Got it JR, thanks for that.
I was just afraid that I might have overstepped the line on couple of occasions that I had provided some links, that's all. Now I am fully clarified, and happy
Thanks

Amin

I have the official receipt and the new owner can register the lens with its serial number with Samsung.

The lenses are brand new. Bought officially from Dixons Stores.
I have been given the official receipt that was given by Dixons at the time of purchase. Looking through the literature inside the box it says that you have to register with Samsung by filling up the card and sending it to them.

Its best if anyone has any doubts to call samsung and confirm how the warranty transfer would work.

Alternatively if you want a receipt in your name with full address also is an option. If you PM me I am happy to provide further information.

Hope this helps.

Sorry John
just wanted to be sure about the rules regarding links. So it means links to any resellers or outlets are not allowed to be uploaded here? I am just a bit confused, could you please just clarify so that I dont post something that is not allowed? I might be missing something here, because I do see links put up to resellers, but got confused on why this one was removed.

I am sorry if I have missed something but prefer to have it clear in my mind, that's all

Thanks

Amin

Samsung 12-24mm lens brand new, with hood and cap, all fully boxed and intact. Never been used.

If anyone interested drop me a PM.

£400 plus postage costs.

These are the lenses, if you want to see individual images then my flickr site has a set with them here

Matt,
Dont get me wrong but I think this version of the image is definitely bad. You just have to look at the tone of the subject's skin particularly her face as the profile has been captured and it just shows those really bad patches, only difference is in the coloured image is reddish and in yours its darkened. Not a nice image at all and the black line around her left leg really is out of control.

Martin's version looks much more controlled and nicer to the eye. Of course this considering the fact that the original one is not exactly a very high quality anyway but a good transformation still under the circumstances.

Just my personal humble opinion anyway so feel free to repudiate it

Stefan I can see you have quite a fertile imagination huh? In fact I also see that, but I can also see a girl doing a butterfly stroke in the pool. The buttocks of the first image you imagined would be her knees bent in a perfect motion of the butterfly style, and her head bowed down in perfect synchronisation.

So instead of facing up the image of the lady would be facing down

Once you visualise her knees bent and her head facing downwards and both arms stretched perfectly for that precise butterfly swim action then you can see the rest of the image neat and clear

Go ahead, I will send you the bill by post .
Seriously now, really that might give you a fraction of less time calculating because instead of calculating twice the half of an amount you would just need to calculate a quarter of an amount, this I mean assuming the doubling of the original figure usually is the fastest one to get.
Getting too mathematical here, may be its time to go watch some TV and leave the PC alone for the deay
But would be interesting to know how you get along with the calculations by the way

Oggy, that's quite interesting what you are just saying. I would like to adopt a method that would allow me to do that also, knowing that its hard to lock into the AF with moving objects I have tried a few methods but none worked successfully.

So have you achieved some degree of success by applying the method you are stating above? Do you get it spot on that way?

I have tried activating the MF on the lens and then trying to focus manually by keeping the shutter releas button pressed and when the subject is in focus the shutter releases but I find that the images do not come really well focused. But I didn't try it a lot, so might even be that it was just sake of the camera.

Would love to find a method that would help me capture moving subjects actually.

Its not x2 plus a litle, its x2 plus a quarter of the original

Its the same thought process you are using to get the 0.5, so instead of 0.5 you just get the quarter and add it to the double of the range

It has been a long time I played last with smoke.
here is one, I wonder what shape or shapes you see from the smoke. I am curious to see if most if not everyone see the same shape or it varies depending upon how you look at it.

Last time when playing with wine glasses it was Dan that called my attention to the shape of the basketball player giving the thumbs up, it was curious because I too had seen a shape but totally the other way around and he had to mention that for me to immediately notice it once I knew what I was looking for .

Here is the image, any ideas please?
Oh and usual C&C greatly appreciated.
Its the smoke in colours again