Johnriley wrote:

Well, I am dead serious. My coin jar is quite full.

Why do I want a FF ?
I have a K5, a k20 and a X-5. I don't think that the FF should be much larger, if at all. As an example:
My grand daughters K10 with 10 Mp is quite a big larger and heavier as my K5 with 16Mp.
It shows the advancements made in the miniaturization of the support electronics for the larger sensor during the time, the K10D and the k5 was released.
This surely will continue by the time the FF is released.

Also when I look through the viewfinders of my Super-A and my K5, I notice the Super-A is much brighter and also because it is larger, easier on the eyes.
Finally, I can use my FF lenses the way they are supposed to be used. My 43 LTd will be a 43mm lens, my 50 will be a 500mm , my 77Ltd will be a super great portrait lens again and so on.

Really finally: all the new FF lenses Pentax will be releasing can all be used on aps-c. So there is no reason for whingeing.
Talking about whinging and whining about Pentax releasing a FF.
Nobody forces you to purchase a FF. Just keep on using your current camera .
There is only one reason why it is ok to whinge: It is the time to have to wait for the release of the FF.

Regards, Horst

It looks like no one is interested. They don't know what they are missing. I have 3 of them. one on my K5, one on my K20 and a spare.

This is my most useful lens and it made some of my most pleasing pictures.
I own a lot of lenses, including some LTD's , but I always come back to this one.
When I go out and don't know what to fit on to my camera, i use this lens.
I'll give it 10 out of 10 for usefulness, macro capability and picture quality,

Regards, Horst

Smeggy wrote:

Same here.

50mpcmos wrote:

If you had a lens like this, why use UV filter. No matter what, any filter adds a glass surface to the front of the lens, no matter how good it is, compared to nothing, it has some detrimental affect.

It will reflect and stray some light rays . Also any element of a lens assy is made and matched just for this one lens, A filter however, has to fit any lens. This has to have some disadvantages.
Better to use the longest lens hood the lens will accept.
Don't forget, with APS-c you can use a longer lens hood then with FF for the same lens.
I can not see, how a filter can offer more protection than a lens hood.

The only exception should be special effects filters. They by definition change the properties of the lens somewhat.
Regards, Horst

grahamcod wrote:

I had the same idea. I bought the same 35mm f2.4 lens and I thought of buying a Leica 50mm viewfinder,
but I didn't wont to spend another 150 dollars. The limitation was then that I could only really use a 35mm lens with this viewfinder.
However one positive thing came out of it: The 35mm f2.4 is a superb lens. I kept it and use it on my K5.

It gives a fantastic image. Very underrated lens and the price is great too.

Steve Ledger wrote:

Steve I never thought about this. If I had, I would still have the K-01. Its to late now, but I may repurchase one in the future. I really liked it.

Thanks for that info.

Regards, Horst

I bought a K-01 4 month ago. I found it quite a nice camera . The size was also ok for me,
But!! The non-mirror camera may be useful in the UK where the weather it is mostly dark and
miserable (except in midsummer murder). However here in Australia with sunshine during the daylight hours, the display is completely useless. one couldn't see anything on the screen and to take a picture was pure guess work. so after 1 month I sold it again.

Also I didn't like the idea of having to hold the camera away , instead of looking through a viewfinder.

Having said all that, I also own a X-5. The advantage of this camera, is the emergency viewfinder.
but I normally use it indoors anyway to make the pictures for my Ebay sales. The adjustable screen is very handy for that.

Regards, Horst

50mpCMOS wrote:

What do you do with your lenses. The amount of damage yours receive is amazing.

What would have happened to the glass without lens hoods?

It happened to me twice.

Once a long time ago with my Super-A and a A-50mm f1.4. I tripped on some stairs and the lens hood absorbed the shock. it had a small dent, but the lens was OK.
The second time was while i was walking, the strap got court on the edge of a park bench. The camera , a K5 with my favorite lens, a Pentax F-35-70 fell down. The lens hood had a ding, but the focusing mechanism of the lens was kaput. Next day I bought a new one on Ebay.
But it shows you the difference between metal and plastic made lenses.

Regards, Horst

Regards, Horst

It also proves, what asset a lens hood is or could be..

Regards, Horst

What does bump mean?

Regards, Horst

Hi John,
Thanks for your comment, I did not try and make Triplets look bad, on the contrary, you are correct in what you are saying about less reflections etc.

what i am saying to get such an effect, in my opinion a not very nice effect. you have to make the lens do it and not the diaphragm.
Bokeh does not mean a confusing mess behind your object, but a smooth relaxing background.
if you look at the imaged shown in this link, one doesn't know where to look. The subject is hardly visible because of this.

If you ever have seen the Bokeh of an old Elmar lens, then you know what I mean.

the Elmar did have a similar lens arrangement as the Tessar, but not quite the same. Max Berek knew what he wanted, A sharp, lens with a smooth Bokeh. It also had 15diaphjragm blades, but did not have anything like this future 100mm f2.8 Meyer Domiplan.

Regards, Horst