definative answer:

my 100 mm macro will creep from the weight of my ringflash when pointed down. stays put with the clamp engaged.

if you can find a t mount adaptor for it and a tripod collar, it might get some use as a spotting scope or telescope, for the kids...

in looking at these and other threads two things stand out to me.

one:
Pentax is working closely with 3rd party lensmakers, the presence of redumdant "Mf" switches is one hint....as if the lens were designed with a camera (perhaps a pentax future model, but most likely a canikon) that doesn't have a "Mf" switch on the body....which was (to use a software term) then "ported" over to the current k mount.
can you think of an easier way to get new lenses to market fast?

two:
A future "Pro" body and "Pro" lenses are needed to compete in the marketplace.

one added benifit of using one of the new lenses on your existing body will be "Snap in focus" and the af1.7 teleconverter will still work.... a boon to some photogs esp if there is a new fast aperture telephoto (300mm 2. in the cards.

tape the warming filter to your flash...
check out the varicolor filters, polarizers, and graduated nd's......
add some step up/down rings to fit your lenses.....
get an adapter for your video cam also...

for all the arguments, pro and con, the only thing I can add is this:
I don't use filters, for lens protection, and rarely use filters on lenses at all. (only when needed).
only carrycir polarizers, nd grads, and varicolor polarizers for general shooting....
lighting gels is another matter...

I have lenses that are older than some of the posters on this forum.
have never lost a lens to damage on the front element, or have any scratched up.

some of my equipment has seen service in the arctic, in swamps and sand dunes, from cars, boats, motorcycles, and occasionally hanging off a cliff, and once while skydiving.

so I figure, I've saved a couple hundred bucks in filter costs. By being careful. I wear equipment out, I don't break it.

You decide what works for you, and don't bother deciding what is "Right".

I can tell you about somebody who bought a set up like that and DIDN'T use it....


The local college photography dept, had an epson photo printer covered in dust, when I asked why, the instructor said the system was tempermental, concistantly clogged the print nozzles, and was abandoned in favor of a discount deal with a local pro lab.

did you use flash?

could be the the background in motion, combined with sr to create the blocky, multi exposure effect....it seems to me that the sensor vibrates to counter motion at the point of focus, so wouldn't that impact the areas not in focus? and wouldn't the effect be more pronounced the further the object is from the focal point?

for those that might be interested to know....my inspiration for this image was Yousef Karsh's Fidel Castro. (1971)

Thank you for the feedback.


A little larrazapan might be nice (I work a psych-nursing assistant for 6 years).

There was a fella in Toronto, Guy Paul Morin, that got falsely convicted of murder, then exhonorated, one of the jurors admitted, during an enquiry that they voted guilty, because he looked "Creepy".
Kinda makes you wonder....are our perceptions of good and evil, so badly warped by mass media, the way our perceptions of beauty are?

anyway, I need to re-create the effect on a larger scale, with a small budget, on video for a short video, next month.....I think I'm getting there.

was going for moody/dark.
the lighting is a Y setup, hardlights.
one in front, above the camera, two behind the subject.
I think a little talc on the subject will remove the highlights.