Can't get the full size ones.

___________

Edit: Ok, seen these now. I'd be inclined to reshoot these, making sure the camera is at right angles to the wall.

On mine, the barrel distortion is symmetrical.

(ie, same right as left).

Apart from the obvious things, like consistency across the frame, one thing to look out for is ensuring that it focuses when you want it to, rather than when the camera thinks it should.

I talked a bit about this here.

I don't think this is a fault with the lens, more a consequence of the extreme DOF you get at wide angles.

I might, in your position. I'm keeping my FA 28-200, even though what I was saying applies to it even more (although it is a Pentax, so its resale value might benefit from that).


In your place, I still would. The 55-300 is a revelation after it, and hanging on to the 80-320 will just make it harder to justify.

So do I.

I'd be sorely tempted to do a bit of judicious editing to make the cigarette in the dog's mouth even more obvious, though.

Sadly, I think you might have to face the possibility that you won't get that much for it, particularly not here.

Not for an instant questioning your standing, or the condition of the lens, nor the pictures taken of it, or with it.

However, the 55-300 has changed the consumer zoom scene considerably, in my view. By all accounts it's excellent for the price (£220, plus or minus), and there's been a flood of 80-320s hitting eBay just recently. One or two of them have gone for a lot less than they were fetching nine months ago.

Inevitably, I suspect, this will have a knock-on effect on other zoom ranges. I realise 28-300 isn't 55-300, but as you've hinted, something a bit wider is really needed for an all-purpose lens, and the 18-250, also very good by all accounts, fits that purpose very nicely.

The bottom line, I think, is that the Pentax lens range is now very good, and quite a lot of people that might have jumped at your Tamron some months back might hold off now. They'd need to save up a bit for the 18-250, or stretch a bit for the 55-300, but I think many might see either of those as better options.

I quite like the less-photographic-more-impressionistic style espoused by people like Duroo72 - not because I like them as photographs, but because I like some impressionist art.

It's easier to achieve a strong visual impact in that style, purely because it's not realistic (I suspect this is part of the reason black and white photography can be so full of impact, but that's a different, if not unrelated topic.)

However, with the realistic ones, I think it's much more difficult. Because on the one hand, you gain the impact from the dynamic range, but on the other, you inevitably lose the impact from the contrast - your recent church being a case in point.

Whether it's possible to get the best of both worlds, I incline to doubt, but I'm not at all convinced either way.

Welcome!

The best Pentax lenses that you should buy depend a lot on how much money you have to spend.

If you're loaded, get the '*' and limited lenses.

If you're skint, the kit lens is great for what it is.

Have a look round here, see what you think.

A lot of people here (myself included) think the best place in the UK to buy them is here.

Just to be clear, I had been arguing for no 'edited by' message only if there were no posts following the edited message, since it serves no purpose.

But I think we're getting there, bit by bit.

Great news folks...

Just received this from the dev team:

What do people mean when they say "consistent focusing"?

Is it:

- speed of AF lock
- focus accuracy in final image
- lack of hunting in low light
- something else?

I never had an AF SLR prior to the K10D, so I have nothing to compare it with.

What I have noticed in the 18 months I've had it, is that my ability to get the AF to do what I want (whatever that happens to be) seems to have improved enormously, and I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing differently.