Thanks for the reply Steve, you've confirmed what I'd already heard ie. that the lens is very good value for money and a pretty decent performer.

It sounds as though you've got yourself a real bargain with the Tokina - well done!

Thanks for the kind offer, I'll give it some thought and drop you a PM.

Cheers
Kimbo

True, but they only really shared the same body shell, there were significant differences between them - unlike the latest models in the *istD range.
The MV was incredibly basic - SPD cell, auto only and no self-timer. I suppose the MG and ME were essentially the same but the MES was much more sophisticated and the MEF was, for it's day, highly innovative.
Only the original *istD is radically different from the others and in some ways, it's now quite dated.
As far as I can see, the DS2 and DL2 have only very minor enhancements over the originals and for some reason Pentax have restricted the release to certain parts of the world market. Perhaps they plan to whet our appetites and will soon be releasing a completely new mega-spec pro model.

Bl**dy hell, while I'm all for Pentax moving forward, can't they let us enjoy a new camera for a while.......without bringing out an improved version

Actually, there's really very little to choose between any of them and it can't be long before we see a totally new and different model - they've got to exhaust the possibilities of the current design soon!

Agreed John, but when you bear in mind that you can dramatically increase the focal length of your lens with the simple addition of an adapter/converter that is small enough to fit in your pocket, there are times when it's the most convenient solution - esp. if it means the difference between getting the shot or not!

I once owned a cheap Vivitar four-element 2x converter and it really wasn't at all bad, I think the AF 1.7x is six-element and undoubtedly better and the eight-element Tamron SP flat-field converter is superb.
Generally speaking, a good quality converter is a very handy bit of kit and you'd only get poor results with a low quality object lens.
A reasonably fast, good quality tele lens is definately a better option, optically speaking but size and weight (not to mention cost) can be an issue.

The only slight inconvenience that I've found with the 1.7x AF adapter is that you generally set the main lens to infinity and allow the adapter to do the rest. Sometimes the subject falls outside the range of the adapter and it simpy can't achieve correct focus, the solution is to approximately focus the lens first (or adjust it when the adapter fails).
This only really applies to lenses with shallow depths of field ie. telephotos and tele-zooms toward the long end, standard and wide-angles are normally ok - depending of course on subject distance!

No matter how much you tell yourself that you should only use adapters with prime lenses, you just can't help trying outrageous combinations such as: AF 1.7x + MF 2x + 75-250mm zoom

There are a couple of genuine Pentax ones (I think for 35mm only) on eBay at the moment (search for 'Pentax stereo') and there's quite a good description at the following link:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/3D-Stereo-Lens-for-Nikon-35-mm-SLR-Cameras_W0QQitemZ3874210333QQcategoryZ30035QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

- also available for Pentax.

If you check out the Loreo website, http://www.loreo.com/, you'll see that you need the T version for APS sized sensors.
There are also some sample images that you can view on your monitor and approximate the effect of by slightly crossing your eyes.

The Loreo fits on the camera without a supporting lens, whereas you have a choice of lenses with the Pentax version (49 or 52 mm filter thread).

I agree with all of the above, there are many facets to what makes a great camera system 'better' than the rest and it's such a subjective thing that no one test or review can possibly do more than just hint at the possibility of how suitable it is to the prospective buyer.

Assuming that the system is technically sound, the handling is easy and comfortable and it's priced competitively within the chosen market, the final decision should depend upon the quality of the end results ie. the images produced.

Pentax have always been competitive and have developed many innovative products and I think we'd all agree that there's a certain, almost indefinable quality (call it Pentax bokeh - if you like) to the image quality produced by most Pentax lenses, that only regular users can fully appreciate.

Tests and reviews can only tell part of the story and there's no substitute for personal experience.

I think the SFX/SFXn is a much maligned camera, the build quality is superb and it feels reassuringly heavy and solid. The AF is slow by today's standard (no predictive or multi-point) but is none the less precise and the centre-weighted metering requires careful use to get the best results but it works well and has a generous set of auto modes as well as full manual.

Even today, I think the SF range represents a good introduction to AF SLR photography and the level of user input makes it a valuable learning tool.

Nils,

To simplify things a little for you, your best bet is either an F lens (current when your camera was in production) or one from the later FA range.
Some of the FAs had an auto zoom function but you won't be able to use that facility on your SFX.

If you'd like a manual-focus lens, an A series model will work perfectly.

Let us know which type / focal length of lens you are looking for and we'll be able to make recommendations.

Thanks for pointing it out Don, I saw the bed-spread right away but didn't notice the reflection anomoly........funny how we see different things isn't it?
You could certainly be very creative with a lens like that

Excellent test BTW.