I was going to suggest the Tamron 90mm F2.5 too as it's cheaper than a Pentax 85mm and is a stonkingly good macro lens, as well as being ideal for portraiture.

If you wanted to go for a really cheap option ie. nothing to lose, you could look for a Tamron Adaptall 2 135mm F2.5 (model 03B).
It's an old style (metal bodied) manual focus lens, fast for it's focal length and a remarkably good performer.
I expect you could pick one up for less than £20 (+ £10-£20 for a KA Adaptall 2 mount).

I actually paid £22 for mine quite a few years ago from a high street store (Jessops, I think) and I dare say eBay would be an even cheaper option.
It really is a fine lens and at that price, there's no real risk is there?

That's reassuring, I assumed it was something like that because otherwise, it would have been the square screens that were distorted - seeing as they were all synchronised to a single source!

I did have a widescreen tv that I was never really happy with, no matter what setting I chose, it always seemed like a compromise between picture size and distortion / image loss.
If I allowed the set to automatically choose the correct format, it used the whole screen and the perspective was correct but there was always a substantial amount of picture missing for example, the answers C and D in ......Millionaire would be missing from the bottom of the screen and then in panoramic mode, the whole image was there but it was like sitting in front of a giant goldfish bowl.

I'm relieved to hear that monitors don't suffer from the same problem.

I'm in a similar situation to Mike, my good CRT died recently and I'm currently using an older and smaller one with a max. resolution of 800x600.

I really don't want (nor can afford) a really good replacement but I've seen some flat-screens at around £100 that have good colour and sharpness etc. and I'm sure that I'd be happy with any one of them.
However, I too am unsure as to whether or not to go for a widescreen model. I appreciate that you get more desktop space but every model I've seen being demonstrated (normally showing the Vista promotion) has widescreen distortion ie. the circular Vista logo is perfectly circular on square models but oval (flattened top and bottom) on the widescreen versions.
Can this effect be corrected via either the computer or monitor settings, without losing too much of the available screen?

I'll most probably go for widescreen anyway esp. as they're better for watching DVDs but for general use, I'd like everything to look naturally proportioned.

I thought both sets of shots looked good and the second set certainly had more punch.
It all depends on the effect you want to achieve, I personally prefer my shots to look natural ie. they way I saw the scenes with the naked eye.
This of course means that they are not very interesting and look quite ordinary but you can always tweak them afterwards!

I must say Pete that you have a pretty good eye for an image, you have effectively explored several techniques and you've every right to be pleased with your results - they are generally very good.

You clearly appreciate that not everyone will like the same images, some will be very critical while others will applaud but there's no doubt in my mind that you'll soon be producing some real stunners - well done

Spot-on Mac, art should be controversial and provocative.

I can't say that I particularly like many of the images, it's not a style that I would choose to emulate but I do appreciate them and why the hell should anyone really care what make of camera was used?

Looks OK to me too, mind you this laptop screen is nothing to shout about!

I must admit that I haven't really set up my main monitor properly and I usually print a small test picture first because the print never looks the same as it does on screen.
I did once set up a monitor using WYSIWYG (I think) and I couldn't bear to leave it that way for general use - I guess you really need two separate profiles!

That seems like a very strange response to me, almost like they're just trying to fob you off!

Did they actually confirm whether or not the lenses were all suitable for that particular converter and if there were any limitations?

There is obviously some gearing involved but I think he was just trying to make a point, ie. that you would increase the resistance (felt when turning the ring manually) when you add the converter but I see no reason why it would become so stiff as to be impossible to use effectively.

With the lenses that do work, have you noticed any significant difference in how stiff they are? - if not, then I would suggest that seeing as most of them are also zoom lenses, that his quite reasonable gearing analogy doesn't really stand up.

As for the 'definate click' that you hear when first engaging the drive, I would imagine that it would be more noticeable with some lenses than others because of the different ways they are built and zooms do tend to have a looser construction than primes (more moving parts that sometimes move in opposite directions).

It is certainly an intriguing question because presumably all your lenses focus easily in manual mode on their own and I don't see why adding the converter would make such a difference to just two of them

The link shows a picture of the 1.4x converter and I can see the AF coupler.

The 2x converter shown appears to be in Canon mount and has electronic connectors for the USM lenses.

Unfortunately all my Tamron gear is old adaptall 2 manual focus, so I can't really help but I do have Pentax AF lenses and the Pentax 1.7x AF converter.
This is really designed for MF lenses and there is no drive connection for AF - so an AF lens works in MF only (the adapter does the focusing).
I would have thought that the Tamron adapter would work in the same way and selecting MF on the camera will disengage the drive to the converter.

I'm quite intrigued by your description of the problem - are you sure that the lenses auto-focus when attached to the adapter?

Just found the following, there is an AF coupler between converter and lens. I think selecting MF on the camera is all you can do but the lens and converter will remain coupled.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/teles.asp

These adapters aren't really designed for wide-angle lenses or zooms that extend wider than 70mm, so it might be that the inner barrel of the lens would protrude too far into the adapter - just a thought!

I think both versions of the shot are excellent and I'm not sure which one I like best.
I tend to agree with Don, so something mid-way between the two would probably be spot on!

The first image has that dreamy 'Cadbury's Flake' look about it but perhaps a little too much, whereas the second is the opposite.
Focusing that is too sharp and lighting that is too harsh can spoil the look of a portrait because it shows every pore and blemish on the skin.
I feel that your shot is very good in this respect and you just need to get the right amount of softness (I prefer her top in the first image), while retaining the sharp eye contact, to have a really fine end result.

Well done Pete, I'd be very pleased with that myself