Hello Zac, there's lots of us here in and around Yorkshire, welcome to the site.

Whereabouts in Yorkshire are you?

Regards
David

Same here, I always use a polariser, usually a ND Grad and sometimes (not often) a 10 stopper. The only other 'filter' I carry is a piece of welding glass, just because I like to give myself a challenge! Oh, sometimes I have a Hoya IR72 Infra-red, but this is rarely used.

Regards
David

Very interesting. I gave away my two film SLR's a couple of years back and now I'm starting to wonder why......

I might just buy a cheap old Pentax and give it a go.

Cheers
David

I'm really not sure whether the 50-500 non OS is optically the same as the 50-500 OS version. However, I have the 150-500 non OS and I understand this is the same optical formula as the OS version of this lens.

I really don't feel the need for OS, even in a long lens, as I've never seen any indications that the in body stabilisation is anything but extremely capable. Very few of the shots I've taken with the non OS 50-500 or 150-500 show any indications of shake.

Regards
David

I have no problems shooting the 150-500 hand-held. It is heavy, but if anything that weight is an advantage and helps me to keep it steady.

Regards
David

Hi Jon, I am a bit puzzled as to why the whole lens rotates? If this is the case then the adaptors must be an extremely poor fit, as I do not have this problem with any of mine. I haven't bothered drilling at all because mine fit pretty tight; I have four of these and all are permanently attached to lenses and all fit exactly the same, all are secure.

I have made sure with mine that the adaptors are tightly screwed to the lens, with a paper gasket between adaptor and lens if required, and I've had no issues at all. I've removed the spring clip on all of mine.

Regards
David

You can't really compare this to the 18-55 as it isn't a zoom. In terms of image sharpness, the A 28mm F2.8 will be sharper, but you won't have the flexibility that a zoom affords. For video work, sharpness isn't the be all and end all; it's probably the lens character that's more important, e.g. how it renders colours, what the out of focus areas are like etc. The zoom would probably work best for some kinds of video work, whereas the prime would be better for others.

There's no substitute to using the equipment and getting a real 'feel' for it. You need to learn about the characteristics of your lenses and get to know them intimately. That way you will instinctively know which one to reach for in different circumstances. This makes it very personal and therefore very difficult to offer advice about what would suit you the best.

I know this probably doesn't help much, but it's the best I have! If you want to find out, buy the lens and try it!

Regards
David

Has anyone who owns a K-5IIs noticed a difference in exposure since installing the latest (v1.03) firmware? Prior to this, my IIs appeared to be over-exposing everything, after installing the firmware it is spot-on. Am I imagining this? I definitely was not conditioned to think this way as I did not perceive this firmware update to be anything to do with exposure settings.

Regards
David

Your further questions are more difficult because you can use a zoom at any focal length between the minimum and maximum, so you would have to make your own judgement based on where in the zoom range you planned to use it at that point in time. You will find however that 2x Teleconverters generally work much better when attached to a prime lens rather than a zoom.

Regards
David

Hello Darren, I can answer the first question, but not the second one. The focal length is important because the camera adjusts the shake reduction mechanism to cope with different focal lengths. If you fit a 2x converter to a 100mm lens, you effectively have a 200mm lens, so you should enter 200mm as the focal length.

Regarding the numbers, I don't have the macro focussing version, but there must be someone on here who can help you?

Regards
David