You probably provided the Lightroom 4 serial number when you originally registered the Lightroom 5 upgrade with Adobe. I believe you could have saved yourself the trouble of installing LR3 by simply installing the LR5 upgrade (which is effectively a full LR version) and providing the LR4 serial number again at the appropriate point in the installation process to validate the upgrade. Because you put LR3 on your new hard drive its serial number was probably automatically entered in the 'previous version' box instead of the LR4 number you used during previous registration of LR5. Anyway, it's all academic as you're up-and-running with LR5. It's always painful when a hard drive fails

AndrewA's circumstances are slightly different in that he has not yet been able to even commence installing his LR5 upgrade for the first time.

Best regards

Jim

That's interesting Barrie. The only circumstances I have been aware of where a previous version of Lightroom must be installed on a computer when installing an upgrade version is if the previous version was purchased from the Mac App Store. What happened when you tried to install the Lightroom 5 Upgrade on your new hard drive without a previous Lightroom version being present?

From Lightroom 5 installation instructions: "The Lightroom installer contains both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the application. By default, the 64-bit version will be installed only on Windows 7 and Windows 8 64-bit operating systems. All other (Windows) operating systems will install the 32-bit version by default" but I believe Lightroom 5 only installs a 64 bit version on Macs (I don't use a Mac so I'm not 100% sure of that).

Best regards

Jim

As an addendum to my last post, I took a look at Adobe's site and found that you are allowed an Upgrade to Lightroom 5 from any previous version of Lightroom (£57.64 from Adobe as a download only). For what it's worth, any previous version of Photoshop Elements can also be upgraded to Elements 12. It seems that the last-version upgrade restriction referred to by Mannesty (above) does not apply to Lightroom and Elements.

Thus there is no reason why AndrewA's upgrade from LR3.6 to LR5 should not work - unless his O/S or hardware do not meet the LR5 minimum requirements.

Please let us know how you get on Andrew.

Best regards

Jim

P.S. CMW said: 'The Adobe site makes it apparent that you have to have the immediately preceding version to qualify for the upgrade price'. Where did you find that CMW? It contradicts what I found in Adobe's online shop.

Andrew, have a look at my response to your query in the Troubleshooting section of the forum.

Regards

Jim

Andrew, you do not say whether you are installing on a Windows or Mac pc but I assume you have checked that your operating system is one of those listed on the LR5 packaging as required (i.e. Win 7 SP1 / Win 8 or Mac OS Xv10.7 / v10.8 ). If your O/S doesn't meet those requirements LR5 will not install. If your O/S does meet the requirements but the installer will not autorun, navigate to your DVD drive then right-click on it and choose 'open' and the contents of the DVD will be shown. The third item in the list is 'Install Lightroom 5'. If you double-click on that it should start the installer wizard (Windows will then ask if you want to allow the installation).

It is a fallacy that you need a previous version of Lightroom installed on your computer to be able to install an Upgrade. The latter can be installed on a brand new computer without any previous version of Lightroom being present. The only difference between a full version and an Upgrade version is that the latter asks you to provide the serial number of your previous lightroom copy (regardless of where it is installed). If you do not provide the previous serial number the Upgrade version will stop working after a period of time (rather like a trial version).

If you are able to get the installer to run by double-clicking on the file as described above you will reach a point in the installation wizard where your existing Lightroom 3 serial number is requested. After you type that in you will either have it accepted or, as others above have mentioned, you might be told your present version does not qualify for an upgrade. If the latter you will need to buy a full version of LR5.

If you are lucky and Lightroom 5 does install you should then go to this link and download Lightroom 5.3 (either for Windows or Mac) from Adobe's site. Then you will be fully up-to-date.

By the way, borrowing a copy of Lightroom 4 is unlikely to help you if its serial number has already been used for a LR5 upgrade. Adobe is wise to that one

Best regards

Jim

Absolutely right. It's one of the reasons I was trying to provoke moire in K-3 images - so that I could bear those circumstances in mind and check the monitor carefully when encountering such conditions, then employing the anti-aliasing filter simulator if required.

