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

[Iodosan]

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.

 

[dynachrome]

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.

 

[Huss]

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).

 

[Craig75]

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.

 

[Huss]

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.

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.

 

[Craig75]

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.

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

 

[Oren Grad]

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.

 

[Iodosan]

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).

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.