Smc-m 40mm vs ultron 40mm vs pentax 43mm for my pentax me super

Good evening. I have The pentax smc-m 40mm pancake that, with the pentax me super kia that I use manually, creates a combo as big as a Rangefinder. Since I feel very comfortable with this focal length, I wanted to ask those who have tried them, if you notice a lot of difference between the 40mm and the voigtlander ultron or the pentax 43mm. On the choice it is important to specify and consider that I do not care about the supreme sharpness, since I use films with grain, I give more importance to character and contrast. And considering their price (about 350/450€)
P. S. I saw That there would be another lens. A tessar 40mm m42 but I found very little news about it.

I have two of the SMC-M 40mm lenses and also a rarely seen 40mm f/2.5 Vivitar. The Vivitar may have been seen with other names.. Both are sharp but the SMC-M is better made. I think I have three 45/2.8 GN Nikkors. The GN feature does not interest me very much. The lenses do have a nice character. I have a number of 45/2 Minolta Rokkor lenses. These are small, light and reasonably sharp. There is the Zeiss 45/2.8 which comes in Yashica/Contax mount. I don't have one of those yet. My favorite small lens in this range is probably the 40/1.8 Konica Hexanon. Many of these have been put to use on non-film cameras. I only use mine with film. I have four or five of them. There were some nice 40mm Voigtander (Cosina) lenses made. One version was not multicoated, for character reasons. The Hexanon, on a Konica TC-X body also makes for a small and light combination. Whether you stick with the Pentax K mount or try pancake lenses in other mounts, you are likely to find more character in the older lenses. Nikon made a much later version of the 45/2.8 without the GN feature and with lens metal in its construction. It's the P model and you can find nice examples in the top end of your budget range. There is a 45/2.8 XR Rikenon which would fit your camera and which looks nice. It may or may not be the same as one of the Pentax products. Someone here would know that.

I recently sold my Pentax 40mm 2.8 (as I sold off all my Pentax 35mm slr gear) and still have the CV 40mm f2. The CV is a super lens, and a stop faster. But if I already have the Pentax 40 2.8, I'd just keep using that unless I needed the extra stop/speed of the f2 lens. I was very happy w the Pentax 40, and it is tiny - smaller than the CV.
(My Cv 40 is in Nikon mount which is why I still have it, but the lens is the exact same optically in Pentax mount).

I havent used the 40mm pancake but do have the 43mm and its beautifully made. Is it "better" - no idea - but it feels so nice and if you are shallow like me then it's utter pleasure to use.

Craig75 said:

I havent used the 40mm pancake but do have the 43mm and its beautifully made. Is it "better" - no idea - but it feels so nice and if you are shallow like me then it's utter pleasure to use.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong - as I have never used the 43mm - but I heard the mechanical focus feel is poor as it is an AF lens, and you are turning those AF gears when focusing manually.

Huss said:

Correct me if I'm wrong - as I have never used the 43mm - but I heard the mechanical focus feel is poor as it is an AF lens, and you are turning those AF gears when focusing manually.

Click to expand...

I've only got it in M mount so yes maybe in k af mount it feels different.

I have both the 40/2.8 Pentax-M and the 43/1.9 Pentax-L Special - the latter is the special edition that was released in Leica screw mount. AFAIK the glass is the same as the 43/1.9 Pentax FA Limited in K mount. The 43 is a far more refined design optically, though if you're looking for a particular subjective flavor in the way your lenses draw, the only way to judge is to try for yourself.

I've handled the FA Limited version. The manual-focus feel is unusual - sort of like slightly damped ball bearings. I wouldn't call it "poor" at all - I actually found it easier to control with finesse in manual focus than typical AF lenses of its era. But it is different, not like any lens I own. BTW, the 43 Special isn't that way - that helical just feels comfortably ordinary for a manual-focus rangefinder lens.

I've never tried the C/V 40/2 Ultron.

EDIT: The other interchangeable-lens 40 that I know well is the recently-discontinued 40/2.8 Canon EF pancake lens. That one is shockingly good for the price, worth buying a body for. Yes, it works fine on Canon EOS film bodies. But with the exception of the EF-M camera that was offered briefly around 1991, those are all AF bodies, and the lens is happier in AF mode on those.

Huss said:

I recently sold my Pentax 40mm 2.8 (as I sold off all my Pentax 35mm slr gear) and still have the CV 40mm f2. The CV is a super lens, and a stop faster. But if I already have the Pentax 40 2.8, I'd just keep using that unless I needed the extra stop/speed of the f2 lens. I was very happy w the Pentax 40, and it is tiny - smaller than the CV.
(My Cv 40 is in Nikon mount which is why I still have it, but the lens is the exact same optically in Pentax mount).

Click to expand...

This I wanted to know. Surely the ultron and the 43mm are better but you see all this difference to justify a cost of 400 euros. Let me give you an example. In m39 mount there is the summitar 50mm which is fabulous and costs 400/500 euros. I use the jupiter 8 or the jupiter 3 and I have more than good results without spending that amount.