Not wanting to get involved in the bitch slapping, i want to add my comment

to be honest i do feel robbie has a point in his defence, you did say it has to be very sharp very cheap (under £40) and very fast wide open, and has to be all 3 to qaulify, this does read to me that thats the criteria and anything else will not do, so when robbie says it does not exist i think he was right in saying so.

However.

You later said
I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed £200, which in a way contradicts what you said originally.

I think everyone who reads this post now knows not to just say the first thing that pops into mind so how about.........

Put the slanging match aside, shake and make up and revise what your requirments are.

EG: I'm after a lens covering approx 50-250mm which is as fast as poss wide open, as sharp as can be for as cheap as poss, i'd like to spend around £40 but if it has to be more so be it, any suggestions greatly appritiated.

its my day off today, i woke up a bit groggy after a lie in, this thread perked me right up

Yep they are, got my copy on saturday morning with 3 gels, red orange and blue

No problem. Yeah it comes with everything i'll take a few pics later and show you, i didnt know what it all was to start with and neither did the shop, so found out from the instructions

Its a very good tripod, i dont find it particulaly heavy really but its very sturdy and has quite a few good little features.
I have it with the giottos MH5011 head and bought the package for £99. i would think it will suit your needs very well, i'll try and do a little testing with it later to see the sturdyness with the centre column at different angles and such and will let you know, but as of yet its not faulted me.

hi and welcome, your in the right place, just ask your bound to get answers very quickly.

Enjoy your k-x its a great camera.

That will be next, my main point of this though was to find out wether leaving them on permenantly was a wise choice and if it affected things useing them indoors, which i have found to me they do, and learning form what stefan said that there is uv filter infront of the sensor anyway makes it a pointless piece of glass/plastic on the front of the lens.

after a little testing with my 50mm lens i decided to test a little more last night.

Took each of my lens into testing, camera in the same position i took a picture with the uv filter on, took the filter off without moving the camera at all and the focus was out so hit the AF to refocus. Each lens at different scales all changed focus when removing the uv filter, withought the filter pictures were also very slightly sharper and a little brighter and more vibrant.

So thanks to the many comments made it urged me to do some testing and make my own mind up to the fact that uv filters do affect lenses/pictures and i will only use them when neccesary.

My own opinion that i've come to from this thread:
In general use the filter is not going to protect the lens, i'm carefull anyway and unless its extremely dusty or sandy i cant warrent useing it for protection.

It does affect the focus of the lens.

On a maual focus lens i found it easier to focus without the filter on.

Pictures withought the filters (indoors anyway) seem a little sharper, brighter and more vibrant.

I'm wondering if it was causing/contributing to my tamron lens not being able to focus very well above 200mm with a polarizing filter on.

UV's are off.

Now i really see the point about the can of worms.

the only reason i would/have been useing a uv is to stop the front element getting knocked or marked accidently, i wouldnt expect it to protect a lens from being dropped

How nice of him is that?

Thankyou very much.

If the time comes that i'm not useing it i'll be sure topass on your generosity by posting it here again for free.

Many thanks. ian.