Hi, I've had both, although I didn't have the M 35/2 for very long. The 35mm lens is better in almost all respects than the 40mm. The optical quality of the 40/2.8 is rather poor with not much detail resolved. It's probably too small for most men's fingers to make focusing easy.
However, it's a very nice focal length, and its very smallness makes it useful on a small camera like the MX. I got mine (as a curiosity more than anything else) for about 30% less than I paid for my M 35/2, with both being in similar very good condition, and I'd say that's about the correct ratio in terms of value and quality. If I had to choose between them I'd pick the M 35/2 every time. It's not much larger, it's easier to focus and the optical quality is fine. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "I do not go 'Click! Click!'. I go 'click!'" - Henri Cartier-Bresson Friday, December 14, 2001, 1:16:46 PM, you wrote: > Paul, I noticed that the 35 F2 FMC M go for the same price as the 40 F2.8 > SMC M.Which of the two would you get first? Is the pancake really that good? > Thanks. Bob. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
