Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 SMC

I've just bought a Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 from ebay for £28, including original hard case, Pentax Skylight filter and both lens caps. The lens hasn't arrived yet, but looked in good condition (fingers crossed). I would be interested for views on the price paid and the quality of this lens as I have read good things about it. Bought it specifcally for landscapes.

Regards
David

Sounds like you got a good deal. The 1:3.5 is said to produce a superior image quality to the 1:2.8 version.

Indeed he has, i sold one yesterday for £51.

Davex.

Not quite a steal as I got mine for £15, but it is a very good piece of optic, definitely better than the 2.8 version. I might be letting go of mine soon though....:/

Can I have it for £15?

emm...no! you already have one!
I am slightly cash strapped, so a profit has to be made, sadly.

From experience it's very close behind the original SMC Pentax 28mm f3.5 - the older lens is sharper at f3.5 but they're even by f8. When I used mine on digital I tended to leave it set to f8 and infinity, then just meter and shoot. Due to the depth of field it was pretty much focus free. I now use it as part of my ultra-compact M series outfit, while the older lens comes out when I know there's no risk of losing or damaging it as it would be a lot harder to replace.

I paid about £50 for mine and consider that to be the usual going rate, at least I would expect to be able to find one for that much with a bit of rummaging.

Both are much, much sharper than the f2.8 versions. I find myself wondering whether this is like the 50mm f1.7 vs f1.4 thing - was the f2.8 intended for reportage work, while the f3.5 was intended for serious landscape shooters who would be quite happy with lower shutter speeds in exchange for ultimate sharpness? It's rather academic anyway as half a stop doesn't tend to make much difference in daylight, even in the depths of a Welsh winter!

Check carefully for fungus inside the lens (usually shows as spidery marks on elements), it seems that lenses kept in the genuine hard cases are more prone to it. It can be cleaned, but you might want to negotiate with the seller if the lens was sold as clean/minty/unmarked/excellent or similar.

Mine is lovely, just a shame it doesn't focus correctly and the expense of getting it fixed is similar to a new one.

Bret

If it's anything like the other M series lenses then you should be able to fix it yourself without much trouble.

If you unscrew the finishing ring around the front element it will reveal some screw heads. If you then loosen these you should be able to adjust the infinity setting. You will need a tripod and something like an ME Super with split prism focus screen in order to set it correctly - I use the top of a hill about five miles away as a target as even with wide angle lenses it's easy to check that the two halves of the prism line up, the contrast between the green hillside and blue or grey sky is such. I've set up a few lenses this way now and all work well.

This is assuming that the lens is otherwise correctly assembled!

I love all this mythical nonsense/lenspeak that togs manage to
somehow dream up

f/3.5 can't be much use because (unlike an f/2.8 )
it hasn't got an...

EXTRA LARGE FRONT DIAMETER LENS ELEMENT FOR
BETTER PERIPHERY LIGHT GATHERING IN THE CORNERS
(VERY SIMILAR TO THE HELIOS VERSION
CAPABLE OF HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES

and that's from a reliable source an ebay
listing from a professional photographic lens retailer
link

Just ignore the fact that it has Prinzflex written on it

Also did you know that the Pentax_M 135mm f/3.5 is

EXELLENT BOKEH FOR PORTRAITS
135mm lens is in EXELLENT condition.
VERY HIGH OPTICAL PERFORMANCE
EXEEDING THE 2.8 & 2.5 VERSIONS BY A SUBSTANTIAL MARGIN
F=3.5 f=135mm auto telephoto lens
GOOD AT EVEN FULL APERTURE (GOOD FOR DIGITAL VIDEO)

link

Not sure what "Exellent" means but because it's an f/3.5
it must be better than the f/2.8 and f/2.5 versions
people say so

Not sure either what "Exeeding" means either must be some
kind of 'Lens Expert Tradespeak' like molished by Tomioka

David, was the 28mm you bought for £28 badly listed
for it to go for about what it's worth?

They are clumsy descriptions Algi, but as far as they go not particularly misleading.

Wide angle lens design used to mean large front elements, for exactly the reason stated in the auction. Early Pentax wide aperture wide angles would be the same. However, lens design moved on from this in the early 1970s and certainly the Prinzflex name (Dixons own-brand) will not excite those who recognise it.

As regards the 135mm f3.5 there are several versions of this and the 5 element versions may well out perform the four element f2.8 and f2.5 versions.

Well that 135mm will be better than the f2.8 and f2.5. He's presumably comparing it with the Takumar Bayonet lenses which lack the full SMC coating, and therefore aren't really going to be that close...

Doesn't stop the chancers I see listing them for £50+ on ebay though, or the ones doing the same thing with the Pentax-A 28-80mm!

I cannot fathom how they think what was intended to be a cheap zoom in its day is worth more than the average price for an M 50/1.7, which will completely obliterate the zoom for image quality.

That blurb about the 135mm f3.5 is not even original, it was on the listing for the one I bought off ebay too! It didn't work with mine though, I got it for 29 quid. Must get round to trying it out properly....

The listing for the 28mm f3.5 was not anything like as described by Algi, in fact it was probably too far the other way (understated). I get the impression (may be wrong) that it was being sold by an older gentleman who was not well versed in the ways of ebay!

Regards
David

Someone off this forum then Ha! Ha!