mark_crown4

Sorry - here I am again - the 'well know website' is eBay - the 35mm 3.5 I got off there is in lovely condition and just works. Camera Porn - when I have the time - honest - but I just don't scan 35mm - never got around to that. One day.................

Hi Sorry - I popped back and did not get a response at first so I just left it at that but thank you all for responding. I'm selling the 1.7 50mm M it came with and have got an 50mm 1.4 'A' which is a lens I love and have had before - it's a light gatherer extraordinaire that lens and really nice to use. And yes, the K 3.5 35mm - I bought a lovely example from France and I am getting used to that and seeing the use of 35mm FL as a challenge (I nearly got the 3.5 28mm K too but I have 28mm in the Nikon range (an Ai F2) but do not have a 35mm Nikkor). So, I'm sticking with that two lens set up for now. But the KX - the 'King of PentaX - in my humble opinion - and a wonderful camera to have around your neck. Thanks.

Hi Pentax fans - I'd appreciate your suggestions. 'Just bought a wonderful Pentax KX off the well-known website - in extremely good condition (including a very clear viewfinder) with new light seals and 50 mm M 1.7 SMC lens. What a camera! I've put some 400TX in it for a try out. I had one a number of years ago but let it go - I used it with A 50mm 1.4. I got some superb photos. I made a big mistake then. So, what other lenses might I consider for this beauty (I love my two Nikons - an FM3a and an FM2n but I had to have a KX again)? The 'clack' it makes when you fire the shutter is just brilliant. Just getting my head around the match needle metering. And it's so easy to focus even off the centre of the viewfinder. In the past I've had Pentaxes - the MX (very slow to operate and over-rated in my view), the ME Super (extremely portable but my big hands did not take to it) and an MZ5n (a superb little camera in my view - its metering was better than anything from Nikon when it first came out). But the KX left the biggest impression on me in terms of build quality and performance. They don't make 'em like this anymore. So what do you reckon - another 1.4 lens? A 1.2 50mm? Or short telephoto (if so which?). And what wide angle would you suggest? Thank you in anticipation.

Thank you Rodeo Joe - I will investigate!

I've had 3 iterations of the 24mm 2.8. An Ai, AF and AIS. The Ai was very sharp but suffered from terrible ghosting as did the AF which was also sharp and where the ghosting was even worse. The AIS has proven to be the best for me - it does not like the sun being in the frame but tolerates it better than the other two. I have always used hyperfocal focussing on my 24mm lenses, so I've always got very sharp pictures back. However, I also have an Ai 28mm f2 which is actually sharper in the corners than the 24mm in my view on film. I also have the 20mm f3.5 which again I seldom use at anything bigger that f8. It is really good in the sun. Mind you, one of the best '24mm lenses' I have is my Nikkor 25-50 zoom. It is bulky and you have to watch out for vignetting with filters, again I use it at nothing less than f8 but the pictorial quality is very high indeed. All of these comments relate to film BTW.

I'm an FM2N and FM3A user. I may get a Nikon F3 again one day - I haven't got a bad word to say about one in the context of my photography. I really appreciate the newer focussing screens on the smaller F s as my eyesight continues to go down hill. But if I had the money - well I'd plumb for an F6 to be honest.

I have to say I would really like one of these (this and 16mm 3.5 fisheye). I have the 55 micro 2.8 version, plus the 50mm 1.4 AIS (which in my view is an excellent sample) and a Japanese 'pancake' 50 mm 1.8 (close focussing) which again I would say is very sharp indeed. I've experimented with both 50mm on an extension ring and had some very useable results. Websites showing pictures using the 1.2 testify to how it can be used artistically. Yep - I'm sorely tempted - especially by the later 9 bladed iris version.

"The FM3a is much more solid, but it is more complicated than the common FM2/FE2, and was engineered well into the plastic-fantastic AF era as a throwback retro manual-focus halo model" I bought the FM3a because I thought it would keep going - well it did, for 15 years as Shun pointed out - time has flown as usual. I'm sure I read somewhere that the shutter was based on AF model so you may be right Orsetto. I bought it to use it and I have, the metering is accurate and its not even a spot meter and the thing is I can still see so clearly when something is in focus or not when I composing a picture. I picked up the black FM2N off eBay for £105.00 - the best £105.00 I have ever spent. She's brassing nicely. I do love the manual camera picture taking process. I love the FM3a - its an indulgence but maybe, maybe I'd have been better getting an FM2N instead first off? I have to say though, the F3 is still a very desirable camera. Ooooopps - don't go there Mark!!!

