The Pentax MX

I now happen to have a MX in my hands as well with 50mm f1.7 lens. Not a fan of 35mm format but I really like the MX's fully mechanical (non-batterydependent) operation, have some expired 135 rolls waiting in the fridge that need shooting thus all the stars aligned and here I am...

My question is it worth going for the 50mm f1.4 lens?

The 50mm f1.2 lens cost has gone to bonkers land (like most fast primes) so I reckon f1.4 is the next logical step, but not sure it's a worthwhile "upgrade" over the f1.7?

Hopefully some 35mm Pentaxian users can enlighten me!
 
tsiklonaut said:
I now happen to have a MX in my hands as well with 50mm f1.7 lens. Not a fan of 35mm format but I really like the MX's fully mechanical (non-batterydependent) operation, have some expired 135 rolls waiting in the fridge that need shooting thus all the stars aligned and here I am...

My question is it worth going for the 50mm f1.4 lens?

The 50mm f1.2 lens cost has gone to bonkers land (like most fast primes) so I reckon f1.4 is the next logical step, but not sure it's a worthwhile "upgrade" over the f1.7?

Hopefully some 35mm Pentaxian users can enlighten me!
Click to expand...
Hi Margus,

The Pentax M 50/1.7 is remarkably suited to the MX sizewise. It also a great lens optically (many Pentaxians prefer it to the M 50/1.4).

I don't think you will gain anything from the 1.4 lens, except more bulk and weight. Of course the 1.4 lens is 1/2 stop faster, but that's too little to make a significant difference. And I wouldn't use an 1.4 lens wide open anyway.

If you have cash burning a hole in your pockets, why don't you try a Pentax M 28/3.5 or a 100/2.8. Good lenses, reasonably priced.

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
tsiklonaut said:
I now happen to have a MX in my hands as well with 50mm f1.7 lens. Not a fan of 35mm format but I really like the MX's fully mechanical (non-batterydependent) operation, have some expired 135 rolls waiting in the fridge that need shooting thus all the stars aligned and here I am...

My question is it worth going for the 50mm f1.4 lens?

The 50mm f1.2 lens cost has gone to bonkers land (like most fast primes) so I reckon f1.4 is the next logical step, but not sure it's a worthwhile "upgrade" over the f1.7?

Hopefully some 35mm Pentaxian users can enlighten me!
Click to expand...
I have both of these. The 1.7 came with the camera and then I recently (within the last 18 months or so) added the 1.4 to provide dof control, but the effect can become boring if over done. When used at f4 and above there’s little difference, but from an aesthetic point the bigger glass looks nice on the camera. I picked mine up from eBay on a cheeky bid, and it turned out to be in near pristine condition.
 
Thanks Abbazz & Ricoh!

Just what I suspected as well. f1.4 lens seem to have one additional element so I thought maybe it's potentially slightly superior considering it's also faster for more correcting glass, but the sharpness tests I've found don't show that much superiority if any. I'd prefer the lighter lens in that case so I'll probably stick to f1.7 then!

I'm surprised the 40mm f2.8 pancake (which is also quite an expensive lens) is not optically as good as the 50mm f1.4/1.7 versions near that focal length. A high price for only for being compact I guess(?)

Now got to find that prime wide. 28mm f3.5 looks like a good choice indeed.

Thanks,
Margus

Abbazz said:
Hi Margus,

The Pentax M 50/1.7 is remarkably suited to the MX sizewise. It also a great lens optically (many Pentaxians prefer it to the M 50/1.4).

I don't think you will gain anything from the 1.4 lens, except more bulk and weight. Of course the 1.4 lens is 1/2 stop faster, but that's too little to make a significant difference. And I wouldn't use an 1.4 lens wide open anyway.

If you have cash burning a hole in your pockets, why don't you try a Pentax M 28/3.5 or a 100/2.8. Good lenses, reasonably priced.

