Now there's a good idea. And since this is a competition without rules, there is no rule to say a winner can't set some rules for his/her competition.

By the way, I agree with your main point, too.

G

I also reckon Lilly's picture is superb.

Not only is it very good technically, but, like all good art, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The tree seems more animal than vegetable. It has a sinister, malevolent, air. I wouldn't like to go near it at night.

It reminds me very much of an Arthur Rackham illustration.

G

Quote: "I'm not setting specific prices so feel free to make an offer on anything."

I suggest a PM.

G

I have an LG Flatron L2000CE, which is better than most other screens I have seen. However, I have not seen a great many.

G

I think you might find other reviews that say the opposite.

G

Fortunately, it's not expensive to experiment with 50mm primes, as long as you go manual.

The OP should get an A (more convenient) or M (cheaper) 50mm 1.7 and take some pictures.

If he likes what he sees, let him buy an AF version. If not, it's back to Ebay, and the whole experience shouldn't have cost more than a tenner.

G

Here is a picture taken with two macro lenses.

The subject is the fairly highly-magnified lettering on the front of a Pentax AF280T flashgun. In front of it is an SMC Pentax-A 1:4 100mm Dental Macro lens, and the lens on the camera (*ist D) is the SMC Pentax-FA 1:2.8 100mm Macro. So the image has passed through two Pentax macro lenses.

It's not my normal macro technique, but I was selling the A lens to a list member and wanted to show him a pic.




G

Generally, it's people that have problems, not equipment.

In my experience, reported "problems" fall into one of four categories:

1 Uncommon problems magnified by over-repetition. A recent example was that of the leaning viewfinder. Very few people actually have this problem, but they post everywhere about it. Including here, sadly, until JR wisely stopped it. Result: people get the impression that a very rare manufacturing error is commonplace.

2 Non-problems experienced by insecure pixel-peepers who push their equipment beyond its limits and then complain when it finally expires. This is equivalent to driving flat-out in first gear for two hundred miles and then complaining when the engine over-heats. The so-called "vertical banding problem" is a case in point.

3 Know-it-all newbies, who haven't got a clue what they are doing, find that their camera over-exposes/under-exposes, shakes, doesn't focus, you name it. There have been two examples on the forum in the past two days.

4 Real problems. These account for perhaps 1% of all reported problems with (D)SLR cameras (p&s cameras are another matter). I am aware of two real (but very minor) issues affecting the K10D, for instance, but they weren't significant enough to stop me buying a second one. They are: inaccurate metering with old non-A lenses, and a rather ineffectual dust-removal system.

I have the 16-50 lens. It works fine. Maybe one or two people in a thousand have a problem, but if so, the answer is to take it back and ask for another.

Don't let the pixel-peepers and whingers alter your buying choices, and most of all, don't believe a word you read on DPReview (which, incidentally, performs a valuable service by providing a home for these nut-cases).

So to answer your question, don't rule out the 16-50. It is the better lens, but bigger and more expensive. The 16-45 is a very good alternative, and it is nice to have a real choice.

G

To answer this, one really needs to know your budget.

But, for me, I would get the 12-24 rather than the 14. The quality is not greatly different, and the greater speed of the 14 is not important for landscapes, where you will usually want to maximise DOF. Plus, you would have the flexibility of the zoom.

For the 16-45/50 zoom, the choice will depend partly on budget (16-45 is cheaper), partly on size/weight (the 16-45 is smaller and lighter), partly on speed (the 16-50 is faster), and partly on image quality (both are excellent, but the 16-50 is perhaps a little better).

Of course, the 16-50 is weather-sealed (not significant unless you are using it on a weather-sealed body), and it has faster, quieter, SDM focussing.

Only you can decide, but both are excellent lenses. You should not be unhappy with the image quality of the 16-45 (and at the end of the day, image quality is arguably the single most important thing, for most people).

G

You're not a fireman. Hotshots never sees a house that isn't burning down, so that is what he would call interesting.

G