That is a print fillm if I recall correctly. Are you comparing the negatives or the prints? Tha vagaries of the printing process might have more to do with this than anything else - to do a 'proper' test you need to use either transparancies or possibly a DSLR with the white balance fixed

in that case you are really limited to finding a S/H 70-300 or similar - recent Tamron and Sigma models are both good, and the pentax 80-320 is also good but you probably won't get that for less than £100. You could also look out for the Pentax FA-J 70-300. Butwhichever lens you choose you will need to use in in conjunction with your kit lens rather than as a replacement.

Aperture (as usually undestood) normally means 'relative aperture' and is in fact the ratio of the actual aperure (the size of the 'hole' when looked at from the front of the lens) to the focal length. Thus a 50mm 1.4 has a maximum aperture of 35mm but a 300 2.8 has a a maximum aperture of 107mm

Because lthe amount of light a lens can gather is related to both its focal length (or more strictly its angle of view) and the actual aperture the relative aperture gives an indication of light gathering ability of the lens which is not related to focal legnth and therefore you don't have to take focal length into account when metering.

With a wide angle lens the 'hole' has to be rather smalller than the front element because of gathering light from a .... wide angle. So large relative aperture wide angle lenses are big, heavy and expensive. This becomes even more the case if it is a zoom.* With telephoto lenses the maximum size of the hole is usually the diameter of the front element - hence a 300mm F1 - if such a thing could be made - would have a front element 300mm in diameter. Hence wide aperture telephotos are also big, heavy and expensive. It is only when it comes to 'standard' or short telephoto that large relative aperture lenses are relatively easy to make and hence can be acquired without breaking the bank - the Pentax 50 F1.4 being a good example

* so the 16-50 2.8 is quite a bulky lens with a 77mm filter thread even though the bigest actual aperture is a mere 18mm - 50/2.8

<edit> PS I was obviously writing this as John wrote his post - sorry to repeat!!

The lens is probably this one
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/FA28-70f4.html
I had one and it is pretty good provided it does not have the fault stated (mine did not - but as I got the equally good and more versatile 28-105 3.2-4.8 I sold the 28-70)
cf. href="http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg185702.html" rel="nofollow" class="outlink" http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]">target="blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg185702.html

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ should meet most needs.

Basically any lens described as K, M, A, FA, or DFA will work fine with an MZ5. Avoid DA (reduced image circle and no aperture ring) and FAJ (no aperture ring so you can only use them in Tv or P mode) lenses.

A good start is to pick of a 50mm 1.7 'standard' lens - the manual focus ones can be had very cheaply - and 'play' a bit. Or a standard zoom - the FA 28-70 F4 is generally regarded as excelent but occasionally has a problem with two of the elements which are cemented together seperating. Does the camera come with a lens?

Hope that helps

I do occasionally. I leep a roll of colour slide film in the MZ6 (usually Velvia 100) and a roll of BW in the Super A (usually Delta 400) for a variety of reasons.

(i) I like using older cameras - this applies especially to the Super A. While I am very pleased with my K10D and use it most there is something about using a camera that I actually know how it works and could probably, if pushed, take apart and put back together again

(ii) I have ultra wide lenses which suit them - a K17 fisheye and a (suprisingly good) Cosina 19-35. The widest lens I have for digital is the 16-15 (ie 24mm equiv). I don't use that sort of wide angle enough to realy justify the expense of either the 12-24 (though I may one day stretch to the Sigma 10-20 - its in the balance with the short telephoto...) or the 10-17

(iii) There is nothing quite like getting a box of slides back from the processor and looking at them on a lightbox. And I like the grain on faster BW films when it is enlarged a bit. I know you can add 'grain' in post processing but that feels like cheating to me. I have good film scanning kit so I can move to digital printing quite easily. I currently don't have access to a chemical darkroom, which is a pity.

(iv) both are smaller (and lighter) than my K10D - indeed the Super A and the 50/1.7 will fit in my coat pocket. Of course the Optio is even smaller still but image quality is better from the Super A.

I know the 70mm 2.4 limited is designed for the digital sensor but so is the 40mm 2.8 limited and that in fact has a big enough image circle for film.

So I was wondering whether in fact the 70mm also has a big enough image circle for film. Has anybody tried it - or is there anybody who has one and a film body and willing to mount it and look through the viewfinder for vignetting?

I'm tempted by it as a portrait lens - but I could possibly be tempted by the 77 1.8 which obviously I could also use on the MZ6 and the Super A - not that I use them so much these days. However the 77 is almost twice the price!

Oops. Stupid mistake. Very sorry - Orkney of course....

(Anyway they are both somewhere north of the Alps aren't they )

Ring of Brodgar, Orkney, June 2007
K10D 16-45@16 200ASA 1/180 F11


Taken on the afternoon after arriving - the other three days were quite overcast and so not so good for photography.
I have what one might call 'artier' photos from the past year but this one gives me a lot of pleasure by its simplicity.

A good idea

Here is a rather rough and ready illustration of what you could do with your dog image

[/url]