Pentax-A 50/1.2 on Pentax ME?

[_amyrose_]

Hi! I have a Pentax ME with a 50/1.7. I would like to get a 50/1.2. Will the Pentax-A fit the ME? If not, what is the correct series I should be on the lookout for? Also looking for a 35mm for the ME. Any suggestions?

Thanks so much!
Amy

 

[M-88]

Hello,

Yes, Pentax-A lenses are compatible with Pentax ME body. The only difference is pin which reads aperture data for more advanced bodies. On Pentax ME you will simply adjust the aperture ring manually, by hand. So it is imperative for a lens to have an actual aperture ring.

"Correct" series is SMC Pentax-M, but no harm in using Pentax-A and they can also utilize newer bodies (Super A, Program A) at their full capabilities, so I see a perspective of upgrading the body, if you get an "A" series lens.

 

[_amyrose_]

Thanks so much!!

 

[gone]

I believe the 50 1.7 lenses are sharper than the 50 2, although the 50 2 on my Pentax MV makes very nice photos.

 

[Huss]

I believe the 50 1.7 lenses are sharper than the 50 2, although the 50 2 on my Pentax MV makes very nice photos.

OP wrote 1.2, but maybe she meant 2? A lot of sellers on ebay list their 50 f2 lenses as 1.2, and ask the 1.2 price... buyer beware!

 

[Huss]

Amy, I had an ME and one thing that is really nice about it is the tiny size. If it is the 50 1.2 that you are after, (not 50 2.0), be aware that it is a much bigger lens and may make the handling of the camera seem off.

 

[_amyrose_]

@M-88, @momus, @Huss - I went back to look at the images of the lenses and you are correct! They are f/2.0 and not f/1.2. I do see some f/1.4. Do you think that it will be a nicer lens than the 1.7? I want to keep the P-ME, my dad gave it to me when I first started shooting film and he just passed away at the beginning of Feb :-( :-( :-(

But, I would like to upgrade the lens and also look into a 35mm. Any thoughts on the 50/1.4 and options for 35mm?

Thanks to everyone - I am really liking this group. I am just getting back into shooting film (wasn’t able to pick up a camera other than iPhone for 2+ years), so I am definitely needing some skill refreshers

Amy

 

[Huub]

Except for their largest opening i doubt you will see much differences between the 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 versions of those lenses at typical working apertures. I always found the smc-m f1.7 50mm a very good lens and an excellent combo with the ME and MX camera's, with a slight edge over the 1.4 version. When it comes to sharpness and contrast i feel the f 4.0 50mm macro is the better one, but that is of course a completely different lens.

About 35mm lenses: there are the f3.5, f2.8 and f 2.0 smc-m versions. These are all pretty good lenses. I personally have the 2.0 version, which is easy to focus because of it's large opening, but has some fall off in the corners when shooting wide open. When closed two stops, this disappears. For an in-dept discussion of these i would like to refer you to the Pentax forum. Next to those there is a large amount of 35mm of third party firms floating around in the Pentax mount and quite a few of these are plenty good as well.

 

[M-88]

I do see some f/1.4. Do you think that it will be a nicer lens than the 1.7? I want to keep the P-ME, my dad gave it to me when I first started shooting film and he just passed away at the beginning of Feb :-( :-( :-(

My condolences.

I had SMC-M versions of 50/1.7 and 50/2.0, along with Pentax-A 50/1.4 at some point in my life. I can say that the cheapest 50/2.0 does equally good job as f/1.7 version. And f/1.4 is faster (=noticeably brighter whrn focusing). f/1.4 also has more shallow depth of field and some people like its bokeh more, although bokeh and its beauty is a very subjective thing. If you're going to shoot at f/5.6 or smaller, all three lenses perform equally well - Pentax glass is no slouch. If you're going to shoot in low light and at wide apertures, go for f/1.4, no second thoughts about that.

As for 35 mm, I'm a cheapskate, so I ended up buying 35/2.8 in the end and was happy with it. 35 mm f/3.5 is too slow and dims the viewfinder. f/2 was priced beyond reason for 1 stop increase in lens speed.

I am just getting back into shooting film (wasn’t able to pick up a camera other than iPhone for 2+ years), so I am definitely needing some skill refreshers

Amy

Welcome to Photrio then!

P.S. If you ever decide to get a telephoto lens for portraiture or any other use, give 100 mm f/2.8 a chance. It's a beautiful, yet compact lens with good (if not great) performance.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The Pentac 50mm f/1.7 is a very nice lens. If you already own one, then there would be no point in getting a Pentax f/2.0. And unless you like the "wide-open look" (very shallow-depth-of-field), the the 50mm f/1.4 version offers no advantage either. I have both the f/1.7 and the f/1.4 versions in the M series, and I have not noticed any significant difference in image quality for the way I shoot. But I almost never use apertures wider than f/5.6. For all purpose walkabout shooting in daylight, I carry the f/1.7 version because it is a little lighter.

