Here's another alternative you might consider:

http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html

George

It may take some time. Days or weeks, not minutes.

Good luck.

G

Yellowing affects these lenses, and will of course result in a yellowish cast.

It can be cured by leaving the lens in sunlight, so that the rays pass through the lens. Alternatively, artificial light rich in UV will also do the trick.

G

From what I have heard, it is OK, but not as good as the 16-45 which most owners rave about.

By "OK", I don't mean to damn it with faint praise. If you're after a zoom in that range I'm sure you'll be happy. If it suffers by comparison with the 16-45, that is only because the latter is extremely good, and seems to exceed most people's expectations. The 50-200 will stand comparison better with your 18-55.

I hasten to say that I haven't personally tried either, but I do spend an inordinate amount of time reading about these things!

G
(Waiting to see the 12-24 before deciding on whether to buy a 12-24, a 14, or the 16-45 to plug the wide-angle gap.)

As far as Pentax is concerned, you have a choice of three flavours of 24-50 (M, A and F), or 24-90 FA.

Generally, the 24-50s are regarded favourably, but are no longer available new, and the 24-90 is excellent, though not cheap.

My general view of zooms is that you get what you pay for, and older ones with a high zoom range should be avoided like the plague. Fortunately, 24-50 is a very short range.

Variable aperture is standard on almost all zooms nowadays except the most expensive. Bear in mind that it helps to reduce both weight and cost, so there are pros as well as cons.

If lens quality is your main consideration, there is no point moving to Nikon or Canon. Those makes do however offer a very wide range of lenses, though the good ones are not cheap, and the cheap ones are not good.

Unless you are a sports photographer who needs fast, long, lenses, perhaps with image stabilisation, Pentax should suit you fine.

G

Wow, that was quick, Matt!

I think that is an absolutely first class intro to the program, and extremely useful. Very well done.

Thank you.

Cheers

G

Matt,

You've no doubt posted this before somewhere, but I can't find it. What, in your view, is the best place to find instructions/advice, etc., on using Capture One LE?

I am convinced of its superiority to other RAW convertors, but am aware that the way I am using it is by no means the best. Indeed, much of it I don't understand at all!

You know, of course, that the tutorial/help/knowledge base provided by P1C1 is pretty poor.

Many thanks

G

Arthur,

You can contact me on .... [removed]

G

You're being a bit hypocritical, Kim.

You said: "If film offends some people so much...."

But it was a film fanatic who started this thread (with a provocative title), and who resurrected it after it had died with the words: "..I do like controversy..."

And it is another film fanatic whose signature says: "...thankfully not digitised!"

Film doesn't offend me at all, or any other contributor to this thread. Both film and digital are just media to record a picture. What does irritate me, just a little, is people provoking arguments about digital, and then blaming the digitographers. As you have just done.

George

In saying that digital is a mature technology, I meant that we can't expect massive improvements in future, just incremental ones.

Have Contax produced a digital back, too? Certainly Leica has, but it doesn't represent new technology. Just its application to a film body.

G