The Pentax MX

[Swift1]

The optical construction of the M28/f3.5 (6 elements/6 groups) is different to both versions of the Takumar 28/f3.5 (7 elements/6 groups). The Taks are also much bigger lenses (58mm filter vs 49mm). None of these have a particularly good reputation (by Pentax standards), but I can't comment on image quality as I haven't used them.

Only the very first version of the Takumar 28/3.5 is the 7/6 formula with 58mm filter thread.
The 2nd version Super-Takumar and the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version are both 7/7 with 49mm filter thread.

In my experience, the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28/3.5 is an excellent lens.

Untitled by Colton Allen, on Flickr
Asahi Pentax SV
S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5
Kodak Ektar 100
Nikon Coolscan V ED​

 

[Russell W. Barnes]

'...and the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version are both 7/7 with 49mm filter thread.'

That's the one I have, complete with matching rectangular lens-hood. I'll have a play out with it tomorrow and (hopefully) finish the film, then I'll judge for myself. 🙂

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Only the very first version of the Takumar 28/3.5 is the 7/6 formula with 58mm filter thread.
The 2nd version Super-Takumar and the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version are both 7/7 with 49mm filter thread.

My mistake, misread the spec sheet. Was looking at the 'late' version of the first version.

 

[Huss]

The K28/f3.5, which came between the Taks and M and has a stellar reputation (one of the highest rated lenses on Pentax Forums) has a different construction again - 8 elements/7 groups. To be honest, I'm curious why they went to so much effort with this lens... These can still be found quite cheap.

It's funny how we are conditioned with pricing. The 'mint' SMC 28 3.5 was on the high side at $100. And yet 'we' are ok with Leica M 28 2.8 coming in at $2500 +_!

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

It's funny how we are conditioned with pricing. The 'mint' SMC 28 3.5 was on the high side at $100. And yet 'we' are ok with Leica M 28 2.8 coming in at $2500 +_!

I've been pondering this quite a bit lately. I have very clean examples of some of the best Pentax manual lenses (M28/f2, K50/f1.2, K85/f1.8 and K135/f2.5) and none of them were over $300 (some quite a bit cheaper). Yet I consider all of them 'expensive' lenses, while I still think of my clean 90mm Tele Elmarit as a 'bargain' at $600...

 

[Huss]

Yeah Nick, here I was nickel and dime-ing the purchase of a SMC 28mm, whereas just a lens hood for my ZM Cosina Zeiss 35 1.4 is at least two to three times as much. Just for a lens hood.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Pentax K lenses resources

Pentax K lenses resources

Specs here:
http://kmp.pentaxians.eu/lenses/

Some user reviews here:
http://stans-photography.info/BriefComments.html

Chris

 

[dourbalistar]

There's a SMC Asahi Pentax-M 28/3.5 for sale on Photrio's classifieds. No affiliation with the seller:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/smc-asahi-pentax-m-28mm-f3-5-wide-angle-lens.166124/

 

[ChrisPlatt]

There's a SMC Asahi Pentax-M 28/3.5 for sale on Photrio's classifieds.

Not anymore. 😉

Chris

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Surveyors Hut, Tasman National Park

MX, SMC-M 28/f2 and Portra400

 

[dourbalistar]

Not anymore. 😉

Chris

Good timing, I guess. 😎

 

[zuikologist]

Wow. Beautiful colour.

Surveyors Hut, Tasman National Park

MX, SMC-M 28/f2 and Portra400

 

[Huss]

Surveyors Hut, Tasman National Park

MX, SMC-M 28/f2 and Portra400

Love it. Nice work.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

K50/f1.4 and Tmax100


K50/f1.2 and Tmax100

 

[Huss]

Nice! Can you show a top view of the MX so I can see how big the 50 1.2 is on it?

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Nice! Can you show a top view of the MX so I can see how big the 50 1.2 is on it?

I don't have one on file sorry. I'll try and put one up when I get off work next week.

There's this shot I posted earlier, but it definitely makes the 50/f1.2 seem larger than it actually is...

 

[Godfrey]

I had both Pentax MX and Olympus OM-1/OM-2 cameras. The MX is very slightly smaller; the Olympus felt better in my hands. Both were excellent cameras.

But honestly, in this camera class, I prefer the Nikon FM2n. And my current small mechanical SLR, the Leica R6.2, is not much larger than the FX if at all, and has the best lenses.

G

 

[Archiver]

Not anymore. 😉

Chris

Oh nice! Feel free to post some pics when you choose! 🙂

 

[Archiver]

I've been pondering this quite a bit lately. I have very clean examples of some of the best Pentax manual lenses (M28/f2, K50/f1.2, K85/f1.8 and K135/f2.5) and none of them were over $300 (some quite a bit cheaper). Yet I consider all of them 'expensive' lenses, while I still think of my clean 90mm Tele Elmarit as a 'bargain' at $600...

The question is, how do these lenses compare with their Leica counterparts? Sure, Leica is expensive and we just accept it, but how much better are they? I haven't shot enough with Pentax K lenses to know.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

The question is, how do these lenses compare with their Leica counterparts? Sure, Leica is expensive and we just accept it, but how much better are they? I haven't shot enough with Pentax K lenses to know.

I honestly haven't shot with enough that are directly comparable to say.

On film I'd say the K85/f1.8 is a better lens than the TE 90/f2.8, but that's based on general 'feel', rather than a direct, side-by-side comparison.

I'll soon be getting my Super-Tak 55/f1.8 back from service and will try and do a bit of a comparison with my 5cm Cron Collapsible. These two are of similar speed and vintage, so it will be interesting to see how they perform.

A bit OT (and not Leica), but a well known bit of Pentax folklore is that the original Super-Takumar 50/f1.4 '8 element' was an all-in, sold-at-a-loss effort to outperform the Zeiss 50mm Planar. My understanding is that they were successful, before quietly switching to a cheaper 7 element design.