How does the 50-135mm stack up in reviews? Are similar things said, or is there a really impressive set of comments?

The 16-50mm being weak at the edges at open aperture might or might not be a weakness. It might make a very nice portrait lens at 50mm for exactly that reason. When stopped down it might have amazing performance. Lenses can be designed like that, and it's the one thing that is very rarely brought out in reviews.

I don't have one, I do have the 16-45mm f/4, so I can't comment beyond that, but users seem to rate it very highly.

Unfortunately your link isn't visible, only a small black square, so that does make it difficult.

PS It was shot using the Mount Shield lens.

I was experimenting with the effects available on the Pentax Q. This one was Unicolour Bold, set to blue.


The interesting thing is, the parents liked the photo very much indeed, but didn't register the special effect. I think that's fair enough, they were interested in Georgia, not some Pentax trickery.
As for myself, I'm just trying things out and seeing what effects have creative potential.

How would you summarise the point?

The DA* 16-50mm is the companion lens to the 50-135mm.

I think it would be more constructive if you posted an image taken with your Pentax cameras. You must have plenty of them by now?

I had a bit of spare time, so here's my tritone version.

£10 difference on the MX. I always preferred the look of the black MX, but never had one in black. I now have a nice black MX-1 as consolation!

Not sure when that was accepted wisdom Russ, the 28mm lens didn't become the norm until the 1980s and the 135mm is a bit long for general purposes.

In the 1950s the standard set was 35mm-50mm-135mm. In the 1970s it became 28mm-50mm-135mm, but with a growing tendency towards 28mm-50mm-100mm.

It depended on what sort of photography you were doing of course. Kevin MacDonnell, writing in photography magazine, said if he used two lenses only they would be 24mm and 100mm.

My choice before zooms was 24mm-50mm-100mm.