Well the talk was done last night, with a fair bit of interaction from the audience, which is always good.

Everyone looked at the two A3 prints prepared and of all the people there only one was confident that he could say which was the RAW image. He was right, but it was a 50/50 chance!

Once told, some decided they could just see an better result in the RAW print, others preferred the rendition of the JPEG. All agreed that there was so little in it that it was a moot point.

However, let's be clear that the images were shot with the K-5. As a contrast I showed some images from the Sigma DP2x, with its Foveon sensor, and the JPEGs from that were just poor. Older cameras as well may not show the same JPEG quality.

So, with those caveats in mind, the conclusion was that there was no quality difference worth worrying about unless a lot of manipulation was anticipated and that JPEG also offered quite a few useful in-camera tricks. One of our professionals was rather taken with the "remove colour" facility, for example.

I shoot 99% Premium JPEG, but RAW when needed for some particular purpose.

That's good, but cheaper doesn't always mean worse.

For example, a 400mm f5.6 lens will be cheaper than a 400mm f2.8, but might even be optically better.

Can't be viewed in the UK.

The trouble is that manufacturers often don't explain what their lenses are designed for. If you read an M series Lenses and Accessories booklet, almost every lens listed is "the most versatile in the range" and it's meaningless.

If a lens is a portrait lens, softer wide open but sharp when stopped down, then saying so avoids disappointment. If we want a lens that's critically sharp wide open it will be a quite different design to the portrait lens.

No, I was just repeating a quote regarding the film-designed lenses.

I submit a selection of images to show general attributes and don't make the final selection. It can't be any more extensive as time and space available are predetermined. Further images and comments will continue here and other things can be covered, and that of course goes way beyond what tests and reviews normally give.

As for why f8 and f11, well probably conditions and the type of lens with those subjects. The idea was to cover as many subject types as possible, but I'm only asked for eight images, although I usually deliver at least 12 to select from.

Watch my EPZ portfolio and there will be many more examples over the coming weeks/months.

You're right Robin, we're still not beyond the limit, but we may have reached it.

The quote is one I noted at the time, but didn't record, so sadly no-one to attribute it to just now.

We could go on forever but Algi is showing that lenses designed for digital do have advantages.

I'm interested in the rendition of the aerial's reflector, which loses its integrity in the kit lens picture. I'm wondering how both images will respond to different sharpening techniques and whether there's more to the rendition here that meets the eye. In common with slower/faster films, they actually show the same amount of detail but the kit lens has higher contrast.

If you look at the roof tiles carefully, the nearest one on the left is reproduced better by the 50mm lens.

There's been a good deal of discussion about the three limited lens tests, unfortunately the results not meeting everyone's expectation. What I would say about that is that lens tests are done with a particular procedure, and it's the same for all of them. The first thing we need to do is believe the results and then analyse them with an open mind. If we take the "that can't be right the experiment must be faulty" point of view then we start to distort science to make it fit our beliefs.

So we find what we might expect to find - lenses that are designed for film have limitations technically when applied to digital, that we are close to the limit for APS-C sensors and film lenses but that some lenses are still good enough to hold their heads high and have other virtues that make them worthwhile.

In the case of the FA Limited lenses they are remarkably good.

The 31mm (46.5mm) I will be using as a standard lens. Lovely rendidtion, super quality, a really nice "feel"

The 43mm (64.5mm) is an odd focal length. I prefer it to the FA 50mm f1.4 and we may keep it for wedding portraits of couples, letting the 50mm move on. It's the first of the releases and the least suited to digital in some ways, but still a worthy lens.

The 77mm (115.5mm) is slightly longer than I've used for portraits, but still OK for that, performs better (just) than the 70mm Limited and is absolutely wonderful in terms of its rendition. This is my fravourite of the three and it will become my portrait lens.

The conclusion is that with the K-5 these lenses still retain qualities that justify their high price. In fact, of all of them the 77mm is a relative bargain and I'd snap that up if at all possible.

If it goes to eBay deciding you'll presumably need some evidence to counteract the long delay before raising the issue and of course the seller may well claim user damage.

I mentioned the time before, in the context that business sellers must accept returns within 14 days, whereas private sellers don't have the same stricture.

Have you explored the possibility of a warranty repair yet? A long shot if it is physical damage.