I've always been puzzled by "Genuine reason for sale". I don't really mind why they're selling it, providing it works and isn't stolen

"Rare" = You'll see another one next week for less

Based on the attitude/level of intelligence of the troublesome ones I suspect they'd take it for a bazooka!

Agreed. I've heard that separation of the elements can be a problem, which isn't easy to spot in a photo of the lens. You can usually tell whether it's had a hard life, which I suspect many did as people bought them to turn their M series into a pocket SLR to carry everywhere.

I'd like one for my MX but I won't pay over £50 for one unseen. I have a 50mm f1.7 on there at the moment which is hardly a giant lens and which I paid £12 for (slight fungus, easily cleaned out).

Ahh, "that" sort of conservation...

The sort that would rather have a dead lump of metal than a working engine, because restoring it would involve replacing worn out original parts (which would have been replaced a dozen times in service) and besides which, they'd rather spend another million on a certain over-exposed green steamer. See also HLF and their suggestion that Bluebird K7 should have been displayed as mangled wreckage rather than the fully-functioning hydroplane that she'll be by the time the restoration is finished...

What museum types need to realise is that without visitors they would have no job. There are large organisations doing it right, such as the Imperial War Museum Duxford where half the staff seem to pop out to play with the tank collection after lunch (hugely popular judging by the number of spectators!)

I've heard of this before. Yes it's unfair, but their property = their rules. This is why I won't visit any of their sites.

Hopefully they'll eventually grow a collective brain and realise that their selfish action here is losing them a lot of free publicity. Maybe the Photographer's Rights movement could do something? I find it repellent that an organisation drawing public money is allowed to behave like this.

Ergh! That's a problem that I've managed to avoid causing as all of my mould removal has been on Pentax-M 50mm lenses where I've got away with not disturbing the focussing mechanism. Generally it's a case of needing to make a tiny adjustment to set the infinity position - on the rather nasty Pentax-A 28-80mm (non-SMC and a bit hopeless) I repaired there were three screws that controlled how far in the front element group was when focussed at infinity - basically you loosened them, set the infinity stop, and then turned the element group until it was properly set up before tightening them again. It still back-focusses but I couldn't get it any better as it kept moving by tiny amounts while tightening the screws!

This is why I won't fiddle with the focussing mechanism, or buy faulty zooms now!

It's not too bad if you read the manual - you just need to learn what all the little pictograms on the LCD mean. As it has a proper KAF mount you can put any K mount lens on and it'll work in at least aperture-priority mode. What I do expect to find difficult is that it gives no indication of what aperture it has chosen in Program AE mode, so I've no idea whether it's suitable for what I'm trying to photograph or not.

I'm currently fiddling about with mine, trying to put it into the various auto modes and metered manual. I'd rather learn now before I've put a film in!

Weirdly I actually find depth of field much easier with A series or earlier lenses, as they have a printed scale. The MX is definitely less complicated and the lack of any automation doesn't slow me down all that much.

It really depends on what's causing the hazing and how complicated the 24mm design is. If it's just dust or fungus on the elements then it can probably be cleaned off with a cotton bud dipped in vinegar. However, if whatever it is has attacked the coating on the elements then it's not likely to be repairable.

I wouldn't attempt to dismantle a telephoto lens or a zoom, as the more lens elements there are the more difficult it becomes to get it back together in the right order. Personally, if the lens was under £20 I'd buy it and sort it myself, but I don't want to talk anyone into buying a wreck that they can't then sort out.

If it helps, I've been quoted £40 to have fungus removed from a 200mm prime by a professional (A M Technical Services). I posted the lens a week ago and I'm just waiting for an invoice for the repair costs. I suspect he'd probably charge about the same to sort that 24mm out.

I'm in no hurry for a 40mm. I would like one for my MX but I won't pay over £50. The ideal would be to find one with a fungus problem as that usually scares people off, but I've sorted out three 50mm lenses with this fault, so it doesn't worry me providing the price is low and the lens a fairly simple design.

I could do with a handful of Pentax-branded 49mm lens caps but refuse to pay the daft prices asked by the above-mentioned ebay seller. I've also been horrified by their lens prices - I've had superb lenses from other sellers for a lot less.

Yep, but if you don't have any grass to hand...

I'm planning to shoot some slide film in my SF7 too, as I still haven't tried that marvellous old beast. It's a bit of nostalgia really - I always remember family holidays including a few rolls of the stuff that Dad would use in his K2 and I've been scanning some of the better results from those years of late. As I've now run a roll of black and white through the MX I know it works well, I've got another roll in there at the moment awaiting something worth photographing.