Be interesting to see how the Porst performs. It's easy to make a good 50mm lens, it seems, and even those from minor makers tend to perform very well. Your Porst cheapo may turn out to be a real bargain.

G

Flink,

I posted the following having misread your post. I thought you were thinking of buying the four lenses, not that you had already bought them. They're all fine; please read the following with my original misconception in mind:

************************************************************

I sold my K 300mm 1:4 a few years ago to help finance my first digital camera. It was a good lens, which I bought new in 1982, but big and heavy. I now have an F* 300mm 4.5, and it is a hundred times more practical. If you have a real need for a 300mm, I would suggest you save up and buy an AF lens.

Having said that, I do have, and like, and sometimes use, an M 400 5.6, but it didn't cost a lot, and I am prepared to live with its limitations because I don't have a "real need" for a 400mm. If you NEED a long lens, you need an AF long lens.

I have an M 100mm 2.8. It is a nice little lens, but not particularly special. I have owned two 100mm macros, which were better in every way except size and weight.

The 24-35mm is such a narrow zoom range that one rather wonders what the point is. However, I believe it is optically very good.

I had a Sigma fish-eye once, and hardly ever used it. Don't pay too much for your fish-eye, unless you are sure you will use it. For most people, the novelty quickly wears off.

Currently, I have 39 lenses. Most are never used. The ones that are used are the good ones; 3 Limiteds, the 2 * lenses (200 and 300mm), two 50s (1.2 and 1.4), and three good zooms (12-24, 24-90, F 70-210), plus the afore-mentioned M 400 and two macros. All are Pentax, though I do have the lovely VS1 70-210 by Komine. Great lens, but not noticeably better than the Pentax.

On holiday I usually take the zooms. At home I use the primes.

I am a terrible example of a man carried away by lens lust, but you can learn from my mistakes. Here are the golden rules:

1 Only buy what you (really) need, and will use.
2 Only buy the best. Having second-best means you will continue to hanker after the best. Save up if you can't afford it now.
3 The best is Pentax (aka the Riley rule. There are almost no exceptions.)
4 We all get old, and eye-sight deteriorates. K, M, and A lenses are great, but F, FA and DA lenses are greater (or at least, more practical).
5 F, FA, and DA lenses are greater, but Limiteds reign over all creation.
6 If you can only afford one Limited, I can't help you. If you can only afford two, omit the 40mm and 43mm (hopeless focal lengths on digital)
7 Buy second-hand - with care.

That's it. In your place, I would be agonising over which Limited to buy first.

G

Quite right, Gartmore.

Reflective light metering only exists because it is convenient. Incident light metering is the proper way to do it.

G

Konica has its fingers in all sorts of pies, and dropping camera production is unlikely to make a huge difference to it.

However, half of Pentax's business comes from cameras, and the other half is lens-related in one way or another - so there are synergies. Pentax won't drop cameras unless it absolutely has to, and that day is a long way off.

The company has a lot of cash and little debt (you can see its accounts, in English, on the Pentax Japan website). Although it has recently lost money on cameras, the losses are small in relation both to sales and to its assets. In other words it can sustain such losses for quite a while, indeed indefinitely, since the company as a whole makes profits.

The tie-in with Samsung and the new lens factory, as well as new models and a new lens range, should see the imaging division (ie the camera division) return to profit in the next year or two.

People who predict Pentax's demise, or its withdrawal from camera production, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Many of them are Canon users, so no surprise there.

G

Mannesty, thank you for that. You're a pal.

G

Nope. I'm holding fast to my New Year's Resolution (with exceptions as mentioned).

In fact, I'm going into reverse. My eyes have reached the stage where I think I may as well sell all my K/M lenses, lovely as they are. The only ones I plan to keep are the K 50mm 1:1.2 (because there's nothing that opens wider), the M 400mm 5.6 (because an FA 400mm wouldn't get enough use to justify the price), and the 75-150 zoom because it's a bit battered and I love it.

Oh, and the M 100mm 1:2.8 because it's so small and pocketable compared to the FA 100 1:2.8 macro.

The rest will be on Ebay as soon as I've had time to put some sample pics up on the web. Got to beat Batty at his own game.

G

Well, it didn't reach £300.00, a sign perhaps that the price had long gone above a figure that any experienced buyer would have contemplated.

Makes me wonder whether I should offer my K version on Ebay and book a trip to Paris in expectation.

As for the 200mm, I was lucky enough to do a deal on an FA* version recently. It'll be interesting to see how the prices of the two compare. For me, the longer the focal length, the more useful AF becomes, not least because the shallow DOF provides no room for error.

But don't let me put anybody off. The A* is a magnificent lens (and I won't be competing for it!).

I predict a final price of £500.

G

The famous 50mm 1.2 has presently reached £280.00 on Ebay, and has about 7 hours to go. Will it reach £300.00? That's what the world wants to know.

G

I've just looked at the weather in Churchill, Manitoba, for Sunday, and compared it to where I live. Here in London (not Ontario) the high is 9, and the low is 5. In Churchill, the high is 15, and the low is -21.

I didn't ask about the wind-chill factor, and I've cancelled my plans to visit Churchill, Manitoba.

G

This means DSLRs are now the price of film cameras (remember them?).
Soon Hell will freeze, and Peter Elgar will buy one.

G