good work. i always thought exakta would be difficult to convert due to the big piece they use at the back, but never thought of glueing the m42 over the top. the m39 to m42 adapter is a nice bit of thinking.

are there no worries with the exakta mount hitting the mirror? if not, then i'm picking up some exakta zeiss stuff to play with...

yeah, i wish 49mm filters were a bit more common.

but while they aren't as common as 52mm and larger, they're not so rare that i can never get a filter i want.

actually, the only filters i use are solid nd and polarising filters. i used to use cokin-a, but gave up on that in favor of travelling more simply and using hdr.

i digress. i'm now after a 1000x nd filter.

Algi, it was quite well covered, but also quite well disputed. I really don't subscribe to that theory at all.

The one storage slot actually gets to me. When I was with Sony, I always had two cards in there. Sometimes I would forget one at home when I left in a hurry, and it didn't matter.

But just the other day, I left the house in a hurry with my K7, got 20 mins down the road and saw a swan in some of the most beautiful light I've seen this year. Snap a shot, and "there is no card in the camera". Drats. I know, it's my own fault, but I like the option to have two cards in there as a safeguard to my own stupidity.

To get back to the OP. Yeah, the k10 does have some definite pros, but so does the k7. I think the k5 should settle this whole CCD vs CMOS debate, since it's simply stellar at low ISOs. Although I feel the kx could have easily settled that debate just as well.

And I just took delivery of the M135/3.5. Thank you too—can't wait to give the new lens a whirl on ye olde K7.

that's really interesting. some people have noticed k-5 stains developing with time. perhaps some of this initial coating you had wiped off might explain it. the coating might sneak in under the AA filter, then cause the stains?

the 40mm is a very good lens. granted, the focal length might be a bit long, but it's not too bad as a normal. it comes in at 60mm, which is a bit like a bunch of 58mm lenses that were sometimes standard lenses (e.g. zeiss biotar 58/2, minolta rokkor 58/1.4 and 58/1.2).

the bokeh is pretty decent wide open. i was expecting it to be quite harsh, but it wasn't.

the main lure is the size. it's frickin' tiny as a walk around. you can take one, and the weight and size penalty is almost zero, and it'll deliver sharp and contrasty photos. if i went away from my 31/1.8, i'd go back to the 40/2.8 over the 35/2.8 (i've owned all three now).

coolio. thanks all. i'll be sure to pick a pentax one, just in case. i thought the hot shoe was standarised, but it turns out the pins might be my undoing.

thanks again.

hi all,

can i pick up a ttl cable from any brand (apart from sony, because of their odd hot shoe)? i'm guessing the cable is just a dumb connector, so it shouldn't matter what brand it's from, but i just want to make sure.

thanks for any help!

i'm going to start by going a bit off topic, but then come back to the original question, because i need to make sure everyone reading understands a basic—but often misunderstood—principle.

background blur and depth of field are not the same. you can blur a background more, and also have more depth of field, but this generally involves moving back from the subject and using a longer lens. this is because the depth of field is the width of the focal plane which will give you critical sharpness, but it doesn't tell you how far out of focus the bits which are out of focus are. i use the absolute aperture (i.e. the aperture in mm, NOT the f-number) to get a feel for the background blur, and the f-number as a guide for the depth of field.

so, a shot at 135mm at f/2.8 will blur the background more than a similarly framed subject at 55mm shot at f/1.4 (because 135/2.8 = 48.2, which is more than 55/1.4=39.3), but the 55mm will still have less depth of field (f/1.4 is wider than f/2.8 ). so, at 135mm, it's easier to get that kind of look where you have the whole of the subject sharp, but the background blurred.

up close, the 55/1.4 allows for a really shallow depth of field, because of the f/1.4 aspect, so you can get that eyes-in-focus-but-ears-are-blurry look. you can also get more background blur with the 55mm with a wider angle-of-view than the 50-135mm while still blurring background the same amount.

so, you see, they render scenes very differently. my personal choice is for the 55/1.4, because i like primes, but i see the 50-135mm as a good choice too if it matches your tastes.

if you're still in two minds, just get the one you want more. there is no wrong answer here, because you're considering two very good lenses, and anyone should be happy with either one.