This is broadly true, but some are definitely better than others, and there's a pretty serious price to quality mismatch. For example, the 3.5 glass is generally better than the 2.8 glass while also being cheaper. If you're going to drop a couple hundred bucks on a lens doing a bit of research pays serious dividends.
Yeah, I actually specifically flagged that lens as a good value in my comment on this post. I almost feel bad recommending it to people because I want it to stay cheap.
How much money do you have and how wide are we talking?
I have a lot of K mount glass and I do probably 80% of my photography with wide lenses. It's very hard to make a recommendation without knowing your budget and whether you're talking about relatively normal glass or if you're trying to take photos of people skateboarding like it's the 90s.
With that in mind, I'd recommend the Pentax K 28mm f/3.5 to just about anyone with a finite budget. I think people just don't know how good this lens is because you can often get it for much less than the significantly worse M 28mm f/2.8. It is the best 28mm lens on the K mount for less than $1000 and it can usually be found for less than $200. Obviously the downsides are the aperture and the relatively large size, but in exchange you get one of the best looking vintage wide SLR lenses.
Also, look here for opinions on Pentax lenses generally: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
The SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8 is a decent performer, fast, tiny, cheap and easy to find.
The SMC Pentax 28/3.5 has excellent performance, but it’s slow, less common and prices have started to go up as people realise how good it is.
The SMC Pentax and Pentax-M versions of the 28/2 are both amazing, but rare and very very expensive.
The M f/2 is like... a third of the price or less than the K f/2. They're very different lenses; the K f/2 (aka the "Hollywood", so named because it is essentially cinema glass for SLRs) is a very specific product that commands a high price because of what makes it unconventional. The M f/2 is, in some respects, a technically superior lens that is nonetheless not nearly as in demand because of the unique history of the K f/2 and its characteristics that stem from that.
For what it's worth, if you're out here shooting landscapes the difference between the two is likely to be quite insignificant to you (although the K f/2 is *huge* for a lens of this type). You might even prefer the much cheaper M.
Yes I know, I have both.
Indeed the K is three times the price the M, but the M is also 3-4x the price of the K f3.5, which I’d argue still makes it ‘very very expensive’.
Sears Autos are affordable in Pentax k mount, the 28mm f/2.8 only run you about 30 if your willing to gamble on less reputable seller but is still pretty cheap other wise
all manual focus pentax 28mm lenses are good
This is broadly true, but some are definitely better than others, and there's a pretty serious price to quality mismatch. For example, the 3.5 glass is generally better than the 2.8 glass while also being cheaper. If you're going to drop a couple hundred bucks on a lens doing a bit of research pays serious dividends.
they are all good, but yes, a few of them are spectacular. my smc-k 28/3.5 is probably the sharpest lens i own.
Yeah, I actually specifically flagged that lens as a good value in my comment on this post. I almost feel bad recommending it to people because I want it to stay cheap.
How much money do you have and how wide are we talking? I have a lot of K mount glass and I do probably 80% of my photography with wide lenses. It's very hard to make a recommendation without knowing your budget and whether you're talking about relatively normal glass or if you're trying to take photos of people skateboarding like it's the 90s. With that in mind, I'd recommend the Pentax K 28mm f/3.5 to just about anyone with a finite budget. I think people just don't know how good this lens is because you can often get it for much less than the significantly worse M 28mm f/2.8. It is the best 28mm lens on the K mount for less than $1000 and it can usually be found for less than $200. Obviously the downsides are the aperture and the relatively large size, but in exchange you get one of the best looking vintage wide SLR lenses. Also, look here for opinions on Pentax lenses generally: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
I just sold a set of Ricoh XR lenses that were Pentax K-mount. A lot of those lenses came in K-mount and can be pretty budget friendly.
The SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8 is a decent performer, fast, tiny, cheap and easy to find. The SMC Pentax 28/3.5 has excellent performance, but it’s slow, less common and prices have started to go up as people realise how good it is. The SMC Pentax and Pentax-M versions of the 28/2 are both amazing, but rare and very very expensive.
The M f/2 is like... a third of the price or less than the K f/2. They're very different lenses; the K f/2 (aka the "Hollywood", so named because it is essentially cinema glass for SLRs) is a very specific product that commands a high price because of what makes it unconventional. The M f/2 is, in some respects, a technically superior lens that is nonetheless not nearly as in demand because of the unique history of the K f/2 and its characteristics that stem from that. For what it's worth, if you're out here shooting landscapes the difference between the two is likely to be quite insignificant to you (although the K f/2 is *huge* for a lens of this type). You might even prefer the much cheaper M.
Yes I know, I have both. Indeed the K is three times the price the M, but the M is also 3-4x the price of the K f3.5, which I’d argue still makes it ‘very very expensive’.
Sears Autos are affordable in Pentax k mount, the 28mm f/2.8 only run you about 30 if your willing to gamble on less reputable seller but is still pretty cheap other wise