it well, however. The M version must be enjoyable to use!

 

[cboy]

Are you sure it's same optics as the Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9. the FA version looks more pancake like.
But in any case the pictures look quite nice. I should of pick it up a year or so ago when the prices weren't ridiculously high as they are now.

 

[Freakscene]

Seeing the rendering from the M mount version makes me desire the K mount version for my K-1... I just have a lot of ~40mm lenses right now. I think it might be different enough from my 35 f2 to complement it well, however. The M version must be enjoyable to use!

It’s an LTM/39mm Leica thread/L mount, with an adapter, not a native M mount. The main functional difference is that it only focuses to 1m. I love this lens, but the minimum focus is frustrating at times.

Are you sure it's same optics as the Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9. the FA version looks more pancake like.
But in any case the pictures look quite nice. I should of pick it up a year or so ago when the prices weren't ridiculously high as they are now.

I have taken the L sersion apart and it is definitely the same optical design. The back focus distance for` Leica mounts is a lot shorter than for Pentax, so the barrel is shorter. It also doesn’t focus as close so less focus extension is needed.

I have a C-V adapter on my Pentax 43mm L that catches when I take it off the camera - I might put a Rayqual or Leica adapter on it and exercise it a bit. The finder is fantastic too.

Marty

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Seeing the rendering from the M mount version makes me desire the K mount version for my K-1... I just have a lot of ~40mm lenses right now. I think it might be different enough from my 35 f2 to complement it well, however. The M version must be enjoyable to use!

Luckily the original K-mount version is much, much cheaper on the used market than the LTM ‘Special’ 🙂

 

[Freakscene]

Luckily the original K-mount version is much, much cheaper on the used market than the LTM ‘Special’ 🙂

Indeed. I sort-of need a colour camera for some upcoming personal work. My investigations revealed that a used Pentax K-1 II and 31, 43 and 77mm Limiteds costs less than an M10-R for the Leica lenses that I already have . . .

 

[Oren Grad]

Are you sure it's same optics as the Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9. the FA version looks more pancake like.

The optical cross-sections are the same. The L-mount version is odd-looking for a Leica rangefinder lens - the glass sits at the end of what amounts to an empty extension tube to compensate for the different flange-to-film specs of a K-mount SLR and a Leica rangefinder. It's obvious that the L-mount version is an adaptation rather than a lens designed specifically for use on a Leica.

 

[Godfrey]

Seeing the rendering from the M mount version makes me desire the K mount version for my K-1... I just have a lot of ~40mm lenses right now. I think it might be different enough from my 35 f2 to complement it well, however. The M version must be enjoyable to use!

When I was working with Pentax gear, I'd had the 35/2 and 50/1.4 which were both lovely lenses. I bought the 43/1.9 L and later sold the other two. 🙂

---
Yes, the SLR lens is the same optically. The LTM lens is much longer in the mount to accommodate the 29mm Leica Thread Mount register vs the K-mount's ~45mm register.

And yes again, the K-mount Pentax-FA 43 version is a lot less expensive and focuses a lot closer. BUT ... it doesn't couple with the Leica rangefinder, and it was designed primarily for autofocus use, and the focusing ring is small and "loose" ... terrible feel for manual focus. The Pentax-L 43 version has a beautiful focusing feel and couples perfectly with the RF. The 1m minimum focusing distance is typical for a lot of older RF lenses (and is the same as my '72 Summilux 35). I don't find it a bother on the M bodies, which are not best suited to ultra close focusing and framing. Of course, with the M10-M, I can always fit the Visoflex 020 or use the LCD, and work with TTL viewing, but it's not as handy as using the RF; I do that mostly for macro work and the occasional long tele (135, 180, and 360mm focal lengths) effort.

G

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Indeed. I sort-of need a colour camera for some upcoming personal work. My investigations revealed that a used Pentax K-1 II and 31, 43 and 77mm Limiteds costs less than an M10-R for the Leica lenses that I already have . . .

That trio of Limiteds is exactly why I seriously considered a K1 (and still do from time to time).

 

[Godfrey]

That trio of Limiteds is exactly why I seriously considered a K1 (and still do from time to time).

I had all of them. The 43 and 77 are amongst my favorite, ever, lenses. The 31mm I was never so fond of .. it's largish and heavy, doesn't image quite so well on the digital sensor, and has one of those verdammt built-in rigid lens hoods which makes it difficult to fit filters. The 43 and 77, coupled with the DA21/3.2 Limited on the APS-C bodies, were my standard trio. (I stopped using Pentax gear before the digital FF series DSLRs came out, and never used a Pentax 35mm film SLR.)

 

[gzisis69]

Pentax should relase a smaller fullframe camera to get on par with these lenses because the monster k1 is too much to carry all the time. Something that reminds of a pentax mx would be perfect to my eyes.

