It depends which lenses you mean and what you want to use them for.

The pre-SMC Super Takumar screw thread lenses are fantastic quality and well worth using. Many are the same design as the later SMC versions and only differ in the coatings. Manufacturers made superb lenses before coating was invented and certainly before multi-coating.

The bayonet Pentax Takumars are simplified versions of the A series lenses - fewer elements and no SMC. They would be fine for small prints but at greater enlargements you would tell the difference. I wouldn't bother with these, especially as the SMC versions are not much more expensive at today's second hand values.

Welcome to the forums - hope you enjoy contributing!

That's an easy one, Kim. It got people talking, even if they were saying, "What a stupid name" they were becoming aware of the new range of Pentax cameras.

I think it worked.

The * lenses were designated as such to specify that they were state-of-the-art professional lenses, manufactured to very high standards and suitable for serious professional use.

The "Limited" lenses designate a restricted production run of special, metal bodied, high quality optics, all primes, all engineered to superior standards.

It would be useful if Pentax were even more specific and stated the design ethos of each lens. For example, an 85mm could be designed to be soft wide open but critically sharp stopped down. This would gear it up for the portrait photographer. It could equally well be critically sharp at all apertures, a deifferent design ethos perhaps geared for low-light use. It would just be nice to know so that we could buy the lenses that suited our purpose.

I was just wondering what our favourite magazines have been, and I don't just mean current ones.

My vote would go to the original Photo Technique as edited by Jack Schofield.

This magazine was young and fresh and really went into things in proper detail and with a real sense of style.

What are your choices? (I've not made this a poll as there are so many possibles)

I've hit a few wrong keys, but if I notice I go back and edit the post. Depends on your point of view whether it's worth the trouble or not...

Some people genuinely have a problem with spelling and I wouldn't want to put them off contributing. As long as we can understand what they are saying we can take on board their comments.

There are indeed quite a few common mistakes, and "lense" is one of them It is and always has been "lens" and "lenses"

The term depth of field has in the past often been incorrectly described as depth of focus, and incredibly I saw a magazine just recently where a fairly high profile writer made the error. I haven't seen that mistake for many years!

The lens choice is a good one, no other comment to make really. The accessories are fine - all very logical.

Why Pentax? For me the quality of design and results, the excellent lenses, the superior viewfinders, the backwards compatibilty with Pentax film lenses.

For you? Only you can decide - why not compare all of them at some local dealer and see what you think?

There are some unique features that might attract you to the K10D:
22 bit A/D conversion
DNG and PEF raw formats
3 fps JPEG capture till card full
Shake reduction built into body so useable with all lenses
Very competitive price

Hope that helps!

I think probably only Kodak, who used Nikon lenses, but the camera is discontinued and not that good for general use anyway.

Not sure about the contax, but again I hear the results were not very good.

I actually prefer the handling of the *istDS to my K10D, but I also appreciate the higher pixel count and the more convenient battery.

To be honest I'm not sure I want a full frame DSLR either. The current lenses are smaller and highly effective and the image quality is already excellent.

My K10D is enormous compared to my Pentax MX or ME Super, so I'm quite sure I don't want an even bigger and heavier camera.