I thought I would give an update on the above. I spoke to a couple of repairers and whilst happy to chat, they said that they didn't know what specifically would cause the issue of my SDM lenses interfering with the camera operation.

So the solution I have gone with is to dig out my old 18-55 and 55-200 which I had before I upgraded the lenses - and as expected, having diagnosed what the actual problem, as expected everything works fine. So I am back to using the K5II. And whilst the 18--55 isn't quite up to the 16-50 optically, it is still pretty good for 95% of what I do (and I had forgotten how light it was - particularly useful on a 15 mile hilly hike in muggy weather, as I experienced a week or so ago!).

And I will let that last me until my hoped for camera upgrade later in the year - at which point I should be able to start using my 16-50 and 50-135 again and my other son can have an upgrade for his K7.

Thank you. Looking in the body, I had guessed that these were the ones but your link confirmed it. I had in fact cleaned them previously, but i have done so again just in case, Alas, it seems to have made no difference, so I guess it is going deeper than that, as others warned.

But thank you again everyone for your help.

Many thanks for everyone's comments. I like the logic of the SDM connection within the camera, as it explains why the two lenses work with the K5 even though not with my K5II whilst other lenses still work with my K5II. I will try cleaning the relevant contacts in the body and see if that solves it. However if JAK and Jonathan-Mac suggest, it could go deeper than that. I will see what happens and report back.

I see mention in another thread of a repairer in Shepperton, Alan Marlow, not too far from me, so he may be worth a try if it might require further delving. Otherwise, I have a significant birthday coming up in October and the new DSLR release may prove timely ....

It's a long time since I posted here, but after years of sterling service my K5II has recently developed a problem and I was wondering if any of you experts out there can offer any thoughts.

I was out with my K5II and DA 16-50 and DA 50-135. I have at times had some issues with slow AF responses, mainly on the former lens, and put it down to dirty connections, as cleaning them (on both the lens and body) would resolve it. But then one day everything was working fine, but the next I hit a multiple of problems with both lenses on the body.

- AF stopped working entirely, and I was only able to work in MF. When the lens switch was switched to AF, the rear panel indicator flashes between whatever the camera switch is switched to (AF.S/AF.C/MF) and MF.

- In AV mode (my usual mode) the exposure length in the top left corner of the rear display (and top display) was unstable, constantly flickering between different exposure lengths. (When reviewing photos after taking there was sometimes an issue of over or under exposure, implying that this was genuine variation, with the actual exposure length depending on the "reading" when pressing the shutter.)

- Another problem I discovered when reviewing some photos later - regardless of which lens the metadata showed a focal length of 35mm, with only a couple showing the actual focal length used. This may also explain why some of the photos were soft - I had anti-shake on, and presumably it was assuming 35mm for the purpose of operating.

- LV was not working: press the LV button and the mirror switched up, but the rear screen remained blank and after a couple of seconds the mirror returned.

- No access to menus: press the menu button and although the first menu (FIle format etc) flashed up very briefly, it then disappeared. It meant that I had no access to any of the menus for changing anything.

- Similarly any of the other buttons on the rear controller: WB/timer/flash/saturation etc: all flashed briefly on the rear screen but then disappeared again. Similarly the info button.

Interestingly in review mode, everything was fine - I could page through the various info pages, with a full histogram showing. And photos were fine (other than the exposure issue and anti shake softness mentioned above).

Just to add - the battery was fully charged.

Thinking I would need to send the camera away and so be without one for a while, I borrowed my son's K5. As I wanted to use my DA 16-50 rather than his DA 18-55, I swapped the lenses between the two bodies, only to discover that with the DA 18-55 on my K5II body, everything worked fine. This led me to try a range of other lenses: a DA 55-300, a 100 macro and a Sigma 10-20 - all with no problem.

What is more, the DA 16-50 and DA 50-135 both work fine on my son's K5 body.

So has anyone got any ideas what might be going on, please? The problem is clearly specific to those two lenses on my K5II body. But why both of them (when nothing else) and why did the problem first occur with both on the same day? All somewhat intriguing!

I suspect that I will need to send something off for a full repair/service, but if it is a body/lens combination that's the problem, that a lot of kit to send off at once!

Thank you!

Great service from SRS. I've had my eyes on the 100mm macro for a while and when I saw the price being offered on this thread, I jumped at it immediately, placing the order last Saturday. However, there was a problem. I was on holiday and didn't want the lens to arrive before I got back. So in my order I asked for dispatch to be delayed so that it would not arrive until next week.

The outcome? I've just received the email to confirm that it was dispatched this morning (along with the TC which I have also ordered, in this case yesterday).

So thank you, SRS - a real case of personal service (as well as the best prices!)

The £1114.99 is after allowing for an £85 trade-in, hence the difference.

Not a sob story - in fact the opposite: yesterday I managed to drop my 18-55 WR on to a tarmac path, from about a metre off the ground. I picked it up fearing the worst, but there wasn't a scratch on it. Furthermore, it was totally unaffected both optically and mechanically, which I have since confirmed from photos taken subsequently.

Not a bad testimony for its build quality.

I suppose if it is a sob story, it's that had it been damaged, I might have used it as an excuse to upgrade - that will now have to wait!

An update on this - I went back to her, asking her what she was prepared to offer. She came back to say that for use in the exhibition only (which is what I had specified), and duly credited, they would pay £100.

I have responded to say that I am very happy to accept these terms.

Incidentally, in answer to my asking what the exhibition was about, she said:

"The exhibition is about the urban development in the Ruhr Area (industrial area) in the 20th century. The Manchester Central in this context is an external example of reconversion of disused industrial buildings."

Thanks again for all your responses.

Thank you everyone.

The consensus both here (and on the www.geograph.org.uk forum, on which the original photos were posted, where I raised the same question) is to go for the "what would you typically offer?" route, and that is what I have done on the grounds that if they are a reputable outfit (whch they clearly are), they need to take a sensible line to preserve their reputation, and so should give an honest answer.

I will report back if I hear anything.

Because photos on the Geograph site are cc licenced at the posted resolution, they are used around the place, and for example my Manchester Central photos are on Wikimedia Commons, and in a gallery on a Wikipedia article on the station. In answer to Dangermouse, they are also already on the Disused Station site - I think they located them via Wikipedia. But I agree, why does an Essen museum want it - I've asked for more details of the exhibition in my response, so hopefully I will get an answer!

Anvh
it's quite a honour don't you think?

That's what I thought!