Lukasz wrote: How good a lens it is? I may have an opportunity to buy it, should I do it? What could be the fair price?
Lukasz, Like the SMC 50/1.4K, the lens was made 1975-1977. The 50/1.4K apparently was somewhat different from the 50/1.4 screwmount (I assume, because everyone raves about the screwmount but few rave about the K mount). But the 55/1.8 is exactly the same as the 55/1.8 screwmount. I began to read good things about this lens on PDML recently. Here are the comments I have collected. If you decide you want one, let me know by email; I know of two more for sale: one in North America for $45, the other in Scandinavia for about $90. Also several 55/2Ks in North America for $45 and unspecified prices. And more than 10 50/1.4Ks for $75 to $150. Comments: Brendon McRae: "I have seen the K 55mm f1.8 a number of times. I think they just don't cause much of a stir since the 50mm f1.4's and f1.7's are more sought after (not to mention the f1.2's). Doubt it's a dog as the SMCT 55mm f1.8 is a very sharp lens indeed." Nitin Garg wrote: "I have rarely seen the k-mount version of the 55/1.8 or 55/2 on ebay or anywhere else. Is this lens a dog (comment at Stan's site seemed like it) or just produced very little ? Dave Stratton: "With the hope that I won't start a flame war.....I have a SMC Pentax 55/1.8.....And I use it !! I have found (I make this applicable to only the lenses I have and my use).... the 55/1.8 is on of the sharpest, highest contrast, lens I have. At f2 and beyond I have found that this lens really performs for me (I have a Canon 7 with a black 50/1.4 and the 55/1.8 gives equal or better performance). The 55/1.8 and a K85/1.8 are my basic kit. I have an M28.2.8 and an M50/1.4 that are both reasonably sharp, but do not have the high contrast, almost brittle bite of the 55 and 85. Maybe I just have one of the GOOD ONES I really don't know." Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . A50/1.2 is an excellent performer at f/8-11 with very high resolution and very good visual sharpness. Its visual sharpness at f/8-11 seems comparable to K55/1.8, or K55/2, at the same apertures in my own experiences." Bill Cassleberry - I have the F50mm f1.7 & it is a very good lens as far as I can tell. easily as good as my 55mm Takumar lenses, if not better." Mark Gosdin: "I have the 55/1.8 and 55/2 ( Both off eBay as a matter of fact. ), they are good lenses. Their rarity appears due to short production runs. According to Boz's site the 55/1.8 was produced from 1975 to 1977, the 55/2 from 1976 to 1977. They seem to have been the "Basic" lenses for the original K series. Especially the 55/2 as it is a deliberately "Choked" version of the 55/1.8, a classic mystery of Pentax marketing. I personally like the 55mm's perspective vs the 50mm." Fred: "From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: k mount 55mm: I have rarely seen the k-mount version of the 55/1.8 or 55/2 on ebay or anywhere else. Is this lens a dog (comment at Stan's site seemed like it) or just produced very little ? The K 55/1.8 (and the K 55/2 is exactly the same, except for some extra baffling to cut the aperture a bit) is definitely ~not~ a dog. My experience (although this is with just one sample) is that the K 55/1.8 is not a particularly strong performer at wider apertures, but is very sharp at mid-apertures and smaller. That is, it is soft at f/1.8 to f/4, and it gets somewhat better at f/5.6, but then at f/8 and above - all of a sudden - it is tack-sharp." Fred - . . . very soft from maximum aperture until about f/8, when all-of-a-sudden it [gets] very sharp throughout the middle apertures. Todd Stanley -" I have this lens, but haven't really gotten a really good feel for how it performs optically yet. It is a well built solid lens (typical of the K series). It seems to have a weaker version of that 3d effect of the limited lenses are noted for. No tests, but it's sharp, but I feel my A 50mm F1.4 is sharper, and maybe the A 50mm F2 also. One really nice thing about the lens is that it has a long throw on the focus, which makes very precise focusing a breeze. As for perspective I don't see any difference. Magnification I can tell a difference when shooting with both eyes open. It makes my Ricoh's viewfinder close to lifesize, which is why I like to use it on that body. It is also fairly easy to use on the KX in this regard, but 50mm seems more comfortable to me. On the ME the magnification is higher so a 50mm is the normal lens of choice." Lon Williamson: "Wide open it's soft, stopped down it seems pretty near as good as any. The thing touted about this lens, is with the old K body viewfinders, the 55 looks "exactly" life-sized. Which it does, and which I could care less about. But then someone like Shel might actually find this useful for "stealth" photography." Kelvin Lee: "I also had a K85/1.8 and the colour was somewhat more neutral, as is my older SMC Takumar 55/1.8...From Kelvin: I have a whole slew of screw-mount lenses ... but I think my favourite has got to be , interestingly, the SMC Takumar 55/1.8. Contrasty, yet neutral colours. Sharp. Better than the Super-Tak 50/1.4 I also have, though I don't have the SMC 50/1.4." Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
