Ooh I've always wanted to meet someone that actually uses this!!

Why is it so useful?

I mean, I know what it does, and why, but I've always found that if I'm stopping down enough to get much DOF, the viewfinder is so dark that it's hard to tell what's sharp. It's obvious that it's sharper, but how on earth do you see whether it's sharp enough?

A bit more steep turn practice required, then

Well that's all that matters then . For heavens sake, we do it for our own enjoyment, at the end of the day.

Well, smilies noted, but I didn't think it was bad. I think it's almost good, which is different entirely. You might think I'm just damning with faint praise but that's really not my intention.

'Almost good' means that the ideas were there, the execution was there, just not quite with the refinement needed to produce something really good. But that's good news, not bad. It's just refinement that's needed.

Anyway, what do I know... you don't need to pay any attention to me

Incidentally, I thought the first one was much better, and once I could see it, I did quite like it. As I said, a bit of levels adjustment brings it up without losing the moody, subdued feel overall.

.. talk about setting someone up.

OK, in for a penny.

I would hazard a guess that you were a bit disappointed with it.

If it was mine, it would be one of those "almost but not quite" photos. Some good ideas, but none of the elements quite has the impact I would have hoped for when I saw it in the viewfinder.

Sky not quite interesting enough, cow not quite detailed enough, foreground and tree-line not quite sharp enough, curve of the horizon itself not striking enough.

I have gazillions of shots in the "almost but not quite" category.

Not directly related to the picture, but I find it extremely difficult to offer any critique when someone says this.

It's always a bit of a worry phrasing things in such a way as to offer an honest opinion without risking hurting someone's feelings.

But if you already know that they really like it, it's a lot harder still.

Still... be that as it may, I think the picture itself is too subdued, since on my monitor at least, the bottom corners have very little visible detail. A levels adjustment is enough to solve that without making it overall artificially bright.

I can see it as reminiscent of Constable though.

Is that the FA 80-320?

It turned out that the cosmetics of the one I bought a few days ago was not really consistent enough with the description in the listing, and after I'd taken a few careful shots with it I wasn't all that impressed with it optically either.

So just in case there was some underlying problem I felt that safe was better than sorry, and agreed a return with the seller.

However, I still need something in that range, and I'm considering the Tamron, which can be got new at about the £100 price point, I believe, or maybe a bit more.

I borrowed a friend's one for a few minutes a couple of weeks ago, and took some low-light, hand-held pictures with it at long focal lengths, with which I was quite pleased. Also, the AF was much faster and quieter than the FA80-320 I used.

I've also seen quite a few pictures taken with one by a friend on safari. He was completely new to SLR photography, used a K10D and the Tamron 70-300, with everything set to default. The results were pretty good, although not surprisingly there was quite a bit of purple fringing when there was a bright overexposed background.

My tentative, and admittedly rather unscientific conclusion is that for a hundred quid or thereabouts, the Tamron is quite a good choice.

I'm still very undecided though. A suspect 80-320, against a new Tamron, only for a few minutes each is hardly a fair comparison. And I'm not exactly a lens expert either.

That said, it took me all of about a minute to develop a very warm feeling towards my FA 28-200, which has proved to be extremely well-founded.

It would be like a flash mob. It's occurred to me before, probably after a glass or (ahem) two of wine, that it would be mildly amusing for a bunch of us to register on a Canon forum, and then ask some innocent questions about AF accuracy or something.

Obviously I'd never do such a thing...

Anyway, it's when all their photos are way better than ours we'd need to worry

This bloke might be worth contacting.

He fixed the iris assembly on one I had.

Your problem now, Tim, is that now you've posted that Autumn woodland shot, which was the most exquisitely natural HDR photo I've ever seen (quite apart from it being just lovely in every respect I can think of), everything else will be judged by it.

Still, it's a problem I'd be happy to have.

I reckon it's the "non-Pentax-lens-detected-possibly-reads-internet-forums-containing-occasional-criticism-of-Pentax-we'll-just-scare-him-this-time" feature.