Are you sure the 28-80 registers as a lens?
Did you switch the camera off to change lenses?

I like the first one... it's a lot different than the usual face the camera type wedding shot (even though it isn't a wedding.

You have to leave a space before the last bracket (ver. 8 )

A lot of these old 50's whilst quite sharp, just don't have colours as good as Pentax colours. I've just been testing a Yashica 50mm and it is sharp but the colours are just too washed out. I've got three Rikenon's and they turn black purple on AWB and can't match the Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 even when set on Daylight.

Looks complete Gareth.... even got a strap. Looks in slightly better condition than mine

They are OK wide open, but I prefer using f/5.6 and because they aren't a proper pre-set I just leave it set on f/5.6 all the time. The viewfinder image is as bright as an f/5.6 zoom lens anyway so no problem.

Personally I think it was all due to the negative attitude of the magazines to Pentax. A lot of the writer's had moved from Pentax to other brands and had to convince themselves (and others that they had told about switching systems)that they had done the right thing. Pentax were also too slow bringing out the bayonet mount. I think Olympus moved five years earlier and made a big fanfare about the OM1.

The rise of Canon was similar to VHS over the superior Betamax. Canon had gone down the "Shutter Priority" is best route, others had gone down the "Aperture Priority" is best route and lost out to Canon, mainly because a lot of amateur photographers imagined themselves as top sports photographers using big lenses that needed 1/1000th second on every shot.

AF caught on slowly for everybody. At first it was probably taken up by beginners. Pro's and advanced amateurs have always been against automation.

I used to admire MF Nikon lenses but the prices were horrendous (eg £260 for 28mm f/2.8 )when the AF cameras came out the AF lenses were much cheaper and everyone was saying they can't be much use at that price. I thought the same at the time.

1988 prices:
Nikon 70-210mm f/4 AF Zoom £184
Nikon 70-210mm f/4 AF Zoom £254 diff model
Nikon 80-200mm f/4 MF Zoom £595

As the pros and amateurs were already happy paying the high price for MF lenses the only reason that they would have brought out cheaper AF lenses must have been they were aiming at the beginner. With magazines as well in the 80's the beginner was seen as the NEW market and a lot of excellent magazines such as the excellent US Petterson's and even AP were really dumbed down.

That was cheap. I paid £30.95 delivered for mine complete with bakelite keeper and original caps and lens hood.

Very cleverly designed lens hood it takes the lens cap as well and smells like the sweaty inside of a Russian tank from WW2

Thanks Matt, Interesting. The 200mm A is the sharper there, but you wouldn't normally use it so close, so it's still worth doing another test at about 25m. Lenses sometimes give different results close up. Now that I think about it I think the 70-210mm zoom was like that, but at 25m the A and M were almost identical. The A was slightly better wide open.

What 300mm f/4? Obviously not Pentax