But the 43 was less than $100 more than the 17-70, it's £200+ more here, similarly it was only $55 more than the 10-17, it's £170 more here. If it was just the tax regime, that would affect them all proportionally.

My reading of the FA price rise was that the original prices seemed ridiculously cheap compared to the UK equivilents where-as the DAs looked much closer. $585 (£420) for the 43 & $990 (£710) for the 31mm in particular!

John.

I've used a handheld meter a lot in the past (mostly with MF cameras which didn't have meters). The options here are usually either spot reflective or incident, both work well, but as non-TTL you have to account for filters (or [yawn] any bellows/lens extension). I've used this a bit with 35mm when shooting film to check my metering (or older non-metered cameras).

On digital you can check the screen/histogram which should give you some idea whether you're in the right ballpark. When in manual I use spot metering (I haven't a clue what the matrix metering has already compensated for). When in a program mode, I usually use matrix as I'm set to shoot quickly, the only time I'd use spot in program is with AE lock, re-framing before shooting.

My handheld meter (Sekonic L408B) has incident and 5 degree 'spot' metering (5 degrees is quite wide when using tele lenses). It allows 3 readings to be taken (i.e. mid-tone, highlight & shadow) so you can see what your dynamic range needs to be - but it doesn't average them for you.

As for the K-7 reducing high end tones - IIRC when the Z-1 was launched it had some kind of highlight compensation programmed into it. Basically if parts of the subject were very bright (at the top of the meter range), the system determined that it was a highlight rather than a mid-tone in unnaturally bright light, so it would add to the exposure to ensure it was recorded as a highlight rather than a mid-tone. This worked for me with slide film, maybe the K-7 uses something similar?

Anybody know which lens it was?

Way back when in my film days I had a very expensive foray with a Canon EOS 5, 28-135 IS lens & grip. I thought it was necessary because my Pentax kit was a disparate collection of M, F & FA lenses and my only really good 'modern' body was my Z-1 (supported by a Super-A & MX). These were the days when you couldn't give K lenses away.

The '5 was Canon's best 'prosumer' body by a mile and the only EOS capable of firing at 5fps without a huge, expensive booster battery attached. The user interface was awful and I only ran a handful of films through it before the lens broke (dreadfully heavy, slow & cumbersome lens). Had the lens fixed, sold it for a pittance and replaced with a 50/1.8 (yep, more expense). Shot a couple more rolls before the camera broke and that was that. I did have some Tamron AD2's and found an EOS mount for them, but the whole experience was an expensive disaster.

My Z-1, FA28-80 & F50/1.7 were simply streets ahead in usability and my results with them blew the Canon out of the proverbial water. I gave up on 35mm and started shooting medium format instead as a result

For Sale: Broken EOS 5 body (boxed), VG 10 grip (mint, boxed), EF II 50/1.8 (boxed, mint)...

Second thoughts I should keep them as a reminder that it isn't always greener on the other side (but many continue to pretend it is). Actually the strap is probably worth more than the body & grip, might sell that!

John.

Given that a growing number of Canon users (in particular) seem to be shooting 40+ year old Takumars, it doesn't say a lot for their current lens line-up

Maybe Pentax should consider making the Ltds with M42 mounts?

John.

One day wandering round my local camera shop (and without researching anything) I held - and immediately bought - a K-5 body only (bag of old 'film' lenses at home). On doing some research, I found out I could have got the 18-55 WR included for a similar price...

In the end I had an expensive day at Focus a few days later (DA 17-70 & battery grip), but still have a hankering for a WR standard zooom (for the WR bit).

As Jonathan has pointed out, older lenses designed for film don't offer the wide-angle side of things, limiting their use somewhat. They might be better IQ wise, but then a 35-70 is only a x2 zoom and primes should simply be very good (even the older ones).

IIRC the F 35-70 wasn't a kit lens (they hadn't really been invented at that point), it was one of a range of F lenses in a time when most SF7/SFX's would have been sold with a 50/1.7 (which itself was only about £50). The body and lenses were boxed separately and you could pick and choose what you wanted.

Great choice. You'll need a winder for that (hint, hint):link

John

When I started posting images scans of film) online I used obvious watermarks over the front and reduced the size to tiny (260x400 - well it wasn't that tiny then!) and heavily compressed JPGs. This worked because the number of images I generated and posted was quite low (flickr etc. didn't exist any nobody was looking at my [rather rubbish] website).

An example: link

I've relented a bit since then and have stopped watermarking over the top as the number of images increased (I may reconsider this). I do limit most shots to 530x800 - not that it really helps these days.

It's the best I can do, but it's better than not posting/sharing them.

John.

Great shot Kris.

I'm starting to get to grips with my DA 10-17 fisheye, but this is incredible.

John.