Tell me something, Mr Expert.

When a decent wide-angle lens costs many hundreds of pounds, why doesn't everybody just buy one of these for £11.95?

Answer: If it looks too good to be true, it invariably is. This "lens" is a load of rubbish.

Your so-called friend is having a laugh at your expense.

G

Raincoats? Hidden cameras? What are you suggesting?

G

The camera tells you the settings you used. No need to go home. Get out your camera and try it. Then throw away your notebook.

ETA: Look at a picture on the screen, then press the INFO setting a few times. All the information will be presented to you.

G

The compact market is huge. I know a number of people who don't want the weight and size of a DSLR, but do want something that is a step up from a normal point and shoot.

Just because most people here wouldn't buy it doesn't mean it won't be a success.

G

Incidentally, the 84mm 1:1.4 is a beast of a lens - huge and heavy. It's not a discreet little jewel like the 77mm. Worth bearing in mind if you like small lenses.

G

In terms of portrait lenses, I have pretty much what you have except that my 1:1.4 50mm is the F version, and I also have the K 1:1.2.

And I am perfectly happy.

Both the 50s are super lenses, as would be the FA 50, so if you need AF I think you should either learn to live with the slightly lower perceived constructional quality of the F or FA 50mm, and buy one of them, or get a DA* 55mm.

G

I don't see Kirsty Lou there.

G

They do make one. But you sold it!

G

I have had some reasonable results with my SMCP-M 400 1:5.6, though I would prefer to own the SMCP-FA* 600mm.

A lot of lesser marque 300mm and 400mm lenses were of rather inferior quality though, and without seeing pictures taken with these lenses I would steer clear.

G

I think the lighting in your shot is much more contrasty than the lighting in Frogfish's, and that largely explains the difference.

In use, I don't think you will be disappointed with the 43mm at all, though I would mention that Pentax designed the 77mm specifically for portraiture, which is why skin tones in 77mm pictures are so special.

I am surprised though that you discarded the 50mm so quickly. It is obviously not a Ltd lens, so the construction is inferior, but the image quality is very highly regarded by most people. And surely that is the most important thing.

Personally, I find the 77mm to be perfect for portraits, because I like tightly-framed face shots. I do use the F 50mm sometimes, and indeed I have a portrait taken with the F 50 on my profile page, shot with natural light (which explains the very low shutter speed).
F 50 1:1.4

I also have a picture using the 50mm 1:1.2, which is also a nice lens for shooting human skin. For some reason this picture has been viewed more often than the other.
K 50 1:1.2 WARNING Adult image

G