The only real difference between the Samsung and Pentax equivalent lenses seems to be the coatings so yes, it's not suprising to see the Samsung/Schneider gives a different colour cast.

As for Pentax's own coating, it's been updated and tweaked over the years so again slight variations shouldn't be a suprise (although to a less marked extent).

You're right about it being less visible on digital, the camera chooses the white balance so they will all get adjusted slightly differently to give what the camera thinks is the right image, meaning they'd all look pretty much the same on a DSLR.

Interesting that the oldest were the most accurate though - perhaps the newer ones are coated to give a slightly "warm" feel which would account for the brighter yellows you see?

I had a nice long play with the 7D when it was launched and fell in love with it, I always did like Minolta stuff. Unfortunately I'm not particularly rich and I don't believe in credit so I had to save and by the time my pot was big enough Minolta had gone.

After numerous broken (and shoddily built) TV's, Playstations, Walkmans, etc from Sony I decided it'd be a cold day in Hell before I parted with any of my hard earned cash in their direction!

Shortly before I bought the K10D the first news of the Hoya takeover of Pentax was breaking, however, in this instance Hoya was a company whose products I had used for many years without problem and I felt they probably understood photography better than Sony ever would so I wasn't all that bothered. I also figured that the K mount would be a safe investment as Samsung have the financial clout to make it in this business even if it proves that Hoya/Pentax don't. Sony has a habit of dropping projects that don't bring in quick returns (Betamax, Minidisc, etc) so unless they start making big money (and soon) off their DSLR business I think the A mount may well get consigned to the dustbin of history. If I had a large collection of Minolta glass right now I'd be a little bit worried...

It sounds to me like they're all missing Minolta and I don't blame them. I was all geared up to buy a 7D as my first DSLR when Sony bought Minolta out. My previous experience with Sony products left a lot to be desired so I started researching the market from scratch and ended up here at Pentax instead - in hindsight I think I got a better deal but who knows what would have happened if KM had continued... :

Now that is a good question! Although based on the reliability of previous maps I reckon you could draw your own and stand just as good a chance of guessing when (if) lenses see the light of day...

Don't get too excited though, they've been hoiking the 300/200/35 macro around shows for over a year and they're still not actually in the shops - they're just teasing us with things we may be able to buy in 2010 I reckon...

Interesting to note that the 17-70 will be the first DA (not DA*) lens to get SDM though, I guess the writing's on the wall for the old body-driven AF system.

Sample variations can - and do - happen. When they crop up they're most likely to be noticeable at the extremes so I'd say that's probably the case here. Still a fairly positive review when taken overall though, and I think anyone reading them side-by-side to the Canon ones would come to the conclusion that Pentax make better lenses, that can't be bad for the brand!

I read the 2 Pentax reviews and the 2 Canon reviews and thought that the Pentax pair fared rather well in comparison to their Canon counterparts. Neither is a "perfect" lens but then we knew that anyway...

DPR is just reinforcing what most people on these boards have been saying for some while; that the DA 18-55 and 16-45 are well made lenses with a good level of features and performance for the prices being asked. They do have their limitations but if they didn't then nobody would buy the DA*16-50.

It's nice to see Pentax being included in the first review batch anyway, it probably would have made more sense (where DPR readers are concerned) to have had Canon and Nikon up to bat first. I thought the whole exercise was quite positive from a Pentaxian point of view!

In this particular instance, yes.

You're right to be cautious though, many lenses that are designed for digital cameras form an image that is smaller than the 35mm film frame - meaning that they'll cut the corners off the pictures (called vignetting).

In the case of this particular lens though the "Di" (digital) designation means that it has special coatings on the rear element to help reduce flare on sensors. While providing (marginally) better performance on digital it certainly won't degrade its performance on film (I doubt it'll make any difference at all to be honest).

The Tamron 70-300 is quite an old design that's now on its 3rd (4th?) incarnation - it predates digital SLRs and will work just fine on your new MZ-5. If you have a look on this thread:

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6788&start=15

you'll se that Chris at SRS is also offering it at £69.99 including postage for forum members - I doubt you'll get a better deal anywhere!

Yes, keeping a log of which settings you use with each picture will be invaluable whilst you're learning the craft - it'll give you something to refer back to and if you take shots that are less than satisfactory you'll be able to work out where you went wrong and correct them for next time around.

This is one of the advantages of digital photography, as the camera itself keeps a log of all the parameters used and appends them to each picture file. Still, whether you're a film or digital user there's no substitute for getting in some practice by actually taking photos, so you're on the right track now.

Don't forget to post some of your results when you've had the film processed.

It applies to all lenses but it helps to understand what the fX refers to:

A lens with an aperture of f1 has an aperture equal to the focal length (ie, a 50mm/f1 lens has an aperture with a diameter of 50mm).

A lens with an aperture of f2 has an aperture half the focal length (ie, a 50mm/f2 lens has an aperture with a diameter of 25mm).

A lens with an aperture of f4 has an aperture a quarter of the focal length (ie, a 50mm/f4 lens has an aperture with a diameter of 12.5mm).

And so on and so forth.

Each of the standard apertures (1-1.4-2-2.8-4-5.6-8-11-16-22-32) lets in exactly half as much light as the one before it, so 4 is twice as bright as 5.6, 2.8 is twice as bright as 4, 2 is twice as bright as 2.8, etc.

You'll find lenses in the "normal" range with very fast apertures (like the 50/1.2 John mentions above) but there is always a size/weight penalty. For example, a 300mm/f2 lens would need an aperture of 150mm diameter making it a vast heavy monster - this is why (like George said in his post) fast is a relative term. For a 50mm lens something like f2.8 would be considered pedestrian, whereas a 500mm lens with an f2.8 would be considered lightning fast.

As far as I know, the fastest 300mm lens is made by Olympus for their digital cameras and it has an aperture of f2 - that's the sort of glass that needs a tripod to support it and a bodybuilding course to carry around (not to mention deep pockets!).

It's all about compromise and I stick to the Tamron as my recommendation for your race days - 5.6 is perfectly useable on a lens that length and it's light enough to be hand held and not give you a hernia...