Cheers!

Abbazz
Click to expand...

Ricoh said:
I have both of these. The 1.7 came with the camera and then I recently (within the last 18 months or so) added the 1.4 to provide dof control, but the effect can become boring if over done. When used at f4 and above there’s little difference, but from an aesthetic point the bigger glass looks nice on the camera. I picked mine up from eBay on a cheeky bid, and it turned out to be in near pristine condition.
Click to expand...
 
They are really good cameras, I used two for a good couple of years and they served me well. Always liked the meter readout, superior to the one in the Nikon FM2, in my opinion. The mirror slap is not as nice as a Olympus OM-1, and the film transport mechanism may not be as robust as could be, but nothing that couldn't be fixed. And the "lowly" 1.7 50 mm standard lens was actually very, very good.
 
tsiklonaut said:
I now happen to have a MX in my hands as well with 50mm f1.7 lens. Not a fan of 35mm format but I really like the MX's fully mechanical (non-batterydependent) operation, have some expired 135 rolls waiting in the fridge that need shooting thus all the stars aligned and here I am...

My question is it worth going for the 50mm f1.4 lens?

The 50mm f1.2 lens cost has gone to bonkers land (like most fast primes) so I reckon f1.4 is the next logical step, but not sure it's a worthwhile "upgrade" over the f1.7?

Hopefully some 35mm Pentaxian users can enlighten me!
Click to expand...

As others have said, the M 50/f1.7 is a great lens, and really doesn’t lose anything to the M 50/f1.4 in terms of quality. Plus it’s tiny.. It’s up to you whether the difference between f1.4 and f1.7 is worth the extra size and price. I say this as a very satisfied owner of the f1.4 :)
 
Hi Margus, Jordi here, we chatted a bit about the MX some days ago.

I have the MX with a 40 2.8 from a Xmas giveaway from RFF'er ruby.monkey. The combination excels in (IIRC) being the smallest 35mm SLR rig and it is a great coat pocket camera. Used it quite a bit in winter. TMZ 3200 and the 40 2.8 worked surprisingly well together although sometimes I wanted that extra a f1.4 or f1.7 would give. The rest of the year I forget about it, as light is plentier and the lens is good stopped down.

The Pentax K 50mm 1.4 doesn't seem to have the allure and appreciation of the 50 1.4 Takumar...

Nowadays I think 35mm shooting leans more towards a poetic aesthetic rather than sharpness maximization. I haven't actually shot any 50mm f1.4 and used the price difference to fund film and processing instead.
 
tsiklonaut said:
I'm surprised the 40mm f2.8 pancake (which is also quite an expensive lens) is not optically as good as the 50mm f1.4/1.7 versions near that focal length. A high price for only for being compact I guess(?)

Now got to find that prime wide. 28mm f3.5 looks like a good choice indeed.

Thanks,
Margus
Click to expand...

I think the price of the M 40/f2.8 very much reflects its uniqueness, not its quality. It’s not a bad lens, there’s just much better lenses for much less money...

Regarding the 28/f3.5, be aware that there are a few very different versions. The M 28/f3.5 is good and cheap as chips. The M 28/f2.8 is also worth looking at, similar size and price as the f3.5 version.

The earlier ‘K’ 28/f3.5 is a completely different beast. Much more complex optical design, much bigger, exceptional performance, and sells for a lot more money. Then there’s the K 28/f2 developed with Zeiss, but let’s not talk about that one :D
 
Prest_400 said:
I have the MX with a 40 2.8 from a Xmas giveaway from RFF'er ruby.monkey. The combination excels in (IIRC) being the smallest 35mm SLR rig and it is a great coat pocket camera. Used it quite a bit in winter. TMZ 3200 and the 40 2.8 worked surprisingly well together although sometimes I wanted that extra a f1.4 or f1.7 would give. The rest of the year I forget about it, as light is plentier and the lens is good stopped down.

