Sent a pm re da 55-300.

What a calamity. Devastating, really: the equivalent of having a lifetime's negative collection (or transparencies) destroyed in a fire. And such fine photographs, too. I wonder how many of us rely on a back-up solution that is equally susceptible to disaster. My plea would have to be 'guilty'. My back-up is just inches from the computer it's backing up...

I hope Axel finds the will to bounce back from this. He is such a good photographer.

I'm not sure about 'wrong', but you might get him on 'impulsiveness'. It does seem odd to me to buy a new K5IIs and then almost at once sell it (unless of course he was disappointed in it). The Nikon is a great camera, if a bit of a brick compared to a Pentax. I was recently shooting a similar scene to another photographer; he with a D600, me with a K5. I liked mine so it is now a framed print (almost A2 format). I've only seen his result on screen. Up close you see additional definition, but my impression is that if you looked at both identically printed and hanging on a wall you'd be hard pressed to know which camera was responsible for which, at a normal viewing distance.

If a FF sensor were to be fitted in a camera close to the size of my K5, I'd have it .... but only once I'd had full use of my K5. I don't feel the smaller sensor is a constraint on what I do.

2nd set of photos more unexpected than the first, and so more disappointing in a way, but all cameras without an AA filter will be prone to the effect. So far as I can tell from reports only the Foveon sensor escapes the problem -- because of course it avoids the neat repetition of the Bayer pattern used almost universally by cameras.

I agree that an inch off the sky would be beneficial. I'd be tempted, too, to crop out the wire fencing on the rt-hand side.

For the most part, I don't think I'm very often going to feel the need for the longer focal lengths of some of the lenses mentioned. Although I'm using one on my 17-70, so far without problem, the reputation of Pentax's SDMs for a high failure rate pushes me a little towards non-SDM lenses, whether Pentax or other brands. The Sigma 50-150 2.8 sounds as thought it might be just the ticket - if only a copy were to present itself. I don't know anything about the Sigma 50-200. The comments above encourage me to investigate.

Thanks everyone. If past behaviour is a guide, I'll change my mind a few times before finally deciding! It's v helpful to have all this input.

I have to agree that the 55-300 seems a decent lens for its enticingly modest price, even if understandably not matching the IQ of other lenses so far mentioned. Likewise, constant aperture isn't essential in any strictly practical sense (just a preference). I shall ponder all these options... Thanks for your help.

Thank you, Jon. I take the point. The bulk is an important consideration, and I'll need to think carefully about it and what restrictions it would impose.

BTW, greatly enjoyed the photos on your website: a v nice collection.

Chris

The longest of any of my lenses is 70mm. I do occasionally find the need for something longer and it seems clear that a Pentax 60-250 f4 would be a good companion to my Pentax 17-70. But the price new is eye-watering and they rarely appear for sale 2nd hand. An alternative might be the Tamron 17-200 f2.8. The newer version is pretty expensive but isn't in Pentax mount. The older one is about 60% of the price. Does anyone on the forum use it? If so, what's your experience? IQ is important but so too is practical useability in the field. Are there alternatives you'd recommend? I prefer a constant f no. throughout the range, as with these Pentax and Tamron lenses.

Cabstar, is that a response to my post? I don't doubt what you say. I'm not sure it modifies anything I've said. Why go to law when a watermark or similar may prevent the necessity in the first place. And in the case you mention, as so often, it seems to have been pure chance that revealed the breach of rights.