Thread: The Pentax MX
View Single Post

Old 04-05-2019   #100
Registered User
nickthetasmaniac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by Archiver View Post
The question is, how do these lenses compare with their Leica counterparts? Sure, Leica is expensive and we just accept it, but how much better are they? I haven't shot enough with Pentax K lenses to know.
I honestly haven't shot with enough that are directly comparable to say.

On film I'd say the K85/f1.8 is a better lens than the TE 90/f2.8, but that's based on general 'feel', rather than a direct, side-by-side comparison.

I'll soon be getting my Super-Tak 55/f1.8 back from service and will try and do a bit of a comparison with my 5cm Cron Collapsible. These two are of similar speed and vintage, so it will be interesting to see how they perform.

A bit OT (and not Leica), but a well known bit of Pentax folklore is that the original Super-Takumar 50/f1.4 '8 element' was an all-in, sold-at-a-loss effort to outperform the Zeiss 50mm Planar. My understanding is that they were successful, before quietly switching to a cheaper 7 element design.
Ricoh GRII | Pentax SV, SP-F, MX & LX | Leica M2 | Olympus Pen F + 35RD | Minolta Autocord | Hasselblad 500cm + SWC/m

Instagram @other_strange_creatures
  Reply With Quote