For the 35mm focal length, I have the f/2.0 version - which I use a lot. Again, I almost never shoot it wide open, but I do appreciate the brighter viewfinder compared to f/3.5 lenses. In between f/2.0 and f/3.5, Pentax makes the 35mm lens in a f/2.8 version which is probably a good compromise, but I have never used the f/2.8 version. I am guessing the 35mm/2.8 is going to be much easier to find - and less expensive - than the 35mm/2.0, so it is probably the more practical choice.

 

[Huss]

Sorry about your Dad.

I've had the 2.0, 1.7 and 1.4. And honestly if I already had any one of them, I'd just stick to that as I was very happy with all of them. "We" get too caught up in gear and if you someone showed you a pic taken with one of these lenses, it would be next to impossible to tell what lens was used.

As that is the camera/lens package you got from your Dad, that's what I would use!

 

[gone]

You would do good to get a $5 hood for your 50 2 lens, that's given mine a little more contrast. I'll probably keep the lens because it's so tiny and makes good photos, but I'm lurking on the auctions for an 85 soft focus. Those look like a lot of fun.

I'm noticing that on my Pentax MV I generally get 2-4 printable negs off a roll of 36 exposure film. Negs that are super easy to print, I mean. But on my Nikon n8008s w/ a Leica lens I usually get 10-15, sometimes more. I chalk that up to the exposure differences. The Nikon nails it w/ a spot meter, while the MV's center weighted meter and lack of an easy way to change exposure results in negs that are not ideally exposed. Good enough though, and you'd probably never see the difference w/ color film and lab development, which is probably what the op is going to do.

 

[grain elevator]

Usually the 1.4 lenses have more distortion than the slightly slower varieties. I don't recall if that's actually the case with the Pentax Ms, although I've used both, but it's very likely. So if you like to take pictures that include architecture, seascapes with the horizon off center etc., the slower ones are usually preferable.

 

[_amyrose_]

Thanks for this helpful info!!!i appreciate you taking the time to connects.
I do like the /1.7. If I find a deal on the /1.4, then maybe I will get it. Otherwise I will be on the lookout for a 35mm
Amy

Except for their largest opening i doubt you will see much differences between the 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 versions of those lenses at typical working apertures. I always found the smc-m f1.7 50mm a very good lens and an excellent combo with the ME and MX camera's, with a slight edge over the 1.4 version. When it comes to sharpness and contrast i feel the f 4.0 50mm macro is the better one, but that is of course a completely different lens.

About 35mm lenses: there are the f3.5, f2.8 and f 2.0 smc-m versions. These are all pretty good lenses. I personally have the 2.0 version, which is easy to focus because of it's large opening, but has some fall off in the corners when shooting wide open. When closed two stops, this disappears. For an in-dept discussion of these i would like to refer you to the Pentax forum. Next to those there is a large amount of 35mm of third party firms floating around in the Pentax mount and quite a few of these are plenty good as well.

 

[Huss]

Personally I'd pick a 28mm lens as a companion to the 50. 35 is too close to 50 IMO. The 28 and 50 make a great pair and that was the combo I used with my Pentaxes.

 

[_amyrose_]

Thanks for the suggestion! I wonder if the 28mm might be a bit off if I need to take people photos. Sometimes I just need a bit of extra room if I am indoors, the 50 is a bit crunchy . I was just trying to maneuver my way around at my daughter’s house yesterday. Tried to her her and the two tiny humans in a photo.

i never considered the 28mm, but it does make sense.
Thanks for sharing!
Amy

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thanks for the suggestion! I wonder if the 28mm might be a bit off if I need to take people photos. Sometimes I just need a bit of extra room if I am indoors, the 50 is a bit crunchy . I was just trying to maneuver my way around at my daughter’s house yesterday. Tried to her her and the two tiny humans in a photo.

i never considered the 28mm, but it does make sense.
Thanks for sharing!
Amy

When I first started shooting (back in the 1970s), I tried a 35mm, and decided it was too close to 50mm, and not worth bothering with. For the next 45 years I carried only a 28mm and a 50mm. But a few years ago I got another 35mm, and now I am convinced that it is the best all-around focal length for me and the way I shoot. I feel silly for not having figured this out sooner. I still carry a 28mm, but I almost never use it unless forced to because of tight spaces.

I don't take many people photos, but looking at those taken by others, I don't like the look of wide angle portraits. I know, by definition, 35mm falls into the "wide angle" category, but it is a borderline case. I find the wide-angle-look - big nosed portraits, converging verticals, etc. - is much less objectionable with the 35mm focal length, compared to the 28mm. The 50mm is probably better than the 35 for portraits - but indoors, and especially if there is more than one person, with the 50, I often find my back up against a wall. But sometimes a tighter frame with the 50 will make a better portrait.

