Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,055   Posts: 1,561,350   Online: 1103
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicole View Post
    ... coupled with a good lens other than the standard kits lens, it should serve you well. ...
    "Standard kit lens"? Wasn't that the 40mm f:2.8 Pancake? That was a wonderful lens, which should not be brushed off as a "standard kit lens"! This was in 1979 or so - long before the horrible "standard zooms" became "standard".
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  2. #12
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    An MX was my first 35mm SLR too, also back about 1977 or so. It was a great camera, especially with the motordrive attached. I never had any problems with it. Only sold it when I went to Rollei SL35E for the Zeiss lenses.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  3. #13
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Ole, you could well be right. Mine came with a slow zoom lens which I wouldn't recommend.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by eddym View Post
    An MX was my first 35mm SLR too, also back about 1977 or so. It was a great camera, especially with the motordrive attached. I never had any problems with it. Only sold it when I went to Rollei SL35E for the Zeiss lenses.
    There were the 2fps winder MX and 5fps motor drive MX. With the 5fps motor drive it's very cool and can keep up with great number of modern cameras.

  5. #15
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,951

    That's Right

    Quote Originally Posted by Ole View Post
    "Standard kit lens"? Wasn't that the 40mm f:2.8 Pancake? That was a wonderful lens, which should not be brushed off as a "standard kit lens"! This was in 1979 or so - long before the horrible "standard zooms" became "standard".
    Thats correct Ole, I used to sell them new when they were current in my shop, customers could have the option of either the 40mm pancake lens ( also sometimes called the cyclists lens) or the 50mm.
    I cant remember if they were the same price it was a long time ago.
    Ben

  6. #16
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Ben, I think the 50mm option was the 50mm f:2, which is an incredibly sharp lens and was slightly cheaper than the 40mm. But since the MX with the 40mm was smaller than most "compact" cameras, I would expect the majority to go for that.

    There were other 50mm lenses produced too, but those would have been faster, heavier, and more expensive. The f:2 -M lens was small, compact, cheap and sharp.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    398
    For most markets the 50/1.7 would have been the kit lens. Most M series camera you see on eBay have this lens. This is supposed to be the sharpest of the Pentax 50s wide open, albeit by a small margin. All of them are superior to the 40/2.8 but none are as compact so everything is a trade off somewhere.

    If I'm shooting 35mm then I'll usually take an MX with 35/2, 50/1.2 and 85/2 as I'm often shooting in low light. If I'm packing light then it might just be the 40/2.8. The focussing screens are interchangeable and the LX screens are compatible and slightly brighter than the MX screens.

  8. #18
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I've been everywhere ooooohhh yeaahhhh still I'm standing tall.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,654
    My first camera was an MX, back in the days when hair was big, jeans were stonewashed and New Romantics walked the earth (jumpers for goalposts ...mmm.....). Really nice little cameras and I agree that the 40mm pancake is a great lens which has a lot in a small package (LOL)-in fact I'm going to snap up a couple more MXs when I get the chance. happy snapping!
    "He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.

  9. #19
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Here's a shot I made with the MX and the 40mm lens. I was testing the lens and ended up not buying it, but was very impressed by it anyway.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 279-13-1.jpg  
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  10. #20
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,951

    MX

    Quote Originally Posted by Ole View Post
    Ben, I think the 50mm option was the 50mm f:2, which is an incredibly sharp lens and was slightly cheaper than the 40mm. But since the MX with the 40mm was smaller than most "compact" cameras, I would expect the majority to go for that.

    There were other 50mm lenses produced too, but those would have been faster, heavier, and more expensive. The f:2 -M lens was small, compact, cheap and sharp.
    Thanks Ole, for refreshing my memory I've slept a few times since then, however I do remember we sold A lot more with the 50mm F2, probably because a lot of the people who purchased them were first time SLR buyers, and it was hard to convince them that the 40mm was a better option, since they would eventually probably buy a 28mm and a 80-200 zoom as most average customers did in those days. The MX was a lovely little camera, and as tough as old boots. I wish I had one now.
    Ben

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin