I think some of the older lenses stand up remarkably well compared to their modern counterparts. I enjoy using them for the reasons that Jon mentioned above - they make you stop and think, and the proportion of decent shots increases as a result.

Ian, I don't know what you think of your 35mm f2.8, but I have one and consider it to be something of an unsung hero - it does exactly what I need of it and produces very good results time after time. I'd second others' opinions of the 50mm/1.7 and 20mm/4, and would add the 135/3.5 as a decent quality and very cost-effective medium telephoto.

My guess is that as you mention Consumer Reports, you are based in the USA? In which case places like BH Photovideo in NYC are a good place to start if you want to check the price of various brands (or Amazon, to be honest).

Given that you can get decent results from any dSLR to be honest (yes, some variations but they are all capable of making good pictures in the right hands), I'd suggest you do two things:

(1) draw up a list of what is really important to you in making a decision. Consider issues such as price, size and weight, build quality, weather-proofing, how good is the view finder, how important is it to have a good live view system, do you want video capability, do you think you will want to control lots of what the camera does yourself, or would you prefer it to make most of the decisions for you (this impacts on whether you want a camera with lots of external buttons, or whether you are happy to dig into a menu system to change settings). Remember also that when you are buying a camera, you are also committing to a system of lenses. The consumer level "kit" lenses supplied with most cameras nowadays are decent enough, although Pentax and Olympus may give slightly better image quality than the norm, and both are certainly built to a higher standard with a proper focussing ring for example. If being compatible with a pile of old (and hopefully affordable) lenses is important to you, even more so if you think you would prefer prime lenses (single focal length rather than zooms), then Pentax becomes a particularly strong choice.

(2) try and find stores that will let you pick up and hold the cameras for yourself. Nothing beats being able to hold them, compare them in your hand, and decide which one simply feels "right". This will vary from one person to another - and is a major reason why I happened to buy Pentax. Sadly, I think depending upon where you live, the ability to track down a store that stocks Pentax can be quite tricky - which means that you will face a sales person who will enthusiastically tell you that you'd be mad to do anything other than buy Canon or Nikon. You have to take a deep breath, ignore everything they say and go with your gut instinct! I have seen threads elsewhere that suggest some Walmart stores do stock Pentax at great prices - I hate Walmart but if that's an option to simply pick one up and see what it feels like, perhaps it's another deep breath worth taking!

And by the way, any person who tells you they "hate" Nikon cameras and would only buy Canon isn't worth listening to. Both manufacturers make very capable cameras; the advice from these people is simply about their personal preferences and prejudices.

Hope this helps,

Jon

Absolutely - and something that many other zooms also feature - eg Sigma from my experience 17-70, Tokina 80-400, and I'm sure lots of others.

It would be great if the lock could work at any focal length (which could help when composing a shot pointing the camera at an angle, for example), but I am not aware of any lens that has such a mechanism - they're all designed just as a transport lock when the lens is at its shortest length.

Terry - the lens creep is to do with the zoom mechanism tromboning out, but not a feature of the autofocus system. The 18-250 is rather prone to it, but you get used to it....

Best wishes,

Jon

Search the web for a blog by Marc Sabatella and somewhere you'll find his reflections (sorry) on using the Samyang mirror lens (I think the 500mm version).

I think it actually does quite well, but it's supplied without a hood, which is a big minus with such a lens - mirror lenses need hoods to keep as much contrast as you can get. Mighty Mike on DPR posted some shots with the 800mm lens, and to be honest I wasn't impressed...but I think he insists on hand-holding the thing, which is plain wrong!

I have to say that my Tamron 500mm f8 already has very narrow depth of field. I think I'd rather keep the amount of depth of field that I have than go for the brighter viewfinder of an f6.3 lens. And I'm pretty sure that the Tamron would be the better performer too.

I have exactly the same screen as Kris, and have exactly the same comments. It's not cheap but it works well.

Jon

Agree with the other posters. Teleconverters and wide angle zooms aren't an obvious match. And by the time you pay enough money to get a decent teleconverter (some would claim that is an oxymoron) you would have put it to better use buying a telezoom to complement the lens you have. Best bang for minimal bucks is probably the Tamron 70-300. Cost effective, small, light, decent enough IQ and weather resistant to go with your K-7 would lead you to the 50-200WR. Best IQ for a reasonable price is the 55-300.

A colleague in the office has brought one in today - the SLR Zoom model, with Joby ballhead - and says that it worked brilliantly for her on a several month long trip to Thailand with Nikon D5000 plus kit lens.

Just tried the K-7 with 50mm SMC-M prime on it, and it was great. I was particularly impressed by the ballhead, which makes the pod much more usable that it is by itself. The quick release plate clips in and out very easily too, and there is a handy spirit level built in. The ballhead is so good that I would consider using it on other gear - eg monopod - and I would not buy the Gorillapod without it.

I'm not sure I'd use the pod with really heavy or long lenses, but as a compact and very flexible travel option for use with lighter lenses (eg primes and the kit zooms), I am sure it would work very well. I'm less convinced that it would cope in the long term with the longer and heavier DA* zooms, but I don't think it was made with that market in mind.

Sadly, some reviewers are so used to the Canon or Nikon looks (and menu systems and handling and everything else) that any other manufacturer often appears to be judged according to how close they get to the Canon and Nikon benchmarks.

Different manufacturers tend to produce slightly different looking images. The Pentax approach appears to be a little more "hands off" in terms of in camera processing, but leaving lots of flexibility for you to tweak to your heart's content in post-processing. That said, there are so many different ways of fine-tuning the settings in the camera, that you can generally set it up to produce what you want. If the review you mentioned left things in the default "natural" mode, that would explain a comparatively restrained output before post-processing.

In terms of colour and tonality, Olympus and Pentax are the most pleasing to me, and indeed also the manufacturers that get closest to the look that we might previously have got when using film.

Image quality from the K-7 is excellent, particularly so if you are happy to use it in RAW. And I find the metering system to be generally very reliable, the focussing to be fast enough for my needs (I have used the continuous AF to take successful shots of a charging springer spaniel using the kit 50-200 lens) and auto white balance (esp indoors) to be significantly better than most other dSLRs I have used.

However, if you want high ISO JPEGs that are ready to go straight out of the camera with no post-processing, then Nikon is probably the way to go. Or possibly the Canon 7D. Personally, I think the whole issue of high ISO noise is the cause of way too much fuss, and I am happy with the Pentax approach of leaving more noise in the images but also retaining more detail.

I also feel you cannot over-estimate the advantage of packing all the K-7's punch into a camera that is so much more compact than its competitors. The Canon and Nikon equivalents are so much larger that personally it would make a difference to whether I bothered to take them out in the first place. I realise that others will feel differently about this, but most of my photography is done on foot, and after using public transport. I don't need to cart a load of bulky equipment with me.

Gareth - a couple of days ago I noticed 3 or 4 of them on EBay ranging from sensible price to EmiliaArts.... If you're keen it may be worth a look.

Jon