Hi all,

I've recently acquired a (Samsung-badged) FA 35/2, but it didn't come with the included hood. Might anyone know where I could find a replacement hood that would fit it? If so, might you please let me know? :

I'd prefer a snap-on hood to a screw-on type, and it would be a bonus if it could be stored on the lens in reverse.

I have the DA 15; it's easily half the size and weight of the UWA zooms. If you're going out on a mission to get ultrawide photographs, I imagine that the 12-24 or 10-20 will offer very useful flexibility. But if you want a tiny, high-quality ultrawide that can always be in your bag for when the opportunity presents itself, I'd recommend the DA15.

It's also incredibly flare-resistant, and makes quite cool fourteen-pointed starbursts if you stop it down and shoot into the sun. (Or other point light sources.)

My impression was that the DA limiteds were based on Tessar designs, while the FA limiteds were based on planar designs. Admittedly, this might have just me being confused by reading this thread:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/125952-planar-vs-t...

Sorry about the bother!

I know that the DA limiteds are Tessar designs while the FA limiteds are planar designs. But what about the FA 35/2? Is it a Planar, a Tessar, or something else entirely? Might any lens guru out there know?

Do DOF scales on a lens help one to use hyperfocal distance? I've a UWA prime and I'm wondering if it may just be sensible to set the further of the two DOF marks (for a given aperture) at infinity, rather than using autofocus for landscapes.

By the way: Gillbod - I really like both photographs! The geometry and strong lines are pretty cool.

The spray bottle sounds like a good idea- though possibly a bit dangerous to keep in a camera bag due to the risk of spills!

I'd add, of course, that if you're using the lens wide open then the number of aperture blades isn't an issue.

The 50/1.4 has more aperture blades and should thus have smoother bokeh, though I'm not sure I could tell the difference in a blind test. I do find, though, that with ISO 1250 or so (low enough to denoise without much loss of detail in Lightroom) f/1.7 is more than fast enough to get good photographs in the low light of a pub in the evenings.

Perhaps this is obvious to all concerned, but surely one advantage of DNGs over PEFs is future-proofing? Storing photos in a common (cross-system) format like DNGs makes them less likely to be made obsolete as there's a larger user base and thus more reason for software support in the far future.

and shoot one handed?

I got a K-x rather than a K-r because I thought it was better to spend on lenses than the camera body. I don't miss the AF points in the viewfinder; I use center focus in almost all situations anyway. I do miss the AF light, though! It takes a bit of technique to work around it.