Jessops was at its best when all they had was a warehouse and showroom in Leicester selling top items at bargain prices (that was back in the 1970's.) A sort of a photographic Amazon before the internet was even thought of. It was mainly postal but you could go to the showroom, see the items and order what you wanted and go home very happy! I used to make a pilgrimage there every year for developing tanks, trays, film, chemicals, filters, gadgets, everything! They published a sales list on a sheet of approx A3 paper filled with all the products printed in a tiny font, such was the quantity of items on it.

Once they started opening shops things went downhill somewhat and they changed direction from being a discount retailer. They became more like another Dixons who's main priority seemed to be the selling of extended warranties above all else! That wasn't perhaps surprising as a senior manager who had left the Dixons group took over a similar role at Jessops for a while and pushed that marketing approach.
Both companies were left floundering as a result and in the present trading conditions are finding it difficult to get back on track.

John

Hi and welcome. Please point out some of that negativity and perhaps we'll do something about it? Sometimes a bit of negativity (in the non photographic sense) is a means of prodding Pentax to go in the direction we feel they should go rather than on their own merry way. Probably futile but it gets it off our chests!

It has been said by senior staff at Pentax that Pentax owners don't want this or that (eg that 135-format body) yet some Pentax owners are crying out for one! It may sound negative complaining about it but it isn't really. In any event, we're not going to agree with every decision and direction the company takes, and if users disagree they need to make themselves heard. Supposing Pentax decided no more optical TTL viewfinders. I for one would jump ship at my next camera purchase. That could very well happen if no one was negative about such a suggestion. (I am not aware that such an announcement has been made but the last two cameras from Pentax have not had viewfinders so who knows!)

Now Hoya has moved out and Ricoh has taken over with better funding, maybe the bosses at Pentax can put forward our thoughts and desires to their new boss to bring about items we fel might be beneficial.

John

If I may. If you saw two photos of the same subject taken with each lens I suspect you wouldn't be able to say which was taken with which. The limited's extra cost is mainly due to the fact it is a macro lens and has the full metal mount, quick shift focussing and limited build quality.
Compare:
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/393-pentax_35_28
with:
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/598-pentax_35_24

From that it appears at first glance that the 2.4 even outperforms the 2.8 but that is mainly due to testing on different cameras. Optically they are both fine lenses with the cheaper one being marginally faster.

John

That's a good point but not double exposures. What you describe would happen with the drive mode set to single exposure, it would just take the one exposure. For multiple exposures the drive mode will need to be set to continuous (hi or lo) and at the point something is in focus it will fire off exposures rapidly while something remains in focus. It does work, I've just tried it.

For anyone looking for the best choice of lens for this, a Pentax A compatible lens would seem to be best. It passes the f number through so that automatic exposure works, but needs the manual focussing which is required for CIF to function.

While experimenting with this I've found saving the best settings for CIF to one of the user modes saves a lot of fiddling each time and having to remember all the changes that need to be made (and back again afterwards.) I can now get to my CIF settings and back purely by changing the exposure mode dial.

John

and JAK adds:
the Weevil and squash it. You might never forgive yourself if you don't!
By all means get your photo first, priorities after all!

John

Despite that I think I would still contact paypal to let them know what has happened and ask for their advice. If they have kept the seller's £7 fee they are party to this. With a bit of luck they may get it sorted out for you. Because it isn't ebay though it seems you haven't got their buyer protection though, for what it's worth.

John

I agree. If you have a subject moving towards you it is possible to get several shots in with a zoom at various distances. But if the subject is stationary and time isn't an issue, take it with a prime for the better quality.

John

Yes, one with a lock button. Some thing like this: ebay
Can't vouch for that one but it is cheap and should do the job!

Or something like this ebay for something more elaborate.

It needs to have a shutter lock function (on the first one it just slides up to keep the button pressed.)

John

I can understand. All he has done is pay you some money as a fresh transaction. He needs to go into his paypal account and click the refund button, then he'll get the fees returned to him.

Liaise with him with this info and tell him you want the full refund and how it should be done to avoid anyone paying fees. You'll need to refund him the £193 and get him to click that refund button for the original transaction in paypal.

As I said, the process is confusing as even large dealers don't understand.

John

Did you not open up a case with ebay or paypal?

John