I wouldn't dream of knocking the 24-90mm as it's a great lens. Unfortunately a little long for me (I prefer the wider 16-45mm) and a variable aperture (again the 16-45mm is constant f4 which is useful).

I have a 24-90mm in pristine condition, hardly used, and I'm toying with selling it, but I always chicken out. If I decide to sell I'll offer it here first.

It's a heavy beast though, isn't it?

A good zoom lens for its day, but I would expect modern zooms to be better.

The default setting for Noise Reduction is ON so you don't have to do anything. Just take the picture and the camera will take the exposure and then spend an equal time doing it's black exposure. When it's finished, you can take your next image.

Long exposures are prone to electronic noise, similar to excessive film grain in appearance. So the camera takes one exposure at, let's say, 30 seconds. It then takes a seconf exposure at 30 seconds, but without releasing the shutter so the image would be black. However, the noise pattern will be the same as in the real image.

The camera then electrobically subtracts the noise pattern from the main image, thus reducing excess noise.

The downside is the length of time that we can't take another exposure. It does work well though.

I get someone to hold an umbrella over me and the camera. Or find shelter.

Spitting rain is one thing, but lenses are generally not waterproof.

Lens is definitely spelt "lens" and always has been, but I have noticed on the web that the "e" is often added on the end.

I think this may be because the plural of lens is lenses and a simple spelling error has caught on to some degree.

Either way though, we know what you mean.

Welcome to the forum.

It depends on what sort of distance you will be photographing the storms from. I can imagine both distant images of raging storms that might need a long lens and also closer ones where you would want the sky in and would need a wide angle.

The 16-45mm is a fine lens and will serve well close up, so perhaps you could consider the inexpensive SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm, a great lens at such a modest price.

If there is a lot of grit and debris in the air then I would suggest a protective filter, probably a UV or Skylight. I don't normally use filters with digital cameras, but in this instance it might be a good idea to protect the lens front element.

A polariser would remove reflections from water and foliage and darken blue skies so I'm not sure it would be needed here. The 2.5 stops reduction in light would not be helpful anyway.

I would start with highest quality JPEG setting at perhaps ISO 200 and you should be able to cover most things.

Incidentally, a wide angle lens is not "more professional" but the skilled photographer might be more to the point. A professional calibre lens, such as your 16-45mm is of the highest optical and mechanical quality to stand up to constant use, but without the photographer's input it won't take better photos.

Hope that helps!

I like the third picture best - the lines lead in nicely and the pattern is strong. The first one has a striking solitary feel to it, the rim light is great but I feel the technical quality could be improved.

Personally I like the strong sepia tone but it would be interesting to see them in pure black and white as well.

It's a real problem and calibration doesn't necessarily help totally if there's a mixture of monitor types and different native resolutions out there.

Now that we are having Inter-Club competitions using digital projection it's also becoming an issue there. Typically, high key images do not project well and all the subtelty is lost. There is even some degree of disagreement over what pixel counts to use, some clubs wanting 1024x768 and others wanting higher figures.

Personally I'm keeping my CRT for as long as feasible. Its dot pitch is smaller and the contrast is not so severe as many LCD screens. Does any one else also find that CRTs are easier on the eye?

On my CRT both would be very acceptable. It's a tough call as to which is better though.

The first one has better shadow detail and a more golden glow on the water. The second is slightly more intense.