As a local, the price really puts me off. For that much, I'd want to spend a whole day there, really see everything. But since I never seem to get organised (read: it's not really a high enough priority), I go very rarely.

Whereas if it was a fiver, I'd probably go for a few hours several times a year, to catch different seasons and times of day. So they'd get more money out of me, to say nothing of the additional spend on tea and cakes, maybe the odd book too.

You can't go inside the pagoda, anyway.

Ok, thanks for answering one part of my question.

What about this:

??

This page is quite interesting. It has a lot of EXIF decode information.

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Pentax.html

In particular, the lens tags.

Note that the old A-series manual focus lenses ('2 0 x') are not differentiated.

So I'd like a bit more information about how your lens decode was actually done.

Incidentally, PhotoMe has not been revised since 2009, and the K-5 was released after that. I don't know whether this is relevant.

Interesting. I don't have a K20D, but I just tried it on the K10D with a Pentax A 50mm 1.7, and 28mm 2.8.

In the EXIF (via PhotoMe) it just gives:

Lens Id: 2 + 0 + 0
Pentax lens type: A
Lens name: A series lens.

Can you verify that it was actually different with the K20D?

What does the lens ID field contain for the example you cite? And what lens was it in reality?

Manual focus A-series lenses? Are you sure????

I'd have thought that the old MF A lenses were all made long before EXIF information even existed, so I'm amazed to hear this.

PM sent.

< eyes tight shut, fingers in ears >

I so mustn't even consider buying any more lenses for a looooong time.

I like the first one, and 'too quick'.

It occurs to me that not being sharp when actually it's supposed to be, and not being sharp when really it isn't, are quite different things.

WR aside, I found it very frustrating in Edinburgh recently not to be able to go wider than 18mm (on the 18-135 as it happens). Not being able to get closer and still have the camera horizontal meant lots of distracting foreground, or alternatively lots of converging verticals.

I think next time I have a few hours to kill wandering around a city, I'll take the 10-20 instead. Not WR, I know, but it's not all that difficult to shield the lens if it's not raining too much.

Nah, looks totally real. Spec, too.