As a comment on the 17-70mm Sigma, I bought one was was unhappy with the first results. The I checked the AF and found it needed a -6 correction.

Decent little lens after that. Might be worth checking if you buy one, therefore.

What I meant was, it is of such limited use that it is hard for most people to justify owning the thing at all. The fact that it keeps appearing on eBay suggests that whoever buys it messes about with it for a bit and then flogs it.

Obviously, with South African weather conditions, you get more chance to use the thing but you'd need to pay more for the tripod for it than the lens under normal UK light conditions.

Anyone who has ever tried to handhold a 30x pair of binoculars will understand the problem

Just to add to Mannesty's comment, a properly designed macro lens will have a flatter field than your zoom making it suitable for copying purposes, too.

This won't matter so much on everyday subjects. But lenses like your Miranda would be more accurately described as 'close focussing'.

Also, since, on macro subjects, you would normally want to focus manually, an f2.8 or better aperture is very useful. Though you wouldn't generally take your picture at such a wide aperture due to the very small depth of field.

Macro has become a much misused term.

On a crop sensor a 1500mm equivalent lens of little use over and above curiosity value to any but the most specialized of photographers.

As someone who hired a Nikkor 2000mm lens to photograph an IRA siege in my Fleet Street days, I can seriously say don't bother. The main use for a lens such as this, other than surveillance where just getting an image is the point, would be wild life photography. And do they use lenses like this? No, they don't.

The impossibility of keeping it still, atmospheric haze and limited aperture make it a toy for rich boys and dreamers. On the other hand, if you are one of those, why not?

Wow! Dangermouse Writes something that is to the point, clear and accurate....and you manage to comprehensively confuse it....I am impressed

I find mine a very sharp and capable lens. The AF is positive and fast - what I like particularly is that the lens performs so well wide open that the only reason to stop down is for increased depth of field.

I have a K5 from a Samsung GX20. I find the K5 much more comfortable to hold and use.

I di have fairly small hands but I feel the comfort is down to better ergonomics mainly. If you have bigger hands, I'd make sure to get a lengthy hands on try. I think you'd find it better even so. It doesn't actually feel small at all to me after a few months.

I bet the GX would feel like atank niw, though

I have the Seagull too. Good for the money and I find it a better fit on my K5 than it was on the K20 - strangely.

I can only speak from personal experience. One thing that 40 years professional experience has taught me is that lenses, same make, same type, vary. Not a lot provided the QC is good but they vary nonetheless.

It was my regular practice to try several examples of a given lens when I was buying (when a pro) and pick the one I wanted. I do the same thing when I buy a guitar - they vary in the same way.

A good pro dealer will let you do this - but you can't expect to buy at discount prices!

I've owned and used both of these lenses. The 70mm is one of the best lenses I've used in 40 years of professional photography, matching my all time favourite Nikkor 180 f.2.8 and 85mm f1.8, if not my Hasselbald 150mm.

The 15mm is a lovely small lens but my 12-24mm was so much sharper that I found myself hardly ever using it.

Both are beautifully made and a joy to use. My experience mirrors all the tests I read. For good performance the 15 needs stopping down to f8. At f4 it's quite soft as all the tests say, though the distortion is low