I often wonder about that fabled M 35mm f1.4

Surely if you had one you'd get some decent photos and send them to the Dimitrov site (under condition of anonymity, to avoid security risks)? Just to prove whether it really existed or not?

I tried it briefly (black version) but wasn't impressed, it just seemed soft and the colours were a bit washed-out. The F 35-70mm was much better.

My advice: Get a decent polariser and some NDs/graduated NDs. You can produce most other effects digitally but those will allow you to slow shutter speeds (for the milky water effect), balance exposures when you have a bright sky but shadowy landscape, and of course flatten reflections.

The seals are very simple to replace DIY, the kits cost about £7 including postage from the USA.

That's incredible luck.

You might be able to gently tap the dent out of the top plate. Use blocks of wood to soften the hammer blows and provide a former (after removing it from the camera, obviously!)

To be honest, I tend to do this

Most of my shooting is around f5.6-f11, going smaller if it would otherwise be too bright or I want motion blur and larger if I need a higher shutter speed to avoid shake.

I still like fast lenses, my DA* 50-135mm being a case in point. It's a constant f2.8 and as a result locks focus very rapidly, the viewfinder is brighter than with a consumer zoom too. I still tend to use it around the f4-f11 range though. It's still sharp at f2.8 but I want more depth of field for most subjects.

I also have the old SMC Pentax 120/2.8 which I'm told was intended to be a flatteringly soft portrait lens wide open, but in a vaguely scientific test it was sharper than my M 135/3.5 at large apertures. Again, I tend to want a bit more depth of field and use it around f8 where it becomes a sharp and relatively tiny telephoto - much like the M 100mm which I know to be very popular.

Interestingly I did meet someone who used f2.8 on a Nikon 70-200mm (ish) with one of their full frame bodies all the time. His attitude seemed to be "I've paid for f2.8 so I'm going to use it" and he thought my habit of stopping down a bit for DoF rather odd! I've also been told that I'm doing it wrong because I'm more interested in aperture and DoF than picking a specific shutter speed (which only becomes important with moving subjects or low light for me).

I often wonder if we in Pentax land are used to Av because it was their only auto mode for many years. The ES was the first to offer it, then the ESII, K2, ME, ME Super, etc but there was no shutter priority mode until the Super A.

Could you fit a Canon-M42 adapter and then use Takumars?

I somehow suspect my old ME Super will produce better results, assuming the scanner involved is halfway decent anyway...

Hmm - is the aperture mechanism working? M42 lenses can be a bit odd, but if it has an Auto/Manual switch then try switching to M and looking into it while turning the aperture ring?

f3.5 is quite dark but shouldn't be that bad - the kit lens is f3.5 at the short end after all.

Canon's printers are ok. Mind you, I'm basing this on an old Pixma IP90 I was given. Lousy ink mileage (gets through those tiny cartridges like stink) but plug it in directly via Pictbridge and you can get decent prints in a hurry.

Mind you, it was a freebie...

What's the maximum aperture of the lens? If it's smaller than your other M42 lenses then you will notice the viewfinder being darker. I have an f8 mirror lens which is all but unusable in anything but bright daylight for this reason.