I agree it is a great lens, but buyers set prices, not sellers.

This idea originated in the PDML, a mailing list which has existed in the USA for many years. There it is described by the acronym PAW.

PDML

PDMLers like acronyms, and they also have a monthly PUG and an occasional PESO.

For a picture to be considered, the message has to have PAW in the subject line. On PU, it would need a separate section, and it would then resemble the weekly competition so closely that I am not sure there would be much point to it.

G

Sorry, Mr Parmar, but, given your record, and your conclusions, I find your statement to lack credibility.

For those who don't know Mr P, he is the one who wrote a review of a camera he had never even held in his hands. But he pretended he knew all about it.

From memory, it was the K5. But I could be mistaken. And I think he removed the review from his website when he was rumbled.

Lest I sound critical of Mr P, let me provide some balance. He has a truly prodigious imagination, and we must all hope he finds ways to channel it into something worthwhile.

G

Good use of light.

Do you have any photos of the auld Glasgie for comparison?

It's not Silkypix. It just uses some of the Silkypix "engine".

Silkypix is excellent, as you would know if you used it rather than just talked about it.

I find it incomprehensibly bad that people should slag off products they know nothing about.

It's almost as incomprehensible as people writing "reviews" of cameras they have never even held in their hands.

Ring any bells?

G

Just one question, OP. How come you have survived this long without a 200mm? Or have you only recently come to macro photography?

If so, you will find that many people prefer manual focus over AF, and there are a variety of MF lenses around 180-200 in K-mount.

G

I feel for the OP.

Zoom lenses and primes with T/Cs may give "acceptabe" quality, but the original Pentax 200 mm macro was on a wholly different plane.

Unfortunately, as JR says, there is little prospect of a replacement any time soon. The fact that Sigma hasn't issued one in K-mount suggests it sees little demand.

However, the older Pentax 200s do come up on Ebay from time to time, and at prices which, whilst litle short of stratospheric, are probably no more than a new one would cost, were Pentax to sell one.

So, raid the piggy bank and keep an eye on Ebay.

G

I have both, and see them as complementary rather than competing.

The 50 is remarkable for its depth of field, which even on digital is extraordinary. It gives a lovely creamy look to skin as it goes out of focus, not unlike the legendary 77mm. Otherwise it is just another Pentax 50mm, so if you don't want to use the DOF, there is little point in buying it.

The 43 is a lens which I have to say I use seldom, though it comes into its own as a very discreet lens for some types of "street" photography. I am sure Cartier-Bresson would have loved it. It's quality, of course, is unsurpassed. AP rated it above the Summicron and Nikon's best 50mm when they tested all three.

G

Sell the Sigma.

G

Whilst I am sure that the decision to concentrate on the proper Limiteds is a good one, they do lack a real wide-angle (31mm is almost normal on digital), and 77mm is at the bottom of the telephoto range.

So I assume that if you have kept your original objective in mind, you will have gone for the 250-600 (nothing else other than the 560mm would have blown your budget so comprehensively, and the 560 is too limiting).

That means you need something at the wide end (as you are selling your 20 and 21). In my view, the 12-24 is the perfect solution here, and you would then have a very flexible line up of great quality.

Good luck!

G