The 85mm lenses

I have a choice of the M 85 2.0 and the A* 85 1.4.
What to choose? I used to own a M 85 2.0 where lost. Is the 1.4 a better lens? Except for the obvious better aperture.
Advice me.

-- MW

But I lost it due to burglary. Sloppy writing, sorry.

-- MW

There is no contest. The A* 1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made for a camera in the history of photography.

The M is a very good lens, but not in the same league.

However, the 1.4 is a heavy beast, and big.

Thank you. This is what I've heard from other sources too.
Time to raid the piggy-bank then.

Other opinions are still welcome, since my piggy bank will put up some resistance -- at least until tuesday.

I really liked my old 85mm. It was such a convenient focal length. Together with ny M 28/2.0 (that I still own) and the LX body they accountet for more than 95% of all pictures taken by me. I still kick myself for selling the 15mm 3.5 in certain fit of moneyless-ness. Bad choice.

-- MW

Hi,
I used to have an 85/2 as well. I have now replaced it with the 85/1.8 which is a much better lens. You might want to think about this. It is nearly as good as the 1.4 but only about 1/2 the price. It is also a lot more compact and perhaps gives the best value for money.

Kim

I also used to have a SMC Pentax-M 85mm f2 and I was never happy with the resolution. The 100mm f2.8 is much better!

Having had the M 2/85 as well as the A 1.4/85 and the M 2.8/100 in my opinion the 2/85 is the less desireable lens of these 3.
In fact I sold it due to the quality wide opened. Stopped down it's really good!
The A 1.4 is seldom to be found, and even at 2.0 really good, getting superb at 4 or 5.6. And yes: It's a heavy big thing of glass and you wouldn't like it to carry on mountains for example...

The K 1.8 is told to be very good too - I never had one.

The M 2.8/100 is only slighly longer than the 2/85 and optically better. Sold mine because of the macro lens at the same focal length - and the macro ist better (although bigger, more weight - oh yes, always the same with the better lenses....

I wonder if the M42-Takumar 1.8/85 is optically the same as the K.....


Paul

I think most, if not all, of the K (SMC Pentax) lenses were in fact simply SMC Taks with a bayonet mount. They only lasted a year or two before being replaced by the M series, which must have been in the pipeline at the time the K series was introduced.

G

Hi George,
From the lens data tables and personal experience, I would aggree that the early bayonets were the SMC Taks with a different mount. This is probably no bad thing as many of these are still considered tobe some of the best glass Pentax has produced. However, I don't think they were meant to be a precursor to the M series. With the exception of the "std" lenses, many of the M series were not as good optically and Pentax seemed to sacrifice quality for compactness. I rather suspect from the advertising campaigns I remember from that time the emphasis was on "smallest and lightest" probably as a result of the introduction of the OM1 not long after the Ks came out. I rather suspect that it was Pentax's intention to get back some of the sales lost to Olympus.

Regards
Kim

I'm surprised to find that I have used almost all the M series lenses up to about 200mm, and most of them are superb. The only thing that is allowed to drift is the accuracy of drawing, but modern zoom lens users won't find anything strange in that....

Hi John,
I know what you mean. I wasn't trying to knock the M lenses. They are, as you say, superb. However, having tried most of the "K" equivalents alongside them, I found that the K's are just that little better still - especially at the wider apertures. I also find that they handle and balance a bit better on the LX and KX which are my favourite bodies. Having said that, when you get to the extremes, the later A lenses are better. This is particularly true of the 300 A* and the 20mm.

Kim

Kim C,

The OM1 came out in 1972, three years BEFORE the K series cameras and lenses, not afterwards.

No doubt Pentax had planned that the K series would have a life of perhaps ten years, but when the OM1 proved to be so successful they were forced to change their strategy and quickly design a complete new camera and lens system in order to compete.

I suspect they probably started designing the M series before the introduction of the K series, but it took three years or so to complete the process. Meanwhile the K series was introduced as planned because it was impossible to continue selling screw-mount cameras when everybody else (of importance) had gone to bayonet.

But I agree about the quality issue. The M series did sometimes sacrifice a little quality in the pursuit of size reduction. Also, the SMC Taks were amongst the finest lenses of all time, and were built without concern for minor considerations like cost.

It's well worth while having an SMC Tak in the arsenal, not so much for use, but just to fondle occasionally and remind oneself of what a REALLY well-made lens feels like.

G

Hi George,
I hadn't realised that the OM1 had come out so early. It just goes to show the longevity of the camera and the power of advertising.

Although I had taken pictures for some time, my real interest in photography started in 1971 when I went to Newcastle University. There was a darkroom in the halls of residence and I soon dscovered the delights of printing. At the time I was using my fathers old Ensign Selfix 820 which I still use today. He had recently got homself a new Spotmatic II from the Far East and I really wanted one. This was well otside the budget of a Uni student so having scoured the local shops, my plan was to get a Zenith E ( which I seem to remember would have been about £44) and then when I got the Spottie, I could use any lenses I had. I still hadn't achieved this in 72/73 but kept scouring the shops. Everytime I looked at a Pentax, people kept trying to persuade me I needed a bayonet mount and tried to offer a Canon FT series or one of the Minolta SRT series. (Nikons and Nikkormats were far too much!). In the end I got a secondhand Konica Auto S2 (it was with this I took my first air to air shots on the chipmunk). This was to keep me going until the end of Uni in in 75. I kept an eye on the market and the Ads. I remember the intro of the Minolta X series and the cheaper Nikons as opposed to Nikkormats but don't really remember being aware of the Olys. By 1976, when I joined the RAF, the K mount had come out and the idea of a Spottie went. It was round about this time, as far as I recall, that Olympus had a huge advertising campagn and the OM1 started to really appear in the high street shops along with the new Canon A series. As a very poor Acting Pilot Officer, a Pentax was still out of reach and then in 1978 my wife bought me my first Pentax, a near mint KX with F1.4, as a wedding present. Needless to say it is still with me and will always be my "favourite". The MX had been out for about a year and she offered one of those but I preferred to finder display and features of the KX. Certainly at that time there were huge advertising campaigns about "smallest and lightest" with the honours about even. It was down to millimeters and grms. One of Pentax's claims was for the MX motor drive which the OM1 couldn't match At that time my brother, a doctor, bought an OM1 and there were endless discussions of the better marque!

Anyway that is all rather off thread but perhaps explains why I have always associated the OM1 with the K series. So back to the quality issue. I have several of the SMC Taks along with their equivalent "K" series. Certainly as far as the telephotos are concerned there appears to be no difference between them apart from the mount and the addition of a rubber grip. Indeed the rubber grip had started to appear on the SMC Taks by the end.

To cut a very long story short If anyone gets the opportunity to get one of the K series lenses, it's worth taking. True they may be a bit bigger and heavier than more recent lenses. However, not only is the optical quality among the best Pentax have made but also the mechanical build and feel cannot be matched by the modern polycarbonates and are very similiar to the Taks whilst giving all the benefits of the K mount.