Pentax MX + 40mm pancake - cuts like a knife!

H

Huss

Veteran
Local time
3:38 PM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
Dang this lens is sharp! I was under the impression it was only handy for its small size.
Full image, then 1:1 crop. Scanned with Nikon Z7, Fuji C200 film, negativelabpro.com



 
I think its a Tessar-type lens, so the fact that its sharp isn't a surprise. I remember the first time I used a Tessar, on an ancient pre-war Rolleiflex from 1938 that my dad bought for me at a photo swap meet for $75 when I was 15 yrs old. The uncoated 75mm Tessar was bitingly sharp and had wonderful bokeh compared to more modern designs. I wish someone would make a modern one that was native to the Micro Four Thirds system I use now. I'd buy one in a minute!
 
Pentax MX, 40mm 2.8 SMC, Fuji C200, Z7 scan

33419623868_fb1bf9069e_c.jpg
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I think its a Tessar-type lens, so the fact that its sharp isn't a surprise. I remember the first time I used a Tessar, on an ancient pre-war Rolleiflex from 1938 that my dad bought for me at a photo swap meet for $75 when I was 15 yrs old. The uncoated 75mm Tessar was bitingly sharp and had wonderful bokeh compared to more modern designs. I wish someone would make a modern one that was native to the Micro Four Thirds system I use now. I'd buy one in a minute!
Click to expand...

I think the Pentax 40mm is a 5 element Unar design, which I guess is a Tessar type hybrid?
 
Huss said:
Dang this lens is sharp! I was under the impression it was only handy for its small size.
Full image, then 1:1 crop. Scanned with Nikon Z7, Fuji C200 film, negativelabpro.com
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you should post this Huss. Most reviews of this lens give the impression that it isn't that sharp, which I have often wondered about, and you show that most those reviews are wrong.
 
Swift1 said:
It's interesting that you should post this Huss. Most reviews of this lens give the impression that it isn't that sharp, which I have often wondered about, and you show that most those reviews are wrong.
Click to expand...

That's why I was quite surprised by my results. And even the obligatory first shot on the roll selfie in a mirror wide open was sharp, with my individual strands of hair well defined.

I guess people repeat stuff they read, w/o actually using it. Maybe on digital it's not so good? But I kinda doubt it as the weak point in my 1:1 crop is obviously the resolution capability of the film, not the lens.
 
I think the Pentax-M 40/2.8 and Pentax-DA 40/2.8 share basically the same optical design, which makes the DA version a superb little fullframe autofocus lens on 35mm.

This was shot using the DA version, mounted on a Pentax MZ-L film body.


Untitled by Colton Allen, on Flickr
Pentax MZ-L
SMC Pentax-DA 40/2.8 Limited
Expired Mitsubishi MXIII 200
Epson V750-M Pro​
 
Not that it means a lot but I was goofing off the other day and shot this test target with the M-40 at f/2.8. Not too certain how it will show up at this size.


This was a crop since I was actually photographing something else at the time and my test target became part of the shot in the lower right side. But I found it somewhat interesting. It seems to do all right.


This was f/2.8 with my K1000 on Arista EDU 400 film. Some digital sharpening would probably help since this is pretty much a straight scan with no adjustments other than what the scanner may be doing.



Pentax-M-40-Test-Target-@-2-8.jpg
 
I've got this combo, of which I have to post results when I get to print or scan in the community darkroom. I really like the 40mm as it makes the set up coat pocketable although I'm not shooting 35mm that much lately.


Negative lab pro looks excellent. Great colors! And camera scanning resolves the negs really well. I'll try sometime in the future.
 
Yeah I love this 40, it is tiny and excellent. Also I just realized it seems to be distortion free
as I have not had to correct anything.
 
I love this lens, first got my hands on one in 1981, back then and mx and eventually a lx where my only cameras, l always shoot this lens around 5.6 and have found it to be sharp enough for my needs. Sometime l feels the focus issues may more to do with the small focus ring as opposed to the abilities of the lens. Nice images by the way, you show the qualities of this lens
 
lxmike said:
..Sometime l feels the focus issues may more to do with the small focus ring as opposed to the abilities of the lens...
Click to expand...


Indeed. I think sometimes people mistake an imperfectly focused image for lack of lens sharpness. Someone posts images they took with this lens on whatever digcam they stuck it on, didn't realize that they did not nail focus and/or had camera shake, but then state the lens is at fault.

This tiny lens on a tiny camera like a Pentax film camera is a really nice package. I have performed the same type of tests with my Leica lenses, and do not see any difference on film. But I do see a difference in price!

p.s. thanks for the nice comments!
 
I have two samples of the Pentax 40/2.8. One gives what one might call normal and respectable sharpness, typical of what one might expect for a much-respected lens manufacturer, nothing outstanding though. In black and white prints it has similar qualities with respect to sharpness, tonal transition, contrast, as my 40/2 Olympus Zuiko lens. But the other Pentax sample is superb, in a world of its own, equal, or very nearly equal in apparent sharpness to my other sharpest lens, the Summaron 35/3.5. My 40/2 Summicron falls mid way between the two 40mm Pentax lenses. They're all good though.
 
Huss, you've probably pushed up prices on this lens with this thread! :D

A similar bargain for EOS is the Canon EOS 40mm f/2.8 IS STM pancake ($180 new, ~$100 used) on something like an EOS300 (which can be found for $5-$10).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom