The Niftiest 50 By All Means

I'm still working on the revised version of the "History of the Pentax Fast 50" article. Having just wiped egg off my face, I have to get it right this time. While you wait, a little tidbit to hold you over; still on the topic of Pentax lenses. And why in the world so much perseveration on lenses from a company that now commands .08% of the camera market? Because this is TOP, and I am your knight-errant and loyal servant Don Quixote. Which is to say, I didn't actually mean to do all this, and it's not exactly smart for the blog, but. The hobby first, dollars and sense (sic) second.

The Pentax HD FA 50mm ƒ/1.4 SDM AW ($996) and the Tokina Opera ($699) being the same lens or nearly the same lens optically makes for a weird situation. It means that Nikon and Canon FF shooters can get Pentax's "big honkin' normal" for their cameras...for $300 less than Pentax shooters can get it to use on a K-1 II. Odd state of affairs, no? (A reader pointed out this anomaly; as complex as the blog has gotten this past week or two, I can't locate his name. Thank you, whoever you are.)

Reminds me of my and Carl's articles about the Pentax Limited 35mm ƒ/2.8 DA Macro, my favorite 50mm-equivalent for crop-sensor Pentaxes. It's now pretty cheap, compared to its price when it came out—it was $750 MSRP when new and soon enough thereafter sold for $6xx if I recall. It's got a built-in, extensible lens hood, did I mention that? So you save yet more money.

That one was in a similar situation vis-a-vis the Pentax-Tokina connection, whatever that is. The Tokina version of the 35mm DA Macro lens was the discontinued and now-rare Tokina 35mm ƒ/2.8 AT-X M35 PRO DX Macro available for Canon and Nikon. It will probably be cheap if you do find it. Although the barrel is very different, it's the same lens in terms of construction (number, shape, and arrangement of elements) as the Pentax 35mm DA Macro Limited, which is a beautiful, beautiful lens. However, some reviewers have said the Pentax version has better flare behavior. Since flare behavior is one of the strengths of the Pentax lens, you want that. It's also possible that the Tokina version might not be compatible with your particular Canon or Nikon APS-C camera, so be sure you get return privileges if you do decide to buy one. I wouldn't recommend buying one, actually, for those reasons, but it's cheap enough to be a toy, so people can do as they please.

Last complication—the lens is/was available in two versions. Using official naming-strings now: the Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm ƒ/2.8 Macro Limited (green ring, pictured above) had the older SMC coating, and the HD Pentax DA 35mm ƒ/2.8 Macro Limited (red ring) has the current (post-2012) HD coating. As far as I can see, the two are almost identical. The only possible way to tell them apart would be in a direct comparison: overpoweringly bright light sources in the picture frame might have slightly less ghosting* with the HD than with the SMC. In certain situations. Otherwise it's a wash. (I suspect, on no evidence, that HD is cheaper for them to produce. With .08% of the market, they're not making up in volume what they lack in unit profit. There I go, making assumptions again.) If you find a used SMC version, which might actually have a lower price because it's not the latest one, I personally wouldn't hesitate. But there's also nothing at all wrong with HD. The HD version is the only one available new at this writing.

Just get it
Somehow the 35mm DA Macro got left off the quirky list of "My Favorite Normal Lenses OF ALL TIME." An oversight; the Great Brain is deteriorating with age. It belongs on the list.

If you shoot with a Pentax crop-sensor body such as a K-3 III and want a ~50mm-equivalent normal—yeah, that's .08% x 2%, but you're out there—then get the Pentax 35mm Limited DA Macro by whatever means necessary. I can almost guarantee you'll love it. Its images are lovely to look at. Your eyes will drink them in like cool, clear water.

And it's got a built-in lens hood.

If the lens is so good, then why didn't I keep it? Well, I might have, except 50mm is a bit long for the way I see with a camera. I learned that when I had my M6...I bought a 35mm Summicron and a 50mm Summicron, and I found I was forever suspended squarely in the middle when it came to putting one on the camera and leaving the other one home. That's why my favorite main lenses now are all in the 40–45mm range: the 35mm Summicron vs. 50mm Summicron battle never resolved.

More's the pity for me. A 35mm DA Macro on a K3 III or K3 III Monochrome would be the ant's pants. You could live happily ever after. Assuming you want to shoot with a ~50mm prime.

Remember, you don't have to take closeup pictures with a macro lens! Be like me, or like John Loengard, whose normal lens was a 55mm Micro-Nikkor, and use it as a normal "nifty fifty" that happens to focus real close. Ahh, that way lieth lenticular heaven! (Behold! A windmill! Charge, Rocinante!**)

Mike

*Remember, two basic kinds of flare: veiling glare, which is an overall cast of non-image-forming light, resulting in slightly to greatly reduced overall contrast, and ghosts, which are "object anomalies" like spots, rings, color rays, etc. The picture of Butters in this post has ghosts (color rays) but, surprisingly, not much veiling glare.

**The No. 1 bestselling book of all time, by the way. Excepting religious texts and, possibly, Mao Zedong's Little Red Book.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Gordon Lewis: "For what it's worth, I shot TOP's 2X print offering 'Precipitation' with a Pentax K7 and 35mm DA Macro. Here's a link to a higher resolution version than TypePad can reproduce. It would be silly to suggest that this photo couldn't have been taken with any other camera and normal focal length lens. On the other hand, the fact that this was a SOOC [straight out of camera] JPEG with no image adjustments whatsoever (or at least not on my part) suggests that one could certainly do worse."

Stew Epstein: "Funny you should mention the 55mm Micro Nikkor. That was my general purpose walk around lens for years on an old FE body. I shot Kodachrome 25 in those days, and boy oh boy was that lens sharp. I never found the 'slow aperture' a problem.

"Fast forward to today and I still use a similar style modern lens, the excellent Olympus 30mm Macro for the same purpose. The finest lens I have ever used, my personal favorite, was the Carl Zeiss 45mm Planar for the Contax G—in a word: stunning! I have a penchant for sharp, contrasty and versatile normal lenses."

Mike replies: That Contax 45mm got a lot of love. I believe it was John Kennerdell's favorite lens. He wrote the main article on bokeh for Photo Techniques, and some great articles for TOP.

Jeff Kott: "Any Sony shooters who might want to use Pentax K-mount lenses on their Sony bodies should check into the Monster LA-KE1 autofocus adapter. I was thinking about getting a Leica Q3 43 and wanted to see how I like using just that focal length, so I used the Monster adapter to put my old Pentax Limited 43mm ƒ/1.9 on my Sony A7CR to use for a few weeks. I’ve been loving the images so much that my Q3 lust has fully retreated. Being able to use Sony’s eye AF with my Pentax lenses is a dream come true."

Comments

[Andrew L]

You know what's one more "Big Honkin' Normal" for Pentax APS-C? It's an FA lens: the HD (or SMC) 31mm f1.8 Limited. It's what I use a lot of the time on my K-3 III Monochrome, because the images are just that good. Sure, the 31mm is a fast wide angle on FF, and for that reason comes the heft. It has a lot of glass! But the ~46.5mm effective on APS-C is oh-so-useful. Definitely feels less tight than ~52.5mm of a 35mm lens. And did I mention the images? It draws differently on APS-C than full frame, probably due to the fact that you don't see the corners, which vignette a bit and contribute to a 3D effect on a K-1.

[Chris Feola]

I'm with you on the 50's Field of View...It just doesn't fit my eye. I shoot roughly 70 percent of my images 30mm or wider - generally a LOT wider -- and 20 percent portrait/short tele. My other 10,000 lenses fill up the final 10 percent.
Indeed, when every "serious" 35mm camera came with a 50 I was infamous for giving them away to people who'd bought kit zooms. I do have the SMC Pentax 50mm F1.2, because...well, because 1.2.
These days my daily driver is the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome and, interestingly enough, the tack-sharp SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro has become one of my daily drivers.
I bought the 50 Macro to digitize old negatives, but it has proven so good and just outright fun that it has become a Monochrome daily driver, along with the wonderful HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE, and which ever of the 15 Limited and SMC 20 I am feeling that day. So I'm with you on the Macro as a walking around lens, too!

Cjf

[James Weekes]

I want to comment about the M-SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 that you talked me into the first time that you wrote about it. I tried it again, with an adapter, on my Lumix S5II (L-mount like the fp you have.). It is still a lovely lens. A bit lower contrast than a "modern" lens but rich gradations between tones, especially in black and white. The focusing is just smooth and creamy. I think I'll leave it on for a while.

[William Lewis]

I have seriously considered the SMC DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited. I have the SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL (aka "Plastic Fantastic" or "Stupid Cheap") lens already and it's insanely good. Noisy autofocus but the optical quality is up the with the best I own from Leica, Nikon and Zeiss.

But I decided for the tiny bit better speed and and the little better reviews and went with the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm F2 AL for my crop sensor needs. It has proven to be an exquisite choice thus far.

When I go out the door every day, I have my K-3, that 35/2 and camera is set up with pre-sets of U1: RAW, U2: Landscape color, tweaked for my tastes, JPG. & U3: Monochrome with a yellow filter effect, JPG. I always have wider and longer lenses along and even the magnificent HD DA 20-40 Limited zoom but it's the 35/2 that I start out with mounted.

OTOH, I have no doubt that I will eventually get the macro as well. I'll excuse it by saying I need to compare the various 35's against each other and I might just need, someday, the close focus of that macro capability...

But I'll really do it just because it's fun and I'm loving this late excursion into all things Pentaxian.

[hugh crawford]

But it’s a 35 not 50! Therefore not Nifty.
Most alive thirty five?
The no jive 35?

The distance from the front element at 1:1 must be pretty close, you can do retro focal optical tricks to push the film/sensor plane back and clear the mirror but no such luck in front.

[53.5mm equivalent. Close enough! --Mike]

[Ned Bunnell]

“More's the pity for me. A 35mm DA Macro on a K3 III or K3 III Monochrome would be the ant's pants. You could live happily ever after. Assuming you want to shoot with a ~50mm prime.”

You could use the FA 31 with the K3 III Mono. It’d be just outside your favorite range of 40-45mm at 46.5mm. And I think you might enjoy the results. A few random samples with no editing, other than converting the DNG’s using ACR and PS.

https://flic.kr/p/2oGeM4h

https://flic.kr/p/2otvbVs

https://flic.kr/p/2oyntu1

[Dave]

Nice shot of the '62 Corvette, Ned! Last of the solid axle Corvettes and had a "preview" of the '63-'67 Stingray back end.

Going from memory, I believe those wheel covers were quite expensive to produce, so GM went to a one-piece design thereafter.

That 31 mm Limited works a treat on the K3 III. Nice sharp contrast, but not overdone. You captured a nice glow on the side of the car.

[Dave]

Here's what Pentax Forums had to says about the DA35 Limited in both guises:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-limited-primes/conclusion.html

"What we can objectively conclude is that the HD lenses do a much better job of suppressing ghosting, and in harsh lighting they may produce images with more contrast."

"If we could only choose one of the five, it would the 35mm Macro, as it offers corner-to-corner sharpness and doubles as a fantastic standard walkaround lens."

[Ned Bunnell]

Thanks, Dave. I know the owner of the Corvette. He’s a very good photographer and joked he could have bought a Leica for what it cost him to restore those wheel covers.

I was actually surprised how much more detail the K-3 III Mono pulled out of my three FA’s (31, 43, 77) versus the K-1. And as you noticed, there’s also an increase in contrast, but still the lovely OOF transition and rendering I’m used to.

[Dave]

Ned,

Wow! I knew that restoring old cars was expensive, but choosing between a Leica or restored wheel covers would make most people think twice!

Thanks for the quick comparison between the K3 III and K1 with regard to the lens. That's interesting to hear there's a definite difference in output. Do you think the monochrome sensor has more to do with the increased contrast than the sensor's size (compared to the K-1)?

I don't have the 31mm Ltd yet, but of the other two, I love that 77mm Ltd. Such good photos, especially around sunset.

[Ned Bunnell]

Dave, the K-3 III monochrome sensor captures greater sharpness and detail since it passes all light through each photo site. There’s more data, and demosaicing is not required to produce the image using a color (Bayer) filter which the K-1 II has. The result is better image clarity and less noise.

I know Mike went into a lot of detail about this when he had his Sigma fp converted to BW, but I couldn’t find the post to give you a link.

Agree, the FA 77 produces wonderful images. But you should consider getting the FA 31 at some point. It’s a great lens for everyday use due to its’ FOV and the rendering is just superb.

[John McMillin]

Just reminding Mike that a DFA Pentax 31 Limited on a K-3lll gives a 46mm field of view. Plus all the glorious bokeh! I know he's aware of this, but he never mentions the option when he years for a wide normal.

[Dave]

Ned,

Sorry to send you in search of Mike's post about his Sigma fp! I guess I wasn't clear about the effect the DX sensor would have on the overall appearance (with greater depth of field compared to a full-frame sensor), but you answered that question anyhow -- it's basically all due to the monochrome sensor. I will search for Mike's Sigma fp posts to refresh my memory.

I already have the 35 mm f/2 lens for family snapshots, but now you've got me thinking about the 31 mm Limited and the K3 III Monochrome!

Thanks again for your insights.

[Dave]

Well, I got the 31 mm Limited. On sale, so that was nice. ;>)

[Congratulations. May it give you many gifts. --Mike]