Hi All I did get the FM3a fixed in the end and it cost me £270.00 (ouch!) at Nikon in Richmond, London UK. last year. It took ages because they had to replace the shutter unit and had to wait for one to come in from Japan, but they also CLA' d her too. When I got her back I sulked for a bit and let her know that I was far from happy by putting her in a cupboard and making sure she saw me taking the FM2N out instead. Since then I've managed to put 3 rolls of E6 through her and she's back on top form. The FM2N is on mono duty and continues to keep going. BTW - given the previous discussions, I'm going to use the FM3a as much as possible this time especially in finishing off my last colour stock. Now a Frenchman has contacted me with the same problem as mine had. I wonder if the FM3a has a reputation for failure - I would be interested to find out.

You are using the lens correctly then - keeping highlights out of the background because they produce ugly bokeh but I can tell you that the Pentax FA 50mm 1.4 can do exactly the same for a lot less outlay.

I too was a big fan of Plus-X, its tonality was old school but also love FP4. These days I use FP4 or Tri-X and agree that if the latter is developed properly, grain is not a problem - great detail and tonal gradation inside or outdoors. The problem with Tri-X in the UK for me is finding the 24 exposure version. I also agree that XP2 is an extremely good emulsion. Having said that, I have just loaded some AGFA APX100 to my camera and I am looking forward to the results. I have just finished a roll of Kosmo Photo 100 that I bought from a film only camera shop in Berlin. HP5 - I just do not get on with it. But for taking documentary photos of the family over the years Tri-X rules for me. However, XP2 beckons in the long run. Also have a roll of both Deltas to try. Acros - too expensive now. Some beautiful photos here BTW.

Well, may I join Orsetto in hoping that you enjoy the FE2 - and its great to see a post talking about analogue photography so passionately.

I had an F3 once - with a standard prism - I agree with you that it is still a hell of a camera and I wish I still had mine. As for your comment about dioptres - I think that the best advice we can give anyone is to try the camera and see how they get on with what it is fitted with - dioptres, screens etc. I can only tell people what I have seen from actually using these models and what works best for me - which I have made clear. My eyesight is changing as I get older, and I when I work with macro or telephoto lenses the brighter screens are a real big help to nail focus.

For the record, I'm not saying that you cannot take pictures with the FM or FE because of their dimmer focussing screens - I just happened to find it way easier to focus on the FM2N/FM3A - very quick when isolating the subject matter. I have an FE - a lovely camera, now retired because of a fault - the screen is definitely dimmer especially with longer lenses. Way back in the day when I had the chance to buy an FM I compared it to an old Pentax KX at the shop and even the KX screen was better for me than the FM and I bought the KX. Focussing on it was a breeze and I wish I still had it - the KX was/is a lovely camera too. The M series that followed were not for me! The MX is over-rated and not a patch on the FM/FM2/FM2n. Try moving the shutter speed dial quickly on an MX when taking a shot and compare it to that on an FM/FM2. Also do not underestimate technical improvements since the FM/FE. I have 3 modern FM type screens and I maintain that you will focus much more easily with a brighter screen than a duller one. A prospective buyer needs to know this, dependent on his or her eyesight and that is worth pointing out. BTW - the Englishman falling on his ass (arse?) - is that my Prime Minister , Boris Johnson by any chance? Because it sums him up a treat if it is! I just wish that the ass was Covid-19. Sadly, it seems to be the British public who is breaking the fall of the bumbling fool that he is.

I will emphasis again that if you use FM3a screens in an FM2N you'll have no trouble focussing unless there is something you have not told us about your eyesight. I mostly shoot hyper-focally when using my FM3a/FM2N and I have lots of very accurately focussed macro shots too.

Hmmm - the point I'm making about the FM2N is that whilst I had to save up to get my FM3a fixed it became my principle 35mm camera. It just seems to keep going. This is maybe the reason to pay more for a late one, CLA'd. My black one has been the best £110.00 I've ever spent - you'd have to prise it from my cold, dead hands. It was there for me whilst my main squeeze decided she did not want to play anymore. It's about simplicity and reliability. Even though the older FM probably has more real metal in it, there is no comparison in my view when it comes to the more modern focussing screens you can put in the FM2N.