The Pentax K 50mm 1.4 doesn't seem to have the allure and appreciation of the 50 1.4 Takumar...

Nowadays I think 35mm shooting leans more towards a poetic aesthetic rather than sharpness maximization. I haven't actually shot any 50mm f1.4 and used the price difference to fund film and processing instead.
Click to expand...

Hi Jordi,

Good points. 35mm is indeed one grainy format (ASA400 and up) so works well for aesthetics as you say. You're lucky to have that pancake, it's becoming a cult lens now. I got to say it makes MX a pocket camera indeed, which is a huge compliment to any 35mm SLR camera!

nickthetasmaniac said:
As others have said, the M 50/f1.7 is a great lens, and really doesn’t lose anything to the M 50/f1.4 in terms of quality. Plus it’s tiny.. It’s up to you whether the difference between f1.4 and f1.7 is worth the extra size and price. I say this as a very satisfied owner of the f1.4 :)
Click to expand...

Good to know! I'm sure f1.4 has that something little "extra" over f1.7, but everything is a tradeoff anyway. Just pity the 50mm f1.2 prices have gone little crazy... ;)

nickthetasmaniac said:
Regarding the 28/f3.5, be aware that there are a few very different versions. The M 28/f3.5 is good and cheap as chips. The M 28/f2.8 is also worth looking at, similar size and price as the f3.5 version.

The earlier ‘K’ 28/f3.5 is a completely different beast. Much more complex optical design, much bigger, exceptional performance, and sells for a lot more money. Then there’s the K 28/f2 developed with Zeiss, but let’s not talk about that one :D
Click to expand...

Let's not talk about that (€£$) Zeiss 28mm f2 indeed :D

But regarding the Pentax SMC 28mm lenses:

attachment.php

I think the optically "better" one is the bigger one (6-rows of knobs on focusing ring). 52mm filter ring.

attachment.php

The lighter one is this one (3-rows of knobs on focusing ring), 49mm filter ring.

Is it correct?

PS: out of curiosity, any idea why the f8 is marked with red on the bigger version? Is it some "magic-spot" f-number or it's the only f where the lens actually works? :D
 

Attachments

  • 20171218-001-X3.jpg
    20171218-001-X3.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 0
  • dscf7383.jpg
    dscf7383.jpg
    18.2 KB · Views: 0
I believe the red marks at f/8 and 3m are snapshot suggestions: it's a hyperfocal setting.

For choosing between the 50 1.7 and 1.4, another point is distortion. I believe the 1.4 has more (barrel), but I only borrowed one a while ago, can't compare with my 1.7 right now to confirm my memory.

Although the old Pentax lenses are generally very well made, my 28 2.8 has a bit of haze and a sticky aperture when it's cold, look out for condition!
 
tsiklonaut said:
Let's not talk about that (€£$) Zeiss 28mm f2 indeed :D

But regarding the Pentax SMC 28mm lenses:

attachment.php

I think the optically "better" one is the bigger one (6-rows of knobs on focusing ring). 52mm filter ring.

attachment.php

The lighter one is this one (3-rows of knobs on focusing ring), 49mm filter ring.

Is it correct?

PS: out of curiosity, any idea why the f8 is marked with red on the bigger version? Is it some "magic-spot" f-number or it's the only f where the lens actually works? :D
Click to expand...

Yes, the optically better one is the first you have pictured, labelled 'SMC PENTAX' (this was the first series of K-mount Pentax lenses and is now known as the 'K' series, although they were never marked with a 'K').

The second one pictured is from the 'M' series, labelled 'SMC PENTAX-M'. This was the second set of K-mount Pentax glass, and were generally more compact and optically simpler to match the small M series bodies (MX, ME, MG, MV and varients).

The M is tiny, and makes the MX a pocketable SLR (largish pocket), while the K is one of the best landscape lenses Pentax made. I think you will enjoy either :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom