I always see the competition's rules as being at the whim of that particular week's judge, so I guess it's up to Lilly really... :

Nice wallpaper on that phone!

I concur, it does look like a studio set of some sort - nice capture, very unusual

K10D / D-FA100 / f4 / 1-125sec / ISO200

Edit: 12-01-08 Cloned out dust spot from centre and toned down USM levels. Note to self: Must check work more carefully before entering in future.

That's a real shame.

I hadn't even heard of the guy until about two weeks ago when I found an article he'd written online, I liked his style very much and spent the rest of the day browsing through some of his other pieces. Looks like I joined his fan club just a little too late.

RIP Herbert Keppler.

Thanks for your replies - looks like it'd probably only be viable if I had an existing collection of 67 lenses rather than buying them specifically for the K10D then.

Maybe one day I'll buy a 67 kit and then I'll get the adaptor and experiment to my heart's content. If I do then I'll be sure to post the results here first!

I know the Pentax literature states that 67 lenses can be use on the K10D with an adaptor, but has anyone here actually done it? I ask because I've noticed the 67 400/4's can be had relatively cheaply (about £300 seems to be reasonable - to compare, a 400/4 in Canon EOS mount costs £2k+) but I don't know much about them, would they make for a good lens on digital? I imagine that they have the SMC coatings, excellent build quality and the K10 would only use the sweetest of sweet spots in the centre of the glass. On the negative side, I'd imagine that they're very heavy and lacking in any form of automation.

How far off the mark am I? Anybody got any pics taken with a 67 lens on digital? And where would you go for an adaptor?

I don't think you'll find there's much (if anything) between them. I've got the Tamron and as long as you work within its limitations (a bit soft wide open, not very good at 300mm unless stopped down quite a bit) it's actually not a bad lens. I don't have much use for a tele - maybe only 7 or 8 outings a year - so I didn't want to spend a lot of money on one and the Tamron has actually been much better than I imagined it would be. People who own the Sigma will tell similar stories so your best bet would be to go for the one that's in stock and/or at the better price.

There's a good review of the Tamron here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_70300_456_pentax/index.htm

and the Sigma here, albeit in Canon fit: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70300_456/index.htm

I don't think you'll really go far wrong with either

I couldn't have put it better myself, hence the hours I spent trawling the web looking at real photos taken by real people under real conditions - not brick walls in laboratorys...

I realise it's an entirely personal thing but at the end of my research I had to conclude that the Pentax just took a far better picture than the Sigma. As for distortion at the wide end, I find the Pentax is easily corrected in PP as it's nice and linear whereas the Sigma seems to give that moustache-like wavy distortion (from what I've seen). It could probably be corrected but would undoubtably involve more work. Maybe I just got a good sample but looking at other peoples' photos I'd say this was a general trend (although if you're primarily doing landscapes and other non-uniform subjects then this is almost certainly un-noticable and shouldn't be a factor in your buying decision).

Re-sale value was also something that I gave no thought to, rather I figured that if I just went ahead and bought the best then (barring accidental breakage) why would I ever want to sell it? If I'd bought the Sigma I'd probably still be kicking myself and wishing I'd spent the extra on the 12-24 (or I'd have sold it, swallowed a loss and ended up with the Pentax anyway).

I only carry/use 3 lenses with my camera (DA12-24, FA43 and D-FA100) so it's important to me that I have the very best glass at these focal lengths. I'm 100% confident that in all three areas that's exactly what I've got - any rubbish photos I take are entirely down to the user and not the equipment...

I've yet to hear a bad word about either lens, which makes it unlikely that you'll find anybody who's bought one of them and then moved on to the other. This means you'll struggle to find anyone who can give you a meaningful comparison between the two unfortunately...

For what it's worth, before parting with my money I spent many hours comparing photos taken with each lens on web sites such as pbase and flickr (among others) - even Ken Rockwell provided some useful insight (for once) as he conducted a 4-way test that included the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24 (same basic design as the Pentax) on a Nikon D200. What I saw convinced me of two things; the Sigma was capable of taking very good photos and the Pentax was capable of taking exceptional photos (with visibly less wavy distortion).

By the time I'd taken into consideration the quick-shift focus of the Pentax (which I love!) there was no competition as far as I was concerned. I fully understand that the Sigma is a better proposition for those on a budget or those that really need the extra 2mm at the wide end, however, I wouldn't hesitate to wholeheartedly recommend the Pentax 12-24 if you simply want the best ultra-wide zoom for your Pentax DSLR.

My only complaint about the lens doesn't concern its performance in any way, but rather its size. It's a chunky little fellow and with its hood reverse-mounted it can seem to monopolise space in the camera bag. A fairly minor complaint but a factor worth considering nonetheless. I don't know how the Sigma compares in this respect as I've never seen one in the flesh.

From the comments made here and elsewhere, neither lens would be a disappointment...