 

[grain elevator]

28 mm lenses are more plentiful for Pentax. I agree on the two lens kit of 28 and 50 being very useful, but at the same time I find 35 far enough from 50 to be quite different. A 35 fits about twice the area of the 50 onto your film, imagine two 50 mm portrait orientation frames stitched together to make a 35 mm frame. 28 can also be nice for indoor portraits, I don't think you mean strictly head and shoulders because you would get far enough away from the subject also with a 50, indoors. Take portraits from the distance that you generally see the portrayed from and the perspective (distortions) will be the same that youre eyes are used to.
The usual and affordable f/2.8 wide angles might be a bit slow indoors, are you planning to use flash, tripod, super fast film?

 

[gone]

I have a 50mm f2 on my MV, and am looking for a lens for the ME Super that just arrived (MUCH nicer camera compared to the MV). An 85-90 lens is my "normal" lens for all purposes. I like to get in close.....w/o getting in close. You get a lot more head shots w/ the short teles, and that's what I'm after. Unfortunately, the 85 1.8 Pentax lenses have gone way up in price, so an M42 short tele and w/ a K adapter may be in my future. Or, might try one of the Pentax 85 soft focus lenses, that might be fine for portraits.

 

[flavio81]

Hi! I have a Pentax ME with a 50/1.7. I would like to get a 50/1.2. Will the Pentax-A fit the ME?

Thanks so much!
Amy

Yes

 

[flavio81]

@M-88, @momus, @Huss - I went back to look at the images of the lenses and you are correct! They are f/2.0 and not f/1.2. I do see some f/1.4. Do you think that it will be a nicer lens than the 1.7? I want to keep the P-ME, my dad gave it to me when I first started shooting film and he just passed away at the beginning of Feb :-( :-( :-(

I own the M 50/1.7, A 50/1.4, and A 50/2

The A 50/2 is the one I prefer since it's the most compact and light and balances very well with the ME. And, very important, the front element is recessed (protected).

The A 50/1.4 is probably the best 50/1.4 i've owned in any brand, and i've owned a lot. However, compared to the former, it's bigger and heavier (even though it's one of the lightest and compact of its type...)

The 50/1.7 is just a bit heavier than the f2 and a slightly bit bigger, however I don't like the front element being so upfront.

Edit: My condolences... of course keep the ME, your dad would be proud.

 

[Les Sarile]

@M-88, @momus, @Huss - I went back to look at the images of the lenses and you are correct! They are f/2.0 and not f/1.2. I do see some f/1.4. Do you think that it will be a nicer lens than the 1.7? I want to keep the P-ME, my dad gave it to me when I first started shooting film and he just passed away at the beginning of Feb :-( :-( :-(

But, I would like to upgrade the lens and also look into a 35mm. Any thoughts on the 50/1.4 and options for 35mm?

Thanks to everyone - I am really liking this group. I am just getting back into shooting film (wasn’t able to pick up a camera other than iPhone for 2+ years), so I am definitely needing some skill refreshers

Amy

My deepest condolences for your loss.

Regarding the Pentax manual focus lenses, I have found them all to be very good performers specially considering I acquired most of them to be very reasonable priced.

50mm lenses by Les DMess, on Flickr

I also do have the 28mm, 35mm, 40mm and 100mm - all very good performers!

 

[ProgramPlus]

^^^^
A little odd but I don’t have a lot of lenses but I have that exact collection of lenses: K 1.2, M1.4, M1.7, M2.0, A2.0 and macro f4. You sir are a man of fine taste.

Nice thing is that except for the 1.2 all were quite inexpensive and all perform well.

 

[Les Sarile]

^^^^
A little odd but I don’t have a lot of lenses but I have that exact collection of lenses: K 1.2, M1.4, M1.7, M2.0, A2.0 and macro f4. You sir are a man of fine taste.

Nice thing is that except for the 1.2 all were quite inexpensive and all perform well.

Obviously you must have a discerning eye as well . . .

BTW, I may have understated that when I say these are very good performers . . .

For instance I bought that 50mm f4 macro for so cheap I didn't know what to expect from it. A few rolls later and the results I was getting were just pin sharp so I tested it just to see how good it is. Using 35mm Kodak Techpan shot at ISO25 and processed in Kodak Technidol, I shot a res chart with it and found out that my 4000dpi Coolscan can't even begin to achieve all the detail captured on that frame of film.

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

These lenses will not be the reason you can't achieve all the detail you want out of a scene!

 

[Les Sarile]

Hi! I have a Pentax ME with a 50/1.7. I would like to get a 50/1.2. Will the Pentax-A fit the ME? If not, what is the correct series I should be on the lookout for? Also looking for a 35mm for the ME. Any suggestions?

Thanks so much!
Amy

BTW, another lens that will definitely compliment the tiny ME is the equally tiny 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. This gives you a jacket pocket size combination. Here it is on my MX - nearly the same size as the ME you have, next to my Pentax P&S.

105R_MXB by Les DMess, on Flickr