I have both a black FM2N and an FM3A that I recently had serviced. The FM2N was from eBay for £110.00. The person who sold it just wanted rid. Despite a very slight ding on the prism, it is a nice later numbered version that is now brassing nicely. The FM3A was bought from Grays of Westminster in London brand new for the princely sum of £500.00 in 2000/01. It's the most expensive camera I have ever bought. I have not regretted it. As to which one you should buy (in your case the FE2 as opposed to the FM3A) it depends on how you are shooting/what you are shooting. If you are in a hurry - walking, climbing whatever, the FE2/FM3A in auto mood will let you just compose and click. The FM2N is not as quick to use as you will have to manually adjust the shutter speed and aperture - its more of a conscious camera to use - more deliberative - the sort of camera where you are prowling the subject matter, evaluating it as you lead up to the moment of truth - checking camera and subject. The FM3A just shoots (I know this sounds like Ken Rockwell, but honestly just wind on the film and go). It's a 'reaction' camera. Having said that, it is how you set it up - a little under exposure compensation to pop the E6, a little more on the plus side for B&W; the use of the exposure lock for the contre-jour scenes; a flash exposure compensation button around the lens throat should you need it; DX reader. The self timer on the FE2 doubles as a memory lock like it did on the FE and auto facility of the FE2 will just shoot too. For a Nikon, the FE/FE2/FM3a/FM2 are not heavy cameras. You know, I love both of them for different reasons like I still love my D40 that has witnessed my kids growing up. Also, can I speak up for the 60/40 CW metering? You need to understand the ratio - it works. I have not had a badly exposed shot from either camera in ordinary situations at all. I've found it easy to second guess it because it has been nothing but consistent for me. The next thing is the viewfinder. Putting aside that it is not 100% I use the latest version of the screens on my FM2N and FM3A and find focussing more than manageable at 54 years of age - including macro shots too. I had OM-1's once and their screen was amazing, but the centre-weighted metering on those was nowhere near as balanced. The CW metering is as accurate as CW can be - and that's not bad at all. Currently I use the FM3a for colour photography (E6) and the FM2N for B&W (but I have still got wonderful exposures on E6 too on the all manual camera too). The only thing that will stop the E6 is the expense - not the camera. The future therefore will be B&W one with a slow film, the other with a fast one. Which one is better? Well, I've already had a scare with the FM3a which cost £200 plus to have fixed after 16 -17 years of use (and I haven't thrashed it either).Any FE2 will be older than an FM3a. As much as I am in love with the FM3a, the FM2N I think is a better longer bet - it is a more simple camera - there is quite simply less to go wrong. Just have it CLA'd and that meter will get you through the day. The older FM's viewfinder is not as bright BTW which is why I never bought one. I hope this helps. BTW, you can use all of the shutter speeds on the FM3a without a battery in manual mode but you will need a separate meter. Good luck.

If you are going to go 'off piste' with Nikon F lenses, then my recommendation for a 50mm 1.4 would be the Pentax SMC 'A' MF version. It has an 8 bladed diaphragm and is very well made. The 1.4 AF version was also nice but nowhere as well put together and my version seemed a bit soft. I regretted selling my 'A' that I used on a Pentax KX - it really was very good indeed (I used it with B&W Kodak Tri-X 400). I might pluck up the courage to get both again - the KX is a lovely machine. Nice examples of Pentax 1.4 A fetch good prices on line so re-sale values seem to hold up. BTW - I have no reason not to like my copy of the AIS 50mm 1.4, but I honestly believe that the Pentax 50mm A is a better portrait/people lens - that extra diaphragm yields a smoothness to the texture of the central image and the out of focus areas seem harsher on the Nikkor.

I have read the phenomenon you speak of to be associated with the cheaper short nose 50mm 1.8 only beginning with serial number 4XXXXXX for the European and USA markets. I have done contre-jour pictures with the Japanese market 50mm 1.8 (short nose, serial number 22XXXX) and not found that to happen but that is only on film - not digital. My view is that Japanese market 50mm 1.8 is stellar and as much as I enjoyed my 45mm P, the older lens is far more flexible in the field.

