Asking £80 for a faulty lens is about £80 too much I'd say as it's not fit for its intended purpose, used or not.

1: Are you sure you need to remove it?
2: Are you really sure you need to remove it?
3: If you are absolutely certain that you need to remove it . . .
4: DON'T touch it as its easily damaged.
5: Have a pair of surgical tweazers at the ready (to avoid you touching it) . . .
6: Remove the lens and fit rear lens cap . . .
7: Usinger finger nail or suitably blunt instrument pull the tab at the front edge of the focussing screens mount towards the front of the camera.
8: Did I mention "DON'T TOUCH IT".
9: The focussing screen holder will drop down enabling the cleaning of the inside surface with a blower. The focussing screen itself is loose inside its holder so beware of it falling out. If it does . . . . "DON'T . . . "you've got the message.
10: Ensure that the screen is sitting squarely in its holder before returning the holder to its original position.

Easy really, as long as you DON'T TOUCH IT.

Not quite 'arrived' John, more like 'accosted' in the street by a trader who thought all british tourists were mugs who would buy any piece of junk.

The filter only broke because it was cheap and nasty.

At least that shopkeeper now knows 2 things:-

1: Not all brits are mugs for anything 'digital'.
2: We know that he knows he's selling junk using a somewhat dubious sales technique, as do some internet traders today.

The term "Digital Filter" means absolutely nothing and is used to 'reel in' those who are convinced that it means something. Digital Filter = 100% BS (BU*L SH*T).

If a filter were to be advertised as having 'anti-reflective' or 'ghostless' coating, then some of might be willing to try it out, but 'Digital Compatible' ? ? ? . . . get real.

Tell me, why spend . . . lets say £600.00 on a SMCP-FA 31mm Ltd lens . . . and put £10/£20/£30/£40 worth of cheap glass/plastic in front of it to reduce image quality. Why do it ?

I walked into a 'video' store somewhere on holiday in recent years, knowing full well what to expect having been 'enticed' (or so he thought) by a guy in the doorway selling the latest 'Digital' filters. I had an el cheapo Sony cam at the time and decided to play along.

I got to the counter and the 'seller' asked for my camera, which I handed over and he pointed it at me to show me how dull and dark the image was (think backlighting at this point).

"yes" I said,"it does seem dark" (chuckling inside).

"Now see how it looks with our (cheaper than cheap chinese made, framed piece of glass) DIGITAL filter" he said.

Now at this point he screwed the filter in place, checked my camera all over (looking for the backlight button) then turned it on (having selected the backlight function) . . . and wow, the image was much brighter than before.

The salesman went on to tell me the usual price . . . but because I was British . . . blah blah blah . . . I could buy it cheaper.

I said "thank you, but no, I couldn't possibly inflict such an obvious financial misfortune on such a wonderful establishment as yours". then removed the 'digital' (read plain glass) filter, slammed it onto the counter (breaking the filter), exclaimed "oh dear, the backlight switch on my camera seems to have moved", put my camera back in it's bag, and walked out.

'Digital filters' . . . don't exist . . . it's no more than a marketing buzzword. If you want/need a polarizing filter, try a few and buy the one that produces results that you like. Don't be sucked in by marketing BS.

Chris @ SRS has the DA 12-24mm (my recommendation) in stock and is just up the road from you in Watford. He's usually good for a bit of discount off his web price for us forum members.

Confuscious then wrote: "Damn, I wish I'd thought of that 10 seconds ago".

ANy zoom lens having such a huge zoom range (almost 10:1 in the case of the Tamron) will suffer from design/build compromises somewhere in their performance.

Personally, I would go for the Pentax 80-320mm. That said, the 28-300mm Tamron ought to be a reasonably good general purpose 'do-it-all' lens for lightweight trips.

Strewth, I go out for the day wi' me camera and come back to find a whole new section has been added. Great idea but . . .

NOTE to moderators: The subsections have none . . . moderators that is.

I've had a SMCP-DA* 16-50mm 1:2.8 only day today and I'll be posting some.

All they need now then is propulsion and guidance system . . . and the stars are our oyster.

Interesting article, thanks for the link.

Oh . . . and a CanoNikon seeking missile wouldn't go amiss either.

I prefer quick release (QR) plates. For long lenses however, you might need to remove the rubber pad that the lens/camera sits on as it can cause the camera/lens combination to be somewhat less than rigid. I had to do this in order to reduce the movement of my SMCP 135-600mm zoom. Its tripod mount is too far back and leaving the rubber pad in place just wasn't working.

I don't usually leave a plate on the camera but all of my lenses that have a tripod mount have their own QR plate permanently attached.

If you a swapping long lenses, having only one QR plate is about the same as having none.