Thank you Axel. Actually the 'smog' is more often than not very high humidity that occurs at certain times of the year. Not to say there is no pollution here .. there certainly is ! Living here I am amazed at how many clear days we actually get ... it's all in the timing.

#2 : it was the only angle where I could squeeze in both of those and the new building under construction.

Thanks SC. Ssssh maybe they won't notice it's missing !

I know Ed. is just being helpful there but it is a little misleading to say you don't need imaging software .. absolutely you do. Virtually every shot you see on line or in a forum has been processed through some sort of software so ask around here, do some research and then jump in and buy the one (or maybe try something like Picassa - free and works in both Apple OS & Windows) that rings your bell.

And welcome !

Part of a series of shots I'm still processing from the just passed Chinese National Day holiday.

Pearl Oriental Tower, Shanghai (actually higher than the Jinmao below but not by occupied floors/viewing platform).

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Shanghai-by-Night/i-3w6hCNW/0/XL/Shanghai-by-Night-XL.jpg[/IMG]

The WFC (left - 2nd highest building in the world) and Jinmao (right - 5th highest building in the world). On the right you can just about see the construction of what will be the new 2nd highest building in the world (but only for about 3 months until they finish the one in Guangzhou) !!

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Shanghai-by-Night/i-9HTctzp/0/XL/Shanghai-by-Night-2-XL.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Shanghai-by-Night/i-vGNw5d3/0/XL/Shanghai-by-Night-4-XL.jpg[/IMG]

That's such a great shot Nass. Love it.

Awesome shot Alan ! Not so sure about the PP but you've got to protect those highlights so ....

Dr.M.

Ha ha agree - nobody should buy a lens based purely on which one 'wins' a shoot-out as their strengths may be in different areas and the one best suited to any individual's needs may indeed finish 'bottom-of-the-pile' !

Personally I have the Tamron 17-50mm but hardly use it now that I have the 15 Ltd. / Sigma 30 f1.4 and 43 Ltd. preferring to switch lenses rather than have the convenience of a zoom. I still won't sell it though so that gives you an idea of good it is optically

re. Sigma 50-150/Pentax 50-135 : Definitely sample variation can have a large impact on opinions ... and on-line tests.

BTW I found the lens dimensions on the Pentax & Sigma official websites.

Dr. M. I think you have misinterpreted my post in some aspects ... I specifically mentioned the highest quality zooms (though I didn't specifically mention the 60-250 it is a superb lens in anyone's book it is again much more expensive, f4 not f2.8 and much slower AF than the 70-200 competition ... and is on my short-list of must buys !) and that doesn't include any of the other zooms Pentax make which are all close to, or are, class-leaders for the price (17-70 is maybe excluded because the Sigma version is better as it has no focusing issues around 30-35mm).

As for 50-150 vs 50-135mm : much faster AF, HSM so no issues for which the SDM is now infamous in this and the 16-50, measured as sharper than the 50-135 at f2.8 (for which the 50-135 is known not to be at it's best), colours are largely irrelevant if you are shooting in RAW. An extra 15mm at the long end (largely irrelevant but it's there) and as I use this lens for shooting paid sport events I'd strongly disagree that it's not sharp at 150mm ( link #1,2 & 4), and add on a 3 or 4 year guarantee. Build quality (WR aside) is excellent. Bokeh : well that is subjective, I love the smooth bokeh from the Sigma but the Pentax is also wonderful in this regard. And finally much cheaper (when in production) .. mine cost me just GBP399 (and I got the VAT back too)
Note also that as far as dimensions go there is literally nothing in it.
Sigma : 780g / 27.5oz (without the smaller, lighter hood than the PX). 76.5 x 140.2 mm/3" x 5.5"
Pentax : 27.0 oz. (765g) with hood. 3.0" x 5.4" (76.5mm x 136mm)

However the biggest point of contention in your post is your ascertion that the 16-50 is best from 24mm onwards. I have to blink and rub my eyes at that (unless I am in turn misinterpreting your meaning) ? Surely the one reason people buy these 16/17 - 50s is for the width and flexibility, otherwise they would buy a 24/28 - 70/75 without any distortion ? A point which PF and other reports have made (regarding more distortion than the competition at 16mm ) re. the 16-50mm.

As for the PF review, the Tamron didn't come out best (though maybe you meant in relation to the Pentax ?), it came out second to the Sigma, though to be fair there is hardly anything in it between all three. There is no doubt however that whichever lens you buy (Pentax, Sigma, Tamron) the majority of people are very happy with their purchase.

IMHO Pentax have an issue producing the highest quality zooms, the 16-50 is bettered or equaled by 3rd party zooms well below it's price and the 50-135 was bettered by a much cheaper (though now discontinued) Sigma 50-150. What Pentax do better than anyone else is the small primes ... you can't be a master of all it seems.

I switched to Chrome from Safari about a year agao as I was fed up with all the Safari Flash conflicts and crashes. Chrome is far far better in that regard (in both I have flash switched off by default), and a little faster too. You can also choose if you want to 'report to Big Brother' for targeted ads.