The UV light should be able to kill the fungus but it won't remove the growth that's already there. If it's very faint then I'd say it's not worth taking the lens apart to clean it, as it won't have much effect on IQ and will be expensive to do.

I have the Tamron and it is indeed very good at just about everything, including landscapes. However, if you find yourself yearning for something much wider than the kit lens, the Tamron is only a bit wider, though the difference between 17 & 18mm is certainly noticeable.

If you're looking for nice, very sharp old primes for landscapes, the best one I can think of is the K 28mm f/3.5, however it's quite rare and prices can be high. The M 28mm f/3.5 is much more common, goes for half the price (or less) of the K, and is just as sharp, though the rendering is not as good.

According to the article, Olympus plans to concentrate on SLR cameras. Bad for them, as they only make one model (the E5). I suppose they mean large-sensor cameras such as SLRs and EVIL.

Oly won't disappear in 2014. Someone may buy their camera business (as happened to Pentax), or they might get their act together themselves. It's only in the last year that Oly have started making decent primes for m4/3, though prices are still far too high. I think m4/3 can certainly be profitable for all involved.

Oly have a larger market share than Pentax, but the company seems to be spectacularly mis-managed, the book-cooking that was revealed is still doing them a lot of damage.

Good luck with your search, it's a superb lens. The M version is much more common, so make sure to check any that you find to make sure it is indeed a "K" series, not just a "K-mount". The M version, while good, is not as nice as the K.

Unlike many here, I started with digital and have now moved to film. I find I enjoy it more and more and have bought 35mm cameras, now medium format cameras, a scanner, B&W developing kit....

I found that I have the same problem with digital - too many shots and not enough quality. I need to slow down, and film helps me do that. Using old manual lenses on digital also helps me do that.

But yes, film has a look that my digital gear can't get close too. Film producers are still adapting to the revoluttionised industry, but film will be around for a long time yet.

There are a couple of versions of the Vivitar 28/2, made by different manufacturers. Have a look here:

http://photografica.robinparmar.com/vivitar.html

Mine is the K01, I think. Performance isn't bad on digital, better on film. It's not that great wide open and the coatings give images a very slight green tinge on digital, which is usually automatically corrected by the autom white balance of the camera. I haven't tried it yet on colour film but I like it on B&W and the extra stop of speed is nice.

I have one on my 645 and haven't had any problems. Not sure what the glider is...

If you want to upload RAW then you need a cloud data storage solution, not a photo sharing website. You have photos over 200MB? My K200D, admittedly low resolution by today's standards produces RAWs that are around 16MB.

FYI I've been using the new flickr today and the layout changes aren't that big. I've had no problems whatsoever on chrome.

The lens is very well regarded, although the camera not so much these days, I think.

This is great! I can see all the older stuff that had become invisible, since flickr only allowed me to see the most recent 200 images.

I discovered yesterday that Photobucket has removed a large proportion of my storage (don't know why) and I'm not paying for more, so with this change, it might be that flickr is the way to go.