Ok, so we expect long lenses to be slower since it's expensive to make glass elements the size they'd have to be for the lens to be faster.

So how come it's the 50mm lenses that are the fastest?

Why, for instance, would a 28mm lens not be easier to make faster than a 50mm?

Well, yes. But only if what you show is suitably enlarged, so that differences between the lenses you're evaluating are large compared with a screen pixel.

And obviously you need enough pixels in the image itself to allow this kind of enlargement.

Quite. And you could think it was wonderful, but it might be no better than a poorer lens could produce at that resolution.

This is why the earlier request for pictures from the 16-50 is a little pointless in the absence of identical pictures taken with different lenses for comparison. If they were supplied at their original sizes, it may be that the more experienced among us could distinguish between what is due to the lens, and what is due to the PP, but I doubt that I could.

Mostly I don't, since very rarely is the quality of the lens I'm using the limiting factor - much more often it's my technique.

Ah, so you're expecting people just to send you their PEFs, then, together with photos that they'd also taken under identical conditions with other lenses.

Yes, that would work.

How do you plan to evaluate the lens, Pete?

I was being polite. It was an appreciative "wow". Not at all a disbelieving "wow", no, not at all...

Wow. Don't think I've ever heard a woman say that.



(runs for cover)

Sure, sorry if it wasn't obvious that's what I meant - the point I'm making is that the vast majority of my pictures don't warrant saving in a lossless format. I keep the original unsullied JPEGs.

Picasa makes all this incredibly easy - you can do a bunch of quick edits, and it automatically saves the originals in a subfolder of wherever they are, when you save the edits.

That way I can do a bunch of very quick edits just to confirm whether or not it's worth spending a bit more time on a few of them, and I've still got the originals. It has a very useful "locate original on disk" function that pulls up Windows Explorer with the folder already open and file highlighted. A right click and an "Open with.." leads to all the grown-up stuff if I want it.

I take your points, John. It must depend on what you're planning to do with it, though.

If you take the original JPEG out of the camera, edit it, and save it for the web, there's no advantage that I can see in saving as TIFF - except to freeze the edits before the final resize and sharpen so that you can do other things with it.

When I start getting more results good enough to print at a decent size I'll start going to a lossless format for the intermediate step. But mostly when I'm done with the first pass, if I think it's good enough I usually want to go back to the original to do the editing better.

Which reminds me... does anyone know offhand if there's an easy way in Elements 5 or CS3 that lets you save the undo history with the PSD?

It would be a massive benefit to be able to save a work in progress, then be able to open it again and go backwards as well as forwards.

I ticked JPG.

I know.. progressive loss of quality on every save, I ought to be shooting RAW anyway... etc, etc..

I do keep the originals, though, unchanged, whether PEF or JPG. One of these days I'll take something good enough to warrant the TIFF.

I'd be happy with £15 for the camera (though obviously more would be nice) - it's more than I paid for it, and it included a 'free' SMC-A 50mm F2 in nice condition and a decent bag.

Mostly I was wondering whether to pitch it at those out there wanting a replacement or additional body, or at people wanting a 'kit', as it were, that would be immediately useful.

I've got an ME Winder too, that I'll probably never use again...

Just musing, really, I realise there's not much to be made on MF bodies any more.