The best options for a UK repair are likely to be Harrow Technical link or Asahi Photo link. Spares are likely to be an issue though - depending on the problem.

I've recently had an LX repaired by Harrow Technical and it seems very good (haven't got results back from it yet).

John.

Not sure if it's a common problem, I have an SFX with shutter/drive issues - doesn't do anything so I can't investigate. It doesn't have a battery grip, but I'd be willing to put it in the post for spares if that would help.

Best advice is to contact Harrow Technical linkfor an estimate, but I doubt it would be economic.

John.

Hi Kris,

I've been using the LX & FA20-35 today (first chance to really use the lens on film), obviously it works but doesn't feel right in many ways. Compared to the camera, the lens feels fragile and the focus ring isn't wide enough (especially with the hood on).

I can't really justify a 50/1.2 or 135/2.5 but do have a K28/3.5, my A35-105 is quite stiff as well I think (probably why I didn't consider it fully).

John.

I have the F50/1.7 (bought for £20 in the '90s) and the FA50/1.4. The F50/1.7 feels better built, the FA50/1.4 has a much smoother focus ring when focusing manually (as have my other FA primes). It might be my F50/1.7 though as it has a rough spot about 0.6m on the focus ring.

I was confused when I bought my K-5. Putting an FA lens on my manual focus MZ-M would display the aperture in the finder when the ring was not on 'A'. On the K-5 is doesn't, it's not directly due to the crippled mount as my Z-1 didn't do it either.

Das Boot was great, but only if you get the right version - I'm not sure which one, the mini series, the movie, the directors cut...

I saw The Dambusters at a cinema a few years ago, it was only a multi-screen job, but the in-flight sequences were so much more involving than watching it on TV - the Star Wars of its day no doubt.

I also remember seeing a Vietnam war film shot from the perspective of a combat cine-photographer on patrol - the whole film was from the output of his camera including pauses while he was changing film. No idea what it was called though.

I've been considering my 3-lens 'travel' kit and had been thinking about: FA20-35/4, M50/1.4 & M135/3.5 (on the basis that once I'm over 50mm I usually prefer something significantly longer), but I had totally forgotten about the A35-105 - might give that a whirl instead.

Finally finished the first roll and when rewinding had forgotten about the frame counter counting backwards - must try some multiple exposures some time.

I still shoot film (mostly with manual focus bodies), as such I'm slowly acquiring FA lenses (I need FF coverage & aperture rings) so I can move on my older manual focus glass. That's the theory anyway...

I still want AF on my K-5 and the FAs feel much smoother than my Fs when manual focusing. Whilst I agree that independents make very competitive, (and in some cases unique) lenses, my preference is to stick to Pentax ones. My only AF Sigma lens (old 70-300 APO Super) focuses the 'wrong' way (both on the focus ring and at the screw-drive) which is just one reason I'd stick with Pentax. Sigma used to make manual focus lenses that matched each manufacturers focus direction (called 'synchro-focus'), my 400/5.6 APO is such a lens.

Now back to this thread, an FA*85/1.4 or the FA Ltd 77mm? Tough choice, I'd go for the 85mm if I could find one, probably - but both are a dream - I'd probably make do with an SMC-Tak 85/1.8 (some of my film bodies are screw mount).

John.

Agree with that.

As an ex ex-MOD late IIa (headlights in the wings), 109, 2.25P HT owner with o/d it looks a bit posh. Landies should be on top of a hill, up to their wing mirrors in mud or on their side (preferably all three)

From my brief experience, you need to think with a 'video' head on rather than stills. You probably need a tripod and/or rail (skateboard?) as any shake simply looks wrong, you need to watch the audio (wind noise, AF noise, bystander noise etc.). I never got as far as editing - I had nothing worth the effort (due to the above).