I used my kitchen cupboards - the wood grain is quite good for checking sharpness. First, the 80-200mm at 200mm. I've posted links to avoid resizing the images:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x21/Kingofthemountains/IMGP2811-2.jpg

Second, the 200mm. Both shots taken at f8 with the same camera settings then uploaded:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x21/Kingofthemountains/IMGP2813-2.jpg

Interestingly when I tried shooting with the 200mm in A mode (using Av and setting it to f the resulting image was darker than that produced by the same lens in M mode, set to f8 and using stop-down metering. Given that I had to use the latter with the 80-200mm anyway I decided to use it for both in the interests of fairness, although when I put the lens back into A mode the camera claimed that it was overexposing by 2ev.

I don't think there's much in it TBH. The A series is obviously easier to use, it's also a bit shorter and lighter than the zoom. They're pretty close in terms of image quality however, and if you use an LX, KX or MX you get the aperture in the viewfinder anyway!

I haven't really tried them head to head - I use the M 80-200mm on film and the A 200mm on digital, as the A setting makes it a lot more compatible with a DSLR. I'll give it a go in a controlled environment (tripod, same subject at same distance) and post a couple of sample photos.

The M 80-200mm really was an impulse buy after seeing it for £20. It arrived with an original front cap and a few paint scuffs but mint optics and no dings on the retractable lens hood. It's obviously been used by someone who cared for their gear.

I think there's one on there as we speak for £30, at that price you'd be daft not to buy it!

I would, but I already have the Pentax-A 200mm f4 and Pentax-M 80-200mm, so I have my manual zoom and A series 200mm needs covered. The early version of the M 80-200mm is a rebadged K series lens and very sweet to use.

I'm given to understand that the number of airworthy Spits actually increases. The engines and airframes can be overhauled and there is a steady demand for airworthy examples.

There is a long-term plan to get another Lancaster flying - the owners of "Just Jane" are apparently gathering parts, as she's essentially capable of flight but needs the paperwork to prove it.

I work in a theatre, handling lighting and sound gear. We don't buy gold plated cables or horrifically expensive ones. We do buy good quality shielded ones, but that's due to needing them to be hard wearing and resistant to interference. We definitely don't use ones that have had any pseudoscientific nonsense applied to them!

I realise this was a while ago (and you may have solved it by now) but a couple of things I've found:

You don't need a flash. I've taken shots of productions using just stage lighting with the white balance set to Tungsten, they come out looking like shots of a stage show in progress rather than studio portraits but I'm guessing you want that? I used a 120mm f2.8 from the back of the hall last time and the cast were perfectly happy with the results - they preferred them to those produced by an alleged pro who apparently turned up with a gigantic flash!

If the AF280T is anything like my AF200T the green/red auto modes will work with the K-m - handy for grab shots. Just beware of settings which require a larger aperture than the lens can handle, for example at 200 ISO the AF200T in red mode wants an aperture of f4, which not many short zooms can manage at the long end of their range.

Now have an AF240Z on the way, which looks as though it should work. It has a bounce head and two or three program modes (different aperture depending on which mode and ISO you set) along with manual mode.

I think this is the one I've heard rave reviews of - just make sure it's the SMC version. The only snag will be that, as with all manual zooms, you'll have to set the shake reduction on the camera and then decide what to do when you change the focal length.

I really would not advise doing this. I tried a professionally cut-down screen in my K-m and went back to a standard one shortly after. The problem for me was that the 3rd party screen was too dark, and the split prism was both massive and not quite accurate enough. Obviously the prism was sized for the larger viewfinder of a 35mm camera where it wouldn't be quite as dominant in the field of view. The ME Super screen is designed for a much larger viewfinder (which gathers more light in the first place) and will probably look as dark as the one I tried if cut and fitted to a DSLR.

You also stand little chance of cutting it down without scratching it heavily. If you really want to try a split prism screen, put this one back in the ME Super and buy one that has been pre-cut to size. I hear great reports of the Katz Eye screens, unfortunately thanks to the UK import duties (and the collection charges imposed by Parcelfarce) they'd be prohibitively expensive for me to order one from the USA.

I've found a monopod works best if you think of yourself as the extra two legs. I tend to grip it and press down firmly with one hand, which reduces any tendency to wobble.

They are not as good as a tripod for long exposures - I use mine for distant subjects as it makes composing the shot a bit easier than attempting to hold a heavy zoom steady.