Very droll...

That's what I have always understood.

The M lenses are different though - the same basic formula yes, but thinner glass and far less bulk.

I think we sort of got that impression...

The 50mm lenses have different characteristics and the design parameters have changed over the years.

The 55mm f1.8 and f1.4 lenses for the Spotmatic and the early K series cameras are superb, but reach their peak of performance at more like f8-f11, whereas the newer M series and later lenses tend to peak at about f5.6-f8.
They also look different, the later lenses having more punch at the expense of fine detail maybe (a subtle difference here).

A good f2 is a superb design, but it suffers from lower consistency lens to lens, a cost factor I suppose.

By choice I would use the f1.7 versions, but at the moment have an FA 1.4 as well as an A 1.7. With digital cameras it's proving a moot point which is better. very little in it IMHO.

Don't forget the 50mm Macro lenses though, which are very desireable.

The FA 50mm f1.4 lens is very nice indeed.

The SMC Pentax-M is no doubt the f2 version, labelled 1:2 on the lens. The SMC Pentax (not M) 50mm f1.2 would cost a little more than £25.95.

However, the 50mm lenses make superb 75mm-equivalent optics on digital and I'm sure you'll have a great time with them.

Welcome to the forum!

You're right, Kim, it doesn't matter where things are made as long as they are made well and fit for purpose.

Enough politics for a photographic forum.....

Like all discussions, this one has strayed into new territory.

However, it beats me how we could think that the current crop of camera is expensive. They are definitely not expensive.

How about a Pentax MX with 50mm lens at £219.95, at a time when genral earnings might have been around £2000 per annum?

Now you can have a technoloigical marvel like the K10D, with its standard zoom for no more than £499.00 and earnings are an average of, say £23,000?

So the MX was 10% of earnings for a yeae and if the K10D were then it would cost £2,300 or so.

What's there to grumble about?

The sunny 16 rule gives the exposure for a subject frontally lit in full daylight. This is f16 at 1/ISO sec. In other words, for 200 ISO the exposure is f16 at 1/200 sec.

In other light you would have to compensate. Early evening light with cloud cover is a bit too vague to judge, but the images are certainly way over-exposed. The most likely reason is the exposure compensation being set to a + value, maybe even up to +3 stops. This would mean the correct exposure for the situation given would have been f22 at 1/15 sec, which gets to be more realistic.

That is way over-exposed.

In full sun the exposure for 200 ISO should be approximately 1/200 sec at f16. This is the "sunny 16" rule and is actually very accurate.

f22 at 0.5 sec does not bear any relationship to this at all, so something is very wrong.

I would check the ISO setting and that the exposure compensation is set to zero. This is a major error, so there could be a fault. It needs checking out.