There is a specific lens hood for almost all if not all Pentax lenses, and they are indeed well worth locating. They not only match the lenses, but also often clip or bayonet on which is fast and effective, much better than screwing hoods on and off.

eBay is one likely source, but bidding can be determined, so prices may be higher than we would wish. Camera fairs are sometimes good sources of supply - I have seen boxes full of Pentax lens hoods before now. Also oddment bins in shops, but that is less likely.

Just keep searching, and why not post your requirements here just in case someone has what you need?

All the more recent Pentax primes have been high-tech, professional pieces of glass at hugh prices. What about the 500mm f4.5 SMC Pentax-M? Maybe you could find one second hand at a more realistic cost. I know it's manual focus, but if that's not an issue it might be worth a search.

If you don't want to spend a lot of money why not try the teleconverter first, and then look for a lens if you find you need it. A pentax 1.4x or 2x converter would be best IMHO, after that there are several 7 element converters available at modest prices on eBay or from other second hand sources.

Welcome to the forum!

If you want to look at the *istD or *istDS, then your local camera shop should be able to help.

Jessops will get one into a branch for you to look at, but I think they hold an *istDS in their branches routinely.

Sue and I were there today, along with a few other ADAPS members. I didn't think it was as good as last year, but it was still interesting.

It was a pity that Pentax weren't there (yet again) and I really think they should be. Otherwise, the retailers will continue to have piles of stock on show of Canon and Nikon gear, when it should and could be Pentax gear.

IMHO in any industry, you need to have a presence, to be seen.

I'm told that details of camera fairs can be found here:

http://www.camerafayre.com

On Friday night I was using the *istDS in the ADAPS studio with studio flash.

To keep the aperture value constant, I used the manual focus SMC Pentax-A 35-70mm f4, which is a super lens anyway, but on the *istDS becomes an ideal portrait zoom lens. I tended to use it around 60mm, which is 90mm equivalent and about as perfect for portraits as you can get.

It was fantastic to be able to review the pictures immediately (unlike film!) and whenever we liked a concept but not the first attempt, we just reshot until we did like it.

I used AWB which worked fine, but next time I will tweak the white balance manually, but the results were lovely. Very impressed, and if you want to see some results the first one (of Jenny) went on ePHOTOzine early this morning.

Welcome to the site, Peter, glad you took the time to introduce yourself.

Ron Spillman also used to run Club Rollei, of which I was a member for quite a while. (Dare I mention that on this forum?) and he was one of the influences on my early photography. The other writer'photographer that I had a lot of respect for was Kevin MacDonnell, who wrote for PHOTOGRAPHY for many years. Always good advice, and a great sense of humour!

Photography has also changed - at one time it was more a specialist hobby, with 16" x 20" black and white prints being produced at home. Although some still do this, it is not now a major requirement.

Colour slides also need good lenses when projected to enormous sizes. How many pjotographers shoot transparency film?

The order of the day has been the 5" x 7" (or smaller) clour print, and the market has become mor universal for the SLR. You don't need a brilliant lens to take low grade photographs, and some makers may prefer to compete on price instead.

The professional market is something else, and professional lenses will reflect the price levels that we probably ought to be paying for the quality we want.

However, digital changes things yet again, although, ironically, the lenses on some SLR style and even compact style digital cameras are incredibly good, presumably easier to make for smaller image circles. A3 prints can easily be made, and of course on screen pictures look great at much lower resolutions.

I don't think much is manufactured that is better than it needs to be for its market!

Finally, I am very fond of the K, M and A series lenses, and still use them routinely. They will produce large prints and fantastic slides with no problem at all!

In days gone by, a camera test meant that and was very extensive. Shutter speeds were checked, lenses were checked for resolution and other properties, in some USA magazines the cameras were even partially dismantled to check on design and manufacturing quality!

Now we don't have tests, we have reviews, in the main anyway.

The various points that have been raised in this thread are, I think, good ones. You could argue though that the use of an independent lens was flawed in itself, because it isn't matched to any particular CCD and therefore might favour some at the expense of others. Or if it were matched to a popular brand then that too could be unfair.

So perhaps the fairest test is to use the lens supplied by the camera manufacturer, on the basis that it is what they are selling to us, and presumably what they want to be judged by?