I just wish we knew whether a FF camera will come out or not....I've been putting off buying a K5iis for ages in the perhaps vain hope that there's something with a bigger sensor in the pipeline.

Eventually I'll probably just give up and migrate to another system, with all the hassle (22 lenses and 2 cameras to sell) that switching brands entails.

Thanks for that, Brian, looks interesting, I will try it out.

Thanks froeschle, will have a look at that!


I shoot in DNG, so it's nothing to do with it being a Pentax file.

No, I tried it at 16mm, and it did nothing there either....

The lens correction profile also doesn't recognise the lens automatically, which it does with all my other lenses that are in LR's database.

I've found that the lens distortion correction in LR5 doesn't do anything with the images taken taken with this lens. Has anyone else noticed this? Or know any way to get it to work?

The distortion from the lens at 8-12mm looks quite complex, with distortion not even across the image. I can get round it manually, but it's very time consuming, and I'm using the lens on an architectural shoot, for which the client wants a minimum of 60 images. I need to use this lens, as the available space around the buildings is extremely limited in places by busy roads, and some shots are not possible at longer focal lengths. On some of the buildings (there's 5 spanning 7 miles) I can't get closer to the buildings than the pole you see in the foreground of the first shot, though I will have the use of access platforms to get to mid-building height.

The exif also doesn't show the focal length the lens was set at.

Here's a couple of examples to show the type of image I am dealing with. Does anyone know of another program that would correct the distortion if I can't do it in LR5?

That parrot shot is as sharp as anything I've seen from an APS-C camera.....400 ISO too...

I'm not sure if I want the camera or the lens...both probably

Bit of a no-brainer really- there's some lenses available in M42 that cost a fraction of their K mount counterparts and perform just as well (or even better in some cases).

I fiddled around with removing the spring from my adaptors but have decided it was easier to to remove the lens first and the adaptor second. Perhaps a bit fiddly but better than the lens falling off the camera. I have two cheap adaptors and one original, and all work well. My Takumar 200mm f3.5 preset lens is sharper than any of the of the 3 modern zoom lenses I have that cover 200mm and it cost very little in comparison. Stop-down metering is easy enough, plus it's an enjoyable experience using thee old lenses..

Having just bought a Sigma 8-16 I'd recommend it over the 10-20, with the proviso that if you want to use filters then the 10-20 is the better choice. The 8-16 is definitely sharper, even to the point that I think I prefer it to the 15mm ltd. The 15mm ltd. is a fantastic little lens, and very handy when space is at a premium, but the edge sharpness lets it down imo.

The coating on the Sigma 8-16mm also seems to do something with blue skies that gives better colour than the 10-20. I'm still experimenting with the lens but initial impressions are it's the best wide-angle zoom I have come across.

I just replaced my FA 24-90 with another one after the original fell to bits. It's a perfect range for most of the aerial shots I take (much less than 24mm through the front windows and bits of the aeroplane get in the way). There does seem to be some sample variation imo: the original one I had was very good but the replacement is even better! It's the sharpest zoom I own.

I also have the 16-45, which I find good enough to stop me hankering after a DA* 16-50.

Thanks, Bob, enjoy it, looks a great camera!