I agree with you on both points but the MZ-S should still allow you to set the aperture on the body AS WELL as on the lens itself. The problem with setting it only on the lens is that some lenses are a bit to chunky, giving very little space to get chubby fingers around the aperture ring. This is ergonomically very poor and unlike Pentax.

That was a flame and a half. No need to take every single word /quite/ so literally.

My point was that in the grand scheme of things, digital photography is still in its infancy. You only need to look at the early digital SLRs offering 2MP now sold as historical curiosities. Like memory and storage, the core components of digital cameras will, in the LONG term, come down in price. If full frame sensors weren't so expensive now, then they'd probably be the norm, but as APS sensors are cheaper, they may well become the VHS to full frame's Betamax; only time will tell. Personally, I'm just holding out for the full frame betamax so I can keep the field-of-view that is the very reason I bought a 28mm and that's all i was trying to say and it's all I will say.

Full frame 11mp sensors will only ever come down in price, so before long Pentax won't be able to use that excuse any more.

What's the point in paying through the nose for a FA Limited 31mm (I wish), only to find it becomes a very overpriced standard lens on an *istD/S ?

Until I can use my Pentax glass as intended on a DSLR, I'm not going digital. So come on Pentax, give the users what they want, not what happens to be cheap to make.

I think this is a fairly common problem on the MZ series - it happened to my MZ-3 in the warranty period so I sent it back to Pentax, who apparently fixed it (but the camera was 'lost' in transit so I got a replacement bofy).

Thanks for that - I'll take a look under the other topic. I should have said, I'm looking for AF as I have a mix of bodies.

thanks

I've recently scanned in some pictures taken on an LX with a year old Sigma 28-300 (the one before the recent DG version) and I noticed quite significant chromatic aberation on high contrast areas. A 4000dpi scan printed to 12x8 still had visible CA (purple/green fringes) on the print.

I bought this lens as a useful travel lens so I wasn't expecting super quality, but I'm wondering if there's something better, for a standard zoom -- maybe the Pentax 24-90? Or the 28-105? How are these for aberations like this? The FA* 28-70 is i) too expensive and ii) too big/heavy.

Or are there some good and affordable APO zooms from Stigma, Tamron, etc?

I do have an FA 28/2.8 and an M 28/3.5 which are both very good, but I don't always have them to hand. Maybe I should just be less lazy?

Suggestions and recommendations appreciated!

Should be picking up my new MZ-S this weekend!

Can anyone let me know their thoughts on the MZ-6? My MZ-3 was sent back to Pentax for repair under warranty and it seems to have "gone missing" in the post on the way back to the shop. Thanks Royal Mail. Again.

So, given that the MZ-3 is sadly no longer in production, I'm wondering if I'll be offered a '-6 in its place.

I don't think I like the controls on the MZ-6, but apart from that, would people say it's as good as the -3?

The *ist is out as I've got a bunch of M lenses that won't work, which leaves just the MZ-S... which is pricey.

Hi,
I used to have a Pentax FA 28-70 f4 AL and 80-320 which I used with a Z-70 and later an MZ-3. The 28-70 was a great lens for its size, though a little slow. I wasn't overly impressed with the 80-320; it was slow, noisy and a little soft though its range was good.

When I sold the Z70 I replaced both SMCs with a Sigma 28-300 macro zoom (they've recently bought out a slightly revised version), which got a great review in AP. They compared it with the Tamron 28-300 (as did I in the shop) and I think the Sigma came out better on image quality and price. I found no great difference in build quality or focus speed/noise but the Sigma was a lot cheaper. They're both comsumer lenses, but things have come on a lot in this market in the last 5-10 years.

I keep my 28-300 for general use, but I have some primes (Sigma 105 EX, Pentax FA 28 AL, 43/1.9) for other work. I'm more impressed with the Sigma than I was with the Pentax 80-320.

thanks for the replies -

The foam around the mirror is a little tatty but no worse than my MX! Maybe i'll get the foam replaced anyway. I've read about people using rubber gloves on the rests, but I'm no so sure about that so I think I'll bite the bullet and take it to a pro.

thanks