Quite a few professionals writing in magazines over the years would agree with you, Peter!

Probably it doesn't help when using a 20mm f4 lens and peering through a red filter.....(Sometimes it's hard to see anything under those circumstances!)

I've always thought this was a very over-rated facility and hardly ever feel the need to use it. The size of the viewfinder image is so small that you cannot really judge depth of field from it.

I do use the depth of field guides on the lens barrel, where available, but always set the aperture to one stop smaller than the one indicated. So, if I use the scale to measure depth of field at f8, for example, I will actually use f11. This is to make sure that the areas will still be in focus even with big enlargements.

Lenses with an 'A' setting will also have the necessary electronic contacts on the mount to enable the camera to control the aperture value of the lens. In effect, the *ist makes the manual settings on the aperture ring redundant.

If you really want to set aperture values on the lens, then perhaps look at the MZ-5n, MZ-3 or MZ-S instead. I use the MZ-3 for this reason and for its conventional shutter speed dial. When I want it to, it handles just like my MX.

The KA lenses can be used and will provide the features that you have at present when the approriate custom function is selected on the *ist. (That is, the one that provides use of the aperture ring). FAJ lenses will be needed to fully employ all *ist functions.

Please only post a message once, not three times in different threads in the same category.

Thanks.

Thanks for that, it was very interesting.

I've read reviews of the 28-200mm and although it was an achievment at the time I think there are probably better lenses in the Pentax range.

I would suggest the 20-35mm and 24-90mm would give much better results, and then perhaps add the 80-320mm which is also reputed to be an excellent lens. These three lenses are not heavy at all! Or perhaps carrying all those M series lenses that I do makes me think the newer ones are very light indeed.....

You have asked a very straightforward question, but the full answer is not so simple!

Every lens in existence will have the same depth of field at a given aperture, for the same magnification. So, if we fill the frame with a butterfly a 100mm macro lens will have the same depth of field as a 50mm, but we will be twice as close with the 50mm. Of course, if we do not move the camera and take both pictures from the same distance the 50mm will have more depth of field, but the butterfly would be half the size on the film.

Looked at another way, you can't win with depth of field! At close distances the depth will be miniscule regardless of the lens you employ. A 100mm macro will give better results than close up lenses, especially when several close up lenses are used at once.

A thought: when you use more than one close up lens I think you are supposed to put the strongest one on first for best results.

It's difficult to know why you are not getting the sharpness you need without seeing the sort of picture you are taking - if you want to e-mail me a sample picture (small file size please) it might give some clues.

The closer you get, the less depth of field, and there is no way round that! The best we can do is use a tripod, focus very, very carefully and use the smallest aperture possible. In this way, it should be possible to take very good close up pictutes. Close up lenses are cheap and quite good if stopped down, macro lenses are better. But it depends on what sort of enlargement you need, and for small printws close up lenses should be absolutely good enough.

I use the SMC Pentax 100mm Macro lenses, but always stopped down and always on a firm tripod.

Hope that helps!

We have been evaluating the *ist for a little while now, and it does the job just fine. It does seem to be well made and it handles very well indeed. My wife Sue uses the *ist and she loves it! We've just returned from a week's holiday and she gives her new camera full approval!