I have a 50mm 1.4 AIS, a 55mm 2.8 AIS and one of those short nose, close focussing 0.45m 50mm 1.8's AIS for the Japanese market. I have had the long nose 50mm AIS and an E 50mm 1.8 too. To be honest, they are all good - the Japanese market 50mm is petite - much better built I think than the awful 0.60m focussing 50mm which I have never liked. I have even used the Japanese specific 50mm on a PK13 extender to photograph a shield beetle on my door step wide open and I got the bugs eye nice and sharp - it is a very versatile lens. I have found the 50 1.8's I have had to be sharp even wide open and I do think that the AIS are more contrasty than the E 50mm wide open. The long nose AIS might be better for those with huge hands, but the Japanese market 50mm 1.8 makes for a very compact combo with an FM type camera. All the 50's in my view are very sharp. I had a 45mm P but the 2.8 aperture was very limiting so I went back to a 50mm 1.8 - the Japanese market version which is a jewel of a lens in my opinion.

Mountainvisions If you are going to over-react to people's honest opinions about the 43mm LTD, then you best not read the thread! The 43mm is an expensive lens and I think at that sort of expenditure point you should expect less distortion and better wide open performance - especially when you look at say what a bog standard 50mm 1.8 Nikkor AIS can do (or the wonderful Pentax 50mm A 1.4). I have also used the 45mm Nikkor P 2.8 and can tell you that it has minimal distortion and at f4 has sweet spot for portraits, but it does not handle as well as the 43'. I am quite open and honest above about what is good and bad about the 43'. It was and still is a landscape lens IMHO but so can any lens be used as a landscape lens and more besides. Potential users can make up their own minds, but if reading people's opinions makes you unhappy about your outlay then that is a risk you should accept and keep your sarcasm to yourself.

You now what Ben - I agree with your observations about Plus-X versus FP4. Plus X was to my mind like the B&W films I grew up looking at (I'm 54 now) . It was very smooth and old fashioned looking and none the worse for that. FP4 is definitely a more modern film - great - but different - but I also agree with the other observation that FP4 really shines on medium format cameras. FP4 does not like being over exposed either - it's a more exacting material and Plus X could take a lot more abuse and come shining through. I would buy Plus X instead of FP4 if it were still available. As for HP5 - I have never got on with it. It is too contrasty in mixed light conditions. Tri-X 400 just works for me - it is a film that you can get more consistent, first time results out of straight out of the camera in my experience. But, if the world ended up with just HP5, I could live with it because when you get a good result it is really good. My real favourite Ilford film is XP2 if I'm honest. It's bomb proof unless you insist on being a purist B&W photographer.

I have had the 200mm f4 and used it on film. I had a really nice AIS version. With film, I was limited to an ISO of 100. So to me, it was a lens that I would use on a tripod. If you are using it on a DSLR with adjustable high performing ISO s then it should be OK - the f4 max aperture would not be too limiting. I sold mine when I got an AIS 180mm 2.8. Now that is a damn fine lens by any standard. But the f4 200mm is perfectly good - sample variation apart. Some complain that the it is a bit dark to focus with and I would agree - it is a bit of a fine weather lens in that regard - not a low light lens.

Hi Oresetto I did just that with Grays and they've given me some names. However, one has not responded and the other has just closed because of retirement. So, I think it is off to Nikon's facility in Richmond on Thames I think in London. Shun - I have reflected on my disappointment and think that it has more to do with having to spend money on the FM3a whilst I'm trying to save up for a D7200. But thanks for your kind words.

Shun You have a point - the FM3a has been in use over 15+ years but its not been hammered. I have an older black FM2n (very late model - late 90's?) that is still going strong. Maybe its a much more simple camera than the FM3a but I'm basing my disappointment on the FM2N and the FE that I had too. They have both been very reliable even though I bought those second hand. I think Orsetto comes in with a point about lightly used cameras. I have used the FM3a sparingly. Interesting. But essentially you are right - it could do with a service anyway. I just hope that whatever the problem is, is easily dealt with as I have heard horror stories of whole shutter mechanisms having to be replaced and prices which are too much for my austerity addled finances here in the UK. It might end up on the scrap heap or sold for spares after all. Thanks for your advice and comments and hopefully I'll get back to you and let you know how I got on.