I had no idea this existed.

[shaloot]

<p>Take a look at this posting from craigslist in my area:<br>

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/pho/1456221688.html</p>

<p>I'm not talking about the 40mm pancake, but the adapter that allowed him to use it on his Canon? Some folks here on this forum are dual system users, so does anyone have this? Seems quite neat for the canon guys that they could use Pentax glass on their bodies.</p>

<p>Anyways, that pancake lens looks neat! But checking on the other forum's lens database shows that this lens wasn't rated all that well and def. at this asking price of $175 is way overpriced. Anyone here use or have this lens? I have yet to own a pancake, and thought this might be my opportunity but no.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I have the lens. Funny you should mention it, I just used it to take a bunch of images of my daughter (but with weird Cokin filters). It is definitely not my best lens wide open, but it is very nice stopped a step or two. The filter ring is sooo narrow that it can be a bit of a pain to use, especially if you have a hood or a filter on it (noteble when I used the Cokin device).<br>

That said it is tiny, uses 49mm filters and cute as the dickens. This is really a lens where the prices is going to be largely dependant on how the lens apears. A really outstanding mint lens I think runs in the high 200s low 300s, a beatup one maybe less than a 100. The lens always seemed to me to be overprised, but again I think their appeal was largely in the "oh my gosh that's tiny' market. With more pancakes out now I suppose it may have lost some of that appeal.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you look at Bob Atkins' site (<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html">link</a> ) you will discover that the Canon EOS system (and although Bob doesn't deal with it, the Canon FD) are very nearly "universal recipients" when it comes to mounting old manual focus lenses on a modern digital body. I have over a hundred M42 lenses and many Nikkor lenses, all of which work fine on an APS-C Canon body. Because of some mirror clearance and some other mount inconsistencies, some wide-angle and a few other lenses will not mount on 35mm film cameras or the 35mm sensor cameras. Ironically, the Canon FD lenses are not among those easily usable on EOS bodies.</p>

<p>Yes it is cool, but most people like me also shoot the original lenses on the original bodies as well. I only have one Pentax (an H2), but I have about a hundred M42 Prakticas, Contaxes, etc.</p>

<p>There was also a pancake Praktica lens, but it was one of the two cases where I was cheated on eBay. The vendor in Britain never sent it to me, after I had paid.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>I worked for Pentax when we introduced that lens. Some sales reps had good results with it, but some of us were able to sell them only when we had a really great offer for the retailers. Mostly, my savvy dealer customers just laughed at it. I can't remember how it was priced compared to 50mm f2.0 or 50mm f1.7, but I do recall not a huge incentive for dealers to buy it. In those days, f2.0 and faster primes were normal lenses. Pentax was out ahead of the others in offering an f2.8 lens. I never liked it, even on the ME for which it was designed. Note: At the same time we introduced the pancake, we also introduced the ME belt clip. The three items together were supposed to be the carry-everywhere camera -- a P&S SLR if you set the lens at hyperfocal distance, etc.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Doesn't that lens have the same optical formula as the very well-respected DA 40/2.8? At least, that's the rumor I've been hearing on this site for the past few years...</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Good question, R.T. I don't know, but they sure look alike.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[laur1]

<p>I've seen this selling for $140. The ones I've seen for $200 keep getting relisted. Its value would probably be under $100, but the pancake aspect bumps its price. It's not a bad lens - the following two shots are with it wide open - they're from the first day I took it out to test it.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10107030-lg.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="536" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10107036-lg.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="536" /></p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>The optical formula, while similar, is probably a little different than the DA40/2.8 Ltd, as the DA40 has 'AL' in the name, indicating the presence of aspherical element(s).</p>

[stemked]

<p>I just went to Boz's site to compaire the optics. They are both 5 elements in 4 groups in a very similar arrangement, but possibly the lenses are not identical in shape. Further the DA version has "aspherical element(s), ghostless coating" not listed on the M version. So very close but the DA would appear to have a leg up on optical quality.</p>

[htarragon]

<p>I have the 40mm lens and I remember that I wanted it because I had read somewhere that a 40mm was closer to what we actually see with "normal" vision than a 50mm. I've just spent the last 10 minutes checking that out (on my KX) and that source was correct. So all I have to do is wait for Pentax to come out with a FF digital and I'll be able to use it properly, again. Of course, I'll have to be able to afford a full frame digital. :-)</p>

[laur1]

<p>Howard, fortunately, on APS, 28mm comes close - 42mm - and there are many such lenses available for K-mount. Looks like 28mm and 135mm (and 50mm, of course) were very popular, based on how many used lenses for this focal lengths I see.<br>

As I understand, 43mm is closer to human FOV, which is the reason why Pentax made the 43mm limited.</p>

 

[htarragon]

<p>Laurentiu,<br>

I have the feeling that the extra 3mm was more related to the AF capability (mine is MF) and the knurled plastic aperture ring (as opposed to the rubber ring glued on (and fell off)). I also assume those features account for the several hundred dollar price difference between mine and the limited. AF and the knurled ring are really important on that lens since the focusing ring is under 1/2 cm, if you don't count the aperture number area. Makes it tough to get a grip.<br>

I have the DA 18-55mm, so I don't really need the lens, but it's nice to have, just in case.</p>

[laur1]

<p>I did some tests and the M40mm is sharper than the DA 18-55 at 40. The kit lens has uneven sharpness across the frame. Where the 40mm comes up worse is in CAs which are better controlled on the kit lens. <br>

The FA43mm appears to be one of the sharpest Pentax lenses - that and being a Limited probably account for the price difference.</p>