Incidentally, I also owned a K-5 IIs for about eight months before buying the K-3 and saw slight moire in only a very small number of images out of a few thousand taken.

Best regards

Jim

This thread is of particular interest to me because a couple of weeks ago I spent a few hours with the K-3 trying to achieve moire so that I could see how effective the two stages of anti-aliasing filter simulation are and what effect they have on image sharpness/detail. I tried lots of fabrics of the type that tend to cause moire, indoors and out and from various angles, then went out looking for building features, drainage grids, etc that used to sometimes cause moire in the 10Mp generation of DSLRs. The best I was able to achieve was moire effects in in-camera jpegs seen on screen as thumbnails. As soon as those jpegs were enlarged the moire vanished. I suppose I should feel really pleased about this but can't help envying pentaxian450. I just want to see how effective the anti-aliasing filter simulator is but it seems mainly redundant.

Interestingly, a TV news article a few days ago showed Rebecca Brooks being interviewed outside the law courts. She was wearing a fine striped coat and while she kept still there was no moire but as soon as she moved away her coat was alive with coloured moire. So maybe more of a video issue? Unfortunately the K-3's anti-aliasing filter simulator does not work in movie mode.

Best regards

Jim

Bought the 20-40 a couple of months ago John and I'm now feeding the piggy bank in anticipation of the 135-380

You were too modest to mention that you have also contributed very helpful equipment reviews to this site.

Best regards

Jim

Touched a nerve did I Smeggy? Glad you've got that off your chest

I would imagine most regulars here are aware of Gary Wolstenholme's many reviews posted on this very site. He's also popped up in many publications over the years.

The purpose of my contributions to this thread is simply to provide some owner feedback for those who are interested in the 20-40. No more than that. It's not a crusade.

Best regards

Jim

This lens has taken a fair amount of flak on this forum and elsewhere, much of it from those who have not even handled it let alone own it. Also plenty of grumbles about price as though purchase is obligatory rather than a personal choice . Nevertheless, nearly three-and-a-half thousand views of this thread indicate that the 20-40 draws a lot of interest.

After two months of ownership and use here are a few observations for the interested. Firstly, I went through the AF fine-tuning excercise on the K-3 and found that it needed a little adjustment. The degree of correction varied very slightly with focal length (20mm, 30mm 40mm) but I settled on +3.

The sample images provided in Gary Wolstenholme's review indicated that his copy of the 20-40 was conspicuously softer on the right side of the frame than across the rest of the frame (as also noticed by Algernon). Another reviewer said he sent back his first lens due to one-sided softness, to be replaced by a 20-40 with better overall sharpness. Perhaps these are isolated cases but this raises concerns about QC issues - which should not be expected of a relatively costly LTD-series lens.

However, my tests of my 20-40 showed it not to suffer that issue and the OP also has no such issues with his lens. What I found is that wide open my lens is fairly sharp across-frame but with a perceptible softening at the edges and corners, particularly at 40mm. This is quite noticeable when viewed at 100% but is not really evident when images are viewed at A3 size (viewing distances come into play beyond A3). As I don't suffer pixel-peeping-syndrome I'm not concerned by this BUT I would have expected better overall sharpness from a lens bearing the LTD badge. I should say that in real world images this is barely an issue.

My test shots showed barrel distortion at 20mm focal length to be slightly stronger than that of the 21mm LTD prime lens but the distortion is handled easily and fully by the in-camera Distortion Correction feature and/or in Lightroom 5.3.

Sharing the concern of some reviewers that the small-but-perfectly-formed lens hood might not be adequate in some lighting conditions I purchased a circular screw-in aluminium hood with a little more depth. It increases vignetting very slightly but that is easily addressed in PP. The Pentax hood is fitted most the time but with the accessory hood in my pocket when needed.

All that aside, the 20-40 just feels sooo right on the K-3 and it oozes quality. It has become my go-to walkabout lens accompanied just by the 15mm and 70mm LTDs - one in each pocket. Other lenses in my bag have their uses, particularly the wonderful DA* 50-135, but most times the 15mm, 20-40mm and 70mm are enough for me.

Best regards

Jim