The silly bit IMO is when it's decided that a jar of marmalade should be sold in grams. So now instead of buying a 1lb jar we buy a 454g jar, which is, of course, 1lb.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

No, but Face Detection could tell which one was Stan...

The Vivitar extension tubes are unlikely to have any of the electronic contacts or the AF coupler that the AF lens needs. However, the AF lens can be used in manual focus mode and the camera body can use stop-down metering. Everything will need to be set manually but metering will still be possible. If a Digital SLR is used the custom function "permit use of aperture ring" may need to be activated.

I would guess that Tokina are licensed to provide their lenses in Nikon and canon mount, but that Pentax mount versions are out of bounds and exclusive to Pentax themselves.

Yes, don't forget second hand. I use a SMC Pentax-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro that cost around £200 and is fantastic.

Sue uses the SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm f2.8 Macro, also bought secomnd hand and from the same forum member, for around £250.

We were going to sell one of them, but we like them both so much we can't part with either!

Lilly, the Macro will also focus so much closer. The 135mm prime doesn't even approach the close focusing ability of a macro lens.

Close focusing is one thing, but the term "Macro" actually means that an object say 1cm long is reproduced on the film/sensor as 1cm long. This is 1:1 magnification - "life size". Your 135mm prime probably only focuses down to 1:10 magnification, or one tenth life size.

Some zooms usefully focus to 1:4 (one quarter life size) but results can be poor unless well stopped down.

It isn't DOF that is flatter with a macro, it's that it has a flat field. This means that if you took a picture of a document both the edges and the centre would be crisply in focus at the same time. This is not easy to achieve with normal lenses as you will find that the centre will be sharp and the edges blurred or vice-versa.

The only advantages of your 135mm over a macro lens are that it is cheaper, has a wider aperture and is probably more compact.

Hope that helps to clarify things!

I've been using the 18-55mm II quite happily for eBay pictures and someone asked me "is it a stock photo or a picture of the actual item?" so I guess it must be pretty good.

However, the 16-45mm is clearly better and continues to be clearly better even on the higher resolution of the K20D.

Regular readers will know I'm not a fan of independent lenses...

Some cameras can recognise faces, or balloons with the appropriate shapes drawn on, as the case may be.

All photographers can recognise faces and also know the difference between faces and balloons....

It's never too much bother for management to slash programmes and costs.

The plans will be there to make a profit and expand market share, or not bother at all. I don't think there will be any middle way about it.

There have been gold Spotmatics, LXs, Rolleiflexes, Rollei 35s and all sorts of others probably.

Would you actually use a gold plated camera? I have heard of wedding photographers doing so for the impact it has on their clients.

I once had one of the 500 Helmut Newton edition Rolleiflex 2,8GX cameras, but it seemed such a pity to spoil it by use that eventually I sold it to a collector.