 

[agentlossing]

Pentax should relase a smaller fullframe camera to get on par with these lenses because the monster k1 is too much to carry all the time. Something that reminds of a pentax mx would be perfect to my eyes.

The K-1 actually is a fairly compact camera... Which sounds silly on the surface, but keep in mind it was designed for pro use, pro durability, pro ergonomics and weatherproofing. Compared to pro level DSLRs from other manufacturers, it's actually small! But it ain't light. It's a little kettlebell of a camera.

I could see a slightly smaller, but significantly lighter, FF camera working conceptually, but Pentax would have to be able to sell it. If you are removing features from the K-1, it has to be a lot cheaper, but the K-1 is already very competitive. So the bottom line is, is there a market niche for it, which could actually generate revenue? I'm not sure. I'd love to see them try it!

 

[PRJ]

Pentax lenses have great tonality for black and white. Reminds me of the Pentax-M 50 1.4 I converted to Leica. One of the best lenses I've ever used.

 

[gzisis69]

The K-1 actually is a fairly compact camera... Which sounds silly on the surface, but keep in mind it was designed for pro use, pro durability, pro ergonomics and weatherproofing. Compared to pro level DSLRs from other manufacturers, it's actually small! But it ain't light. It's a little kettlebell of a camera.

I could see a slightly smaller, but significantly lighter, FF camera working conceptually, but Pentax would have to be able to sell it. If you are removing features from the K-1, it has to be a lot cheaper, but the K-1 is already very competitive. So the bottom line is, is there a market niche for it, which could actually generate revenue? I'm not sure. I'd love to see them try it!

I get what you mean but to me pentax at the time is not a professional camera brand. It is a great brand that got me in to photography but it doesnt help me to stay and support her. Id love a full frame pentax with not many stuff, just autofocus full frame sensor and lightweight/small body like her film cameras. The limited lenses are really very good but with the brick k1 that weights 1kg when not more its not a practical camera for an amateur. If they tried it id certainly get one.

 

[Godfrey]

The K-1 actually is a fairly compact camera... Which sounds silly on the surface, but keep in mind it was designed for pro use, pro durability, pro ergonomics and weatherproofing. Compared to pro level DSLRs from other manufacturers, it's actually small! But it ain't light. It's a little kettlebell of a camera.

I could see a slightly smaller, but significantly lighter, FF camera working conceptually, but Pentax would have to be able to sell it. If you are removing features from the K-1, it has to be a lot cheaper, but the K-1 is already very competitive. So the bottom line is, is there a market niche for it, which could actually generate revenue? I'm not sure. I'd love to see them try it!

As the regrettably-ex owner of a Leica M-D typ 262, I would say you have to be a lot braver as a manufacturer to produce a digital camera with absolutely as few features as possible, the best quality you can muster, and charge a significant premium for it. The Leica M-D 262 is without a doubt the "M I should never have sold" and probably the ONLY camera I regret not having any more ... it had literally nothing but the essentials, and that was all that was needed. Should have kept the darn thing even if I wasn't using it very much for a while there ... Sigh.

Unfortunately, the market has gone the way of featuritis and over-complexity. Few if any people need, or use, most of the absurd overabundance of features on most of today's cameras. I'm very willing to pay more for simpler.

G

 

[agentlossing]

I get what you mean but to me pentax at the time is not a professional camera brand. It is a great brand that got me in to photography but it doesnt help me to stay and support her. Id love a full frame pentax with not many stuff, just autofocus full frame sensor and lightweight/small body like her film cameras. The limited lenses are really very good but with the brick k1 that weights 1kg when not more its not a practical camera for an amateur. If they tried it id certainly get one.

I agree, I think Pentax has always had that in their DNA... They're an enthusiast's brand, and have a certain special way of igniting a love for photography. They've tried to make cameras for the pro market, like the LX, but most of their beloved cameras are just a step below pro. I believe the K-1 was an attempt to make a camera do all things for all people, but it did come at a time when full frame DSLRs were mostly for pros (which I guess hasn't really changed at all, to the extent that pros are still using DSLRs). But it actually does most of what it does really, really well. I'd still really like a version that's trying to be more of a svelte semi-pro MX and less of a beefy pro LX. But I'll take what I can get.

For context the K-1 II is the first FF camera and the second Pentax I've owned. I wasn't invested in the system, I actually bought it mostly because of how much I enjoy using Pentax cameras. Being relatively inexpensive for a 36mp sensor with really great dynamic range was secondary.

 

[raid]

This is one of my favorite lenses. I forgot what I paid for the nice looking lens. It gives a smooth rendering when used with Fuji Reala 100, say.
Great photos by you, Godfrey. I wrote up a comparison "report" for the Pentax-L and the Summicron-C 40mm/2. Both did very well with the Reala film.