I got a decent Super Takumar 55/1.8 on ebay a few months ago
for £30 inc. post so they are available..... keep looking

Some Art Teacher rang Radio 2 to say that she had been teaching
her pupils about Picasso when one of them asked "Please miss why
did Picasso call himself after a car?"

Good I've got one but never really tested it. Seem to
remember the contrast being a bit low on digital.

It isn't a pin that stops it down, you cock it with that silver
lever on top (push from N towards X quite heavilly sprung)it should
then stay open until the normal M42 pin is tripped by the camera.
It then stays stopped down until you cock it again.

I notice that you haven't said that it's not as sharp as
your 35mm f/3.5 ........ (yet!)

If it's in a book about the history of photography then it's OK by me although generally a camera and lens should be involved

My favourite piece of art was when KLF burn't a Million Pounds
Try doing that with a camera

I can't see why it matters. Photography is photography... it's very simple to define.

Someone might define it as art one week and say it isn't the following week, but they will never be able to say it isn't photography

To me a lot of art is just garbage anyway

Your better off with the F 300mm... optically identical, but
has a foot. Plus better focussing ring for manual. The DA*300 is slightly better wide open, probably about
the same from one stop down. The four photos in my gallery were taken with the F 300mm.
I've now got the DA*300mm and hardly notice any difference.

The one on ebay yesterday looked very rough from the one photo
that the seller posted. One went a week or two ago from a seller
with 1 for feedback for about £550 I was surprised. From a good
seller they go for £580 - £650 ish.

I notice the DA*300mm has been reduced to £909 at SRS.
Not very nice for anyone who paid the original price and it's
devalued everyone's SH values

I've just looked at your original image David.... it's 1024 pixels wide so it must have been reduced by the board software.

The original hasn't got jaggies and on a different monitor the reduced one isn't as bad.... barely noticeable in fact. It's probably the colour profile on my other monitor that's made them look worse.

I've never noticed it on other photos, but most are posted 800 wide which saves them being reduced again.

I'm glad it had nothing to do with the K-5

Aliasing then?

http://desktoppub.about.com/od/glossary/g/aliasing.htm

It's not very good, Pentax not having clear names for their 35mm's
although that has always been the case with all manufactures regarding
long lenses the aperture has to be quoted along with the focal length
i.e. 300mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0 So it seems to be the fault of the
posters for not quoting apertures