Looks like Mike had the same idea as me!

Here's my rosebush, as shot and straight from the camera:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/competition%20stuff/IMGP9562.jpg[/IMG]

It's a tricky technique and one I haven't quite mastered yet...

K10D | D-FA100 | ISO100 | f/22 | 0.7sec | Taken earlier today

The 12-24 is the only new lens I've bought (apart from the 18-55 kit) that *didn't* come with a lens pouch - should I have had one? Up until now I'd just assumed it was something that wasn't included with that particular lens. :

I don't have a K20 so can't help you there but the pictures look very nice indeed! I think you'll get more mileage out of this for documentary shots than you would have done with a superzoom so good decision.

Is it worth £370? Probably not.

I would imagine most of that is made up from the rarity factor; from a performance point of view there are plenty of 135mm lenses out there for a fraction of that sort of money that are probably just as good. If I were a collector I may think £370 was good value to get one in my arsenal, but as a user who just wants good pictures - no thanks...

As requested, here are some "landscape" shots taken with my K10D and FA43. These were taken on Monday morning as I wandered around killing time waiting for some photos to be developed at the local lab - had I realised they were going to be on public display I might have chosen more photogenic views but at least these show (a) lots of detail and (b) the field of view you can expect with digital.

* All photos were taken handheld at f/8 and ISO400.
* No noise reduction, sharpening or any other manipulation has been added - all are exactly "as shot".
* Each shows the full image followed by a 1:1 crop of the same from a random point in the picture.
* If the 1:1 crops look a little soft it's because there's been no sharpening added - feel free to download and sharpen yourself to see what you can achieve!

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9509.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9509c.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9510.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9510c.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9537.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9537c.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9539.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9539c.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9541.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/43landscapes/IMGP9541c.jpg[/IMG]

While none of these score very highly on artistic merit I think you'll see that the FA43 isn't to be sniffed at performance wise. I'd expect similar results from the DA40 but I still have my reservations about its handling, just a bit too small for its own good in my view.

I'm sure I can find a snap or two to illustrate my point, you'll have to wait a couple of hours though as I'm going out for a while now.

Well the camera can only compensate for shake if it knows what length of lens its compensating for, otherwise it'll over or under compensate with the result being the SR system is less effective than it possibly could be.

In the grand scheme of things no, it's not a really big issue.

It is for the SR system you're quite right.

With a zoom lens the best way would be to input a focal length closest to that you intend shooting at; ie if you were going to be using it mainly at the long end then input 200mm, if at the wide end then input 70mm. Some folk use a length somewhere in the middle but it really depends on your own style of shooting so experiment and see what gives you the best results.

I've already done one of those - the Super Tak was outstanding but the Sonnar just shaded it in my opinion, hence the Tak got sold on. Interestingly I've found the f/3.5 designs seem to constantly outperform the various f/2.8 designs by some margin - the Sonnar wide open at f/3.5 is astonishingly good, the best wide open performance from any lens that's ever passed through my hands bar none!

I use the FA43 for that sort of work and find it exceptional. The angle of view is just right for landscapes imo as it gives a very natural looking balance between sky and ground. Once stopped down to around f/5.6-f/8 the lens is as sharp as any I've ever owned and quite capable of resolving even the very finest detail (distant foliage for example).

I did consider the DA40 but after handling one I felt it was just a little too small for me; the focus ring being hard to get a hold of for fat fingers like mine and there's not much of a barrel to help steady the camera with. The FA43 on the other hand is pretty much perfectly proportioned - not that much larger than the DA40 but enough to make it a more pleasureable shooting experience.

Of course the FA43 is slightly more expensive, but not by much and it's also over a stop faster. If you get a chance try both before deciding, but I'm sure either will give stunning results and suit your work down to the ground.