Alan is right, but the adaptors for a M42 lens to fit a Pentax Bayonet can be bought on ebay for about £8 each (make sure you get the flush fitting ones, not the ones with a flange as the flush fitting ones allow infinity focus). Contrary to some posts I've seen, it is not necessary to get the genuine Pentax M42 adaptors; mine cost £7 each and they fit perfectly, no wobble, no sticking or jamming. I've removed the spring clips and have them permanently mounted on all my M42 lenses. BTW Alan, the Tamron doesn't require a different adaptor as it came with an M42 screw mount.

I would beg to differ quite strongly on the above quote. The kit lens is great and can be very sharp, with good colour rendition and contrast. BUT you cannot obtain the sort of shots with the kit lens that you would get with a Takumar or a Pentax K series lens. The quality of the images with the older lenses is somehow more organic, more pleasing to the eye and the bokeh is in another league. Quality images are not always about out and out sharpness.

The M28 F3.5 is a cracker for the money - you can find them for about £30 if you are lucky, but they are much scarcer than the 28mm F2.8 variants, although worth seeking out. I understand the K35mm is even better, although I've never used one.

Regards
David

Oh, I see, so what you are saying is we can return the image to APS-C size if the lense quality requires this!

I've now bought a K-5iis and I'm looking forward with some anticipation to getting some great APS-C sized images from it with no need to crop!

Cheers
David

Hi Tobie, that's an interesting post and I'm sure you will get some great advice on here. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

- The SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7 is a great lens, but you would be better with the Pentax-A version as it has auto aperture control. Build quality is a bit less tank-like, but image quality is superb

- I can't comment on the Helios, but if you can find a SMC Pentax K55mm F1.8 that would be my preferred option

- I would recommend you give a decent old 300mm telephoto a try - I picked up a Tamron Adapt-A-Matic 300mm F5.6 (circa 1972) in absolutely mint condition on ebay for £20! It's great fun taking bird pictures with this lens - all manual focus and manual aperture, but you can set it to F8 and put the camera on Aperture Priority and let the camera work out the correct shutter speed. Something like this or a 300mm Takumar would make a cheap birding lens that is capable of stunning images

- I would also recommend something around the 100 to 135mm focal length, e.g. a SMC Pentax K135mm F2.5 (fabulous if you can find one) or a cheaper alternative such as a Pentax-M 135mm or even an M42 screw mount Takumar 135mm F3.5. All of these will give you lovely warm, organic looking images

- Finally, a manual focus macro lens would be a great addition. If you can get one with auto aperture control all the better. You might find a Sigma 50mm F2.8 Macro (manual focus) for between £50 and £80 if you are lucky - this is a very sharp macro lens with 1:1 magnification. Even better would be a 100mm macro but these tend to be more expensive. BTW, I agree with Bill in that the kit lens in not at all 'crappy', in fact it is a rather decent lens with great colours and contrast and perfectly capable of taking stunning landscape shots.

Hope this is useful.

Regards
David

To my eyes, the ones shot with the K20D are way, way better than the ones with the Powershot. There doesn't look to be too much wrong with the exposures, maybe a little dark in the shadows but this is far preferable to blowing out skies which the Canon has managed to do brilliantly!

I think you just need to process your RAW files a little more carefully to draw out shadow detail and retain the lovely richness in the colours that your samples display.

Regards
David

I tend to agree with Ralph on this one. It's perfectly possible to process 5 exposures as a HDR image and still leave it looking natural, with better balance between the shadows and highlights than a single image, and without it becoming sickly and an 'acid trip' (which I do agree Smeggy is the result with most HDR's but it doesn't have to be).

It's also perfectly possible to process a single image and treat the shadows and highlights appropriately and end up with a very dynamic and balanced image, especially if the shot was in RAW and taken with a K-5.

Horses for courses, I do use both approaches, but the HDR route is used rarely and usually only when I want to achieve a specific effect, like for example to enhance facial features by tomemapping a characterful portrait. I almost never use HDR on landscapes and prefer to balance the shot correctly 'in camera' by using ND Grads and Polarisers.

Regards
David

I've commented on several posts about the 16-45 in comparison with the 18-55. During my first year of DSLR photography I took all my landscapes with the 18-55 as it was the only wide angle lens I had and got decent results with it. However, I was lucky enough to acquire a mint 16-45 from a forum member and since then the 18-55 hasn't seen the light of day, except the WR version when it is wet. The 16-45 is much better, sharp from wide open and sharper once you get to F6.3 or so. Contrast and colour is better, distortion is less pronounced and I have had only minor issues with CA. Edge sharpness is the biggest improvement; shots with the 18-55 can be really soft at the outer edges; not so with the 16-45.

I don't know if my copy of the 16-45 is particularly good or not, but I have several friends who own this lens too and all of them rate it.

I would go for one if you can buy at a good price and you can afford it, it's a very good lens indeed for the money.

Regards
David

Given the quality of the shots you are getting Alistair I'm not sure why you feel the need? I've just acquired a 150-500 (non OS) and I have had the opportunity to use it quite a bit on both my K-x and my K-5. The quality of image it has produced on both has impressed me tremendously - it is streets ahead of the 50-500 I used to own. Alan (Blythman) is probably best placed to advise whether a crop on the DA*300 would beat a full size image from the 150-500 at say 470mm or so, but I would be surprised if the DA* crop would be much better.

Alan's images with the 150-500 seem to me to be very close in IQ to those shot with the DA*300 (admittedly I've only seen them on the forum and in the gallery). You would also lose the flexibility of the zoom down to 150mm; not sure how critical this is to you but I definitely find it useful and often shoot at the lower end of the range. Here's an example of one I took last week with the K-x and 150-500, shot through perspex; I'm sure your 150-500 is capable of similar results:





Are you in a position to borrow, rent or share the use of a DA*300, if only for a single day's shoot?

Regards
David

3, 4 and 6 are the pick of the bunch for me - all lovely shots.

Regards
David

I like them. There's a bit of muck on that sensor that needs cleaning off!

Cheers
David

All magnificent shots, you must have some secrets to getting this close.

Regards
David