These branded IE's are nothing short of a disgrace. I once had Wanadoos version on and it seemed impossible to remove it.

Just install Firefox as the default browser and leave IE alone.

Rubber washer about 2mm thick. Have a look if B&Q have anything
on plumbing. If you see them putting a rubber roof on a building
there should be offcuts blowing about.

For anyone interested in properly focusing wide angle lenses here's the link again that MattMatic posted some time back. It quite clearly shows that DOF calcs aren't reliable (possibly because the assumption that the lenses are perfect and give the same resolution at every aperture) In this case the maximum "SHARP DOF" was found to be at f/5.6 link
Click on the images to see them larger.

This article "Depth of Field Revisited" by Harold M. Merklinger from 1992 by an author who has written a book on DOF suggests focusing on the furthest point that you want in focus (could be infinity) and using an aperture equal in diam to the smallest detail you wish to resolve. There are quite complex reasons for this (not included in the article). link

If you told us what browser you were using perhaps
we could help..... strange that only you is having
a problem with it

Just tried it on Firefox 2 and cancel works OK

Why can't you just press cancel like everybody else

Is that one you found on an archeological dig Chris?

70-200mm ish was always an awful range on film..... I bought the
85-210mm (approx. can't remember exact spec.) Takumar in the early
70's and then moved to the 80-200mm M in the late 70's and all that
time I got really sick of having to keep taking the lens off to
change to the standard 50mm for a slightly wider field of view.

Why people are still quoting these archaic focal lengths I don't know,
they are as out of date as 58mm standard lenses.

That's not on birds though Bob. The later sensors are a massive
leap up from the K20D especially the K-5..... I can't believe how
good the 55-300mm zoom + Pentax 1.4x-s converter is on the K-5

This shows what seems to be a massive curvature of field and
what nonsense DOF calcs are:

Lens: Kiron 28-105mm Camera K-5 200ISO
All at f/8 1/200th sec.

All shots are straight Jpgs off the camera with no PP and all
were captured by pressing the PrtSc button with the screen set to
800 x 600. Viewer = AcDSee

LHS of pic: Focused on bridge (40-50m away) by eye also green signal was on.
RHS of pic: Focused on Infinity

The left and right sides of the shots were almost identical so the
lens seems centered OK.

The centre of bridge shots are both acceptable and only included
for comparison with the right side of the bridge.

From DOF calcs everything should be in focus, but it isn't

1). Centre of Bridge




2). RHS of Bridge




Example of where DOF just isn't working.
Focused on centre of bridge at f/8 .... Far side and trees are OOF
(May not show up too good on this 800 wide pic.)
I would probably be better setting the focus at infinity.




The landscape solution with 24/28mm lenses seems to be start with
the lens set at infinity and take shots moving the focus ring by
tiny amounts back to about 15m and see which is the sharpest.

f/11 will help with the edge, but with most lenses the centre will
be worse than f/8..... maybe the half stop between the two would be
the best compromise.

A Sigma 24mm f/2.8 (recent purchase) gave similar results, but was
acceptable with the focus mark moved about 2mm back off infinity.

They are good captures and sharp enough, but 800ISO is too much for
the K20D. I used to fine 400ISO was only just acceptable. Later
cameras are OK at 800ISO. You should be OK with 400ISO using one
stop less on shutter speed.