Or go to Wembley and buy a tin.

More buffalo news: Nowadays, Horlicks is made in the Punjab from buffalo milk. Betcha didn't know that.

G

The old field cure for a noisy shutter that I learned in the Himalayas was to very gently smear it with good quality buffalo ghee. That's clarified buffalo butter, if you were wondering.

You will be surprised how different it sounds after this treatment. But the best thing is that after a couple of weeks the shutter will disintegrate entirely, and you'll have an excuse to buy a new camera.

G

With pricing like this, no wonder they're in trouble.

G

I met Stan a couple of years ago in London. He set up his site when he was building up his kit, and did some research in the annals of the PDML. Having done the work, he kindly decided to share it.

Since he is now the possessor of the three original Ltds (in black) he doesn't need to do any more research. However, we can always hope that a time will come when he has nothing to do, and decides to refresh the site.

I also have a Series 1 Vivitar. I haven't noticed that it is any better (or worse) than my F 70-210, and I find the latter easier to use, so the Viv spends more time on the shelf. I think it is unlikely that you would find a modern lens to be so much better that it justified a change. When I get a 16-50 I will pair it with my F 70-210 when travelling. I won't bother with the 50-135.

(Well, that's what I say now!)

G

Whether the A is better than the F is a moot point. Both have their admirers.

G

Simple answer is: I don't know because I have never owned the A 70-210. However, it is well-regarded by those who have done or do own one. I mentioned the F rather than the A because many people prefer AF.

G

Basically, the best old prime lenses are still good lenses today. However, good, new, zoom lenses are much better than all but a tiny handful of old zoom lenses.

So, to maximise the quality/price ratio buy old (but good) primes and new zooms.

Average quality primes from thirty years ago are out-performed by many modern zooms, even cheapish ones.

Of the commonly found lenses, any 50mm, the M 1:3.5 135mm and the 75-150mm zoom are dirt cheap and still good. The M or A 28mm are probably out-performed by kit zooms.

Obviously, if you want speed, primes are good, but most Pentax primes are not very sharp wide open.

Here is where to find out how well a particular lens is regarded:

http://stans-photography.info/

The SMCP-F 4-5.6 70-210mm is a pretty good lens at a reasonable price.

Make sure you always buy SMC lenses.

G

I think it's the well-known problem of lens overlap, rather than any fault of the lens itself.

G

You obviously never tried daylight film with tungsten lighting!

G

Depending on what you are shooting, it can sometimes be difficult to nail exposure exactly when you take the shot. This is where RAW is so useful.

If you do everything in RAW, and use a good converter (like Silkypix), then it takes very little time to correct the colour, exposure, etc., in the RAW converter. I would argue that I can process a large batch of images more quickly using RAW than using JPEG, simply because the software is set up for batch processing.

The only downside (for me) is the large file sizes, and concommitant storage requirements. But for me it's a price worth paying.

G