A friend of mine had his lens stolen and this is the replacement, supplied new by the insurance. Unfortunately by the time he got the lens he'd changed to Nikon, so this lens was never used until he sold it to me. I have used it, but only a handful of times, so the lens is unmarked and as good as new.

Includes box and is on offer at £120, including insured shipping to anywhere in the world.

Why am I selling it? Well, time to revamp the lens lineup slightly and remove duplications and extend the repertoire. And my only excuse for doing that, if I need one, is that I want to.....

I thought we'd escaped football.....ah well.

There are discrepancies, but in essence the image you see is what you get, as far as the tiny screen allows. As for judging DOF, I've always found that well nigh impossible with stop down techniques. The screen is just too small to judge and is only really accurate to find the composition and the point of sharpest focus.

The screen is not involved at all when taking the picture. It has no effect whatsoever on the image the lens projects onto the sensor.

All approaches are valid if they work for the user.

Bear in mind that digital imaging has moved on considerably. When I started, I made no adjustments in camera at all and only ever sharpened at the end of the process, then saving as a TIFF.

Now image libraries are starting to demand no sharpening, but some sharpening in camera is OK. If that is what they want and will accept for top quality images, then maybe we could think again and find out why? They say they can spot a Photoshop-sharpened image a mile off, but sharpening in camera is fine.

So now I modestly sharpen (+1) in camera and leave it out of the Photoshop process. I save as a JPEG instead of TIFF. I sharpen just before printing, which is still needed, or I convert my large image to a smaller one for web and apply a different level of sharpening before Save For Web.

I will continue to monitor the technology and when things improve further, another reassessment. Nothing is fixed for long.

The colour of an object depends upon the colour of the light falling upon it. For this reason I set my cameras to "Daylight" and make sure the value is also a fixed one. There is an option for the camera to fine tune "Daylight" or any other setting every time a shot is taken, but I don't use that option.

The reason for that is that I like atmosphere. Atmosphere is enhanced by colour and I want to retain the unique co0lour of a scene that attracts me. I can change this in Photoshop if I wish to, but usually retain the character of the light in a scene.

To see how light is used creatively to enhance, see any episode of Doctor Who. Colour is altered to control the mood, and very skillfully too.

I would suggest Hue is not a good way to go, but instead just adjust brightness and contrast in Photoshop (or similar) and the colour can be accepted as is. To ensure the colour is not "corrected" by AWB, switch to Daylight, or Cloudy if you prefer something warmer.

It's not clear what these images should look like - only you know that. I would suggest they are a bit too saturated, as if the "vivid" setting had been used. "Natural" is the best place to start, followed by minimal adjustment in photoshop, as required.

Colour prints were never accurate to the original, so unless there are very critical controls digital images won't be either.

Do they look right? They are not far off, but a bit bright and over-colourful perhaps.

Fair enough, maybe the 16 bit was the problem?

They could probably work best with a 8 bit TIFF or JPEG, in the sRGB colour space. 16 bit is unlikely to be useful on their machines.

I would also suggest resizing to the size you want in Photoshop, at a resolution of 300ppi.

However, that is generalising and they must have some information they can share as to their requirements?

The Contax is a unique bayonet mount, not compatible with the Pentax K mount. Ffordes have some loonger lenses in K mount at the moment.