This won't affect him Cliff, he wears them all the time to get in training for his mountain climbing exploits. He's got legs bigger than my body!

Cheers
David

We'd better be careful getting on a boat with that Shaun Wilson fellow. He'll be pushing us all out of the way to get the best shots MAN OVERBOARD!

Apart from that it should be a great day,

Regards
David

With the internet, distance is no object...I am guessing you would have no problem buying a lens from the web and getting it delivered? There are so many testemonials here for the 55-300 over the Sigma 70-300 that I don't think you would take much of a risk by buying the Pentax. If it didn't suit you could always sell it; demand for this lens is much stronger than it is for the Sigma 70-300.

Regards
David

If you wish to retain the sky detail, I would take a few test shots, then use the exposure where the histogram shows the bright areas as far to the right as possible, but without any burn-out. Use this as your setting for shooting the pictures and then bring out the shadow detail in post-processing. Best to shoot in RAW. The K-5 is so good in the dark areas, you will see very little noise. If you have Photomatix, you can adjust the RAW file and save it at different exposures, then blend them back together. This will produce detail in highlights and shadows, but be careful you don't end up with an unnatural result (be subtle with Photomatix and it is great).

Regards
David

I don't think I can help with your specific issues, but I do find my K-5 scarily accurate with metering. I usually stick to centre weighted average and find it especially good with old manual lenses. It may be an idea to try and do some test shots with another K-5 (do you know anyone close by who has one?), on exactly the same settings and mounted on a tripod to see if there is any discernible difference. Interestingly, I was out with Larry Sovitch (Bobbinalorry) last Saturday and we both had a K-5 with us. Larry's was overexposing when compared with mine, so there definitely can be differences.

Regards
David

Practice, practice and more practice - you do improve over time. Good eyesight obviously helps and the focus confirmation is sometimes used, but generally I just trust my judgement and most come out in focus.

Regards
David

What about Saturday 14th July Shaun?

Regards
David

I can only comment on the 135mm F3.5. I bought two of these about 8 months ago, one is the Super Takumar (not SMC) in mint condition and the other one is the SMC version, not mint (cosmetic scuffs to the black finish). Both had original cases and hoods. I paid £28 for the Super Tak and £22 for the SMC version, so they are not expensive. I suspect I paid a bit under the average, but I don't think these fetch much more than £40 or £50 max? BTW, the SMC version has noticeably better image quality on the copies I have.

Regards
David

I'm not sure that samples would help too much as the quality of these will depend as much, if not more, on the quality of the photographer as it does on the lens. I have offered a view from someone who owns both the Sigma 70-300 DG APO and the Pentax 55-300 and so I base the advice on direct experience with my Pentax cameras.

It seems to me you may already have made up your mind, despite most on this post advising that the 55-300 is significantly better than the Sigma. I don't think it is a re-badged Tamron, but even if it is, it offers better image quality (sharpness, colour rendering, contrast).

Best wishes
David

I don't have any exotic lenses, but I wouldn't currently part with these three:

- Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG EX Macro
- Pentax 55-300mm
- Pentax DA 16-45 F4

They seem to suit my kit and the way I shoot my images.

Regards
David