Another prime to consider would be the Samyang 85mm f1.4. Cheaper than the Sigma or Pentax versions, but MF only of course. I've got one, and am very impressed with it, it's very nerly as sharp at f1.4 as at any other aperture, by f2 it is as aharp as at f8.

Great shots, lovely to see the Vulcan flying again.

This lens is almost permanently on my K5, as it's the one I use most for aerial shots. Today I noticed that the whole focusing ring moves, with a gap between the focus ring and aperture ring. The whole thing is also a bit wonky. The lens has always wobbled a bit (the build quality of these lenses is terrible, but the optics are, or rather were, excellent), but now it's unusable. I was wondering if anyone else has had this problem, and if it would be economically viable to get it fixed and if so, who would be the best people to send it to and how much would it be likely to cost?

Great shots as per usual Gary! I find it very odd that Pentax aren't interested, your gig shots would be great advertising for them. Have you approached them since Ricoh took over?

Not my sort of thing at all, but I love that last shot.

Michaels in Melbourne, on the corner of Lonsdale and Elizabeth Streets, had them in stock last time I was there (about a month ago). Speak to Goran, I always seem able to wangle a good discount from him.

Algi, why on earth would they be tempted to change the K mount after releasing four new cameras using it in the space of 7 months? Two of these in the last few weeks?

I have had a few prints turn up from DSCL with a colour cast, especially, but not exclusively, mono ones, so I now do all the adjustment and re-sizing myself, and they just print the images. I've not had any problems since. They are good about replacing prints that you aren't happy with. The lustre prints are really good, in fact as good as any I have had from more expensive labs. I've not tried any of their fine art papers.

I've also had a couple of mono prints done on metallic paper, probably not everyone's cup of tea, but on mono images with a good range of tones I like the finish. I've sold a couple of metallic prints (though they were IR, which seems particularly suited to metallic paper.)

The statement says quite clearly that they will continue to use the Pentax name on products. Even if they didn't, they'd hardly be likely to give up the PK mount, would they, especially after already introducing two new cameras using the mount?

I don't understand why so many people here always see any change as a bad thing? I find it hilarious if not a bit sad. The Ricoh buyout is probably the best thing that has happened for Pentax and users of their equipment in 30 years.

If you allow a printer to re-size your prints, you don't have the option of sharpening them yourself. Enlarged prints should be sharpened after re-sizing; you will not get the same results sending an already sharpened file and allowing them to enlarge it. On smaller enlargements this may not be particularly noiticeable, but on very large prints it will be. I'm printing sizes up to 60 inches, and send the file already re-sized and sharpened. I am certain that sending a sharpened file and allowing the printer to enlarge it will not get the same results.

Another factor with large prints is viewing distance. While sharpening for screen can be done at 100%, for prints it's best to do sharpening at 50% or even 33% for a 2x enlargement, 25% for an even larger print. A print viewed at 4 feet also does not need to be printed at 300ppi. I usually use 240ppi for large prints that will go on a wall, which is more then enough imo. (though I noticed, Greg, that you said "Resolution remains at 240 ppi". This seems to be a default setting in Lightroom. An un-enlarged file should always be printed at 300ppi imo). As the ppi decreases, the optimum radius for sharpening increases, as it also does with viewing distance. Cambridge Colour have a sharpening radius calculator here ,which I find works especially well using the High Pass Filter in Photoshop to sharpen an enlarged image. Using Unsharp Mask it doesn't seem to work as well, with the eyeball being a better calculator in this case.