Absolutely. That was my point, George.
I know that many don't fit into the "budget" category, but once I'd started listing the ones, like the 35-70 & 70-210 that are cheaply available, I thought I'd do the whole lot.
I can still remember the time when I thought that £150 was a lot for a lens, and couldn't understand why I should pay any more
Matt

I'd agree with most of what's been said.
Search out a second hand older Pentax (like the F series lenses). Here are some of the better older Pentax lenses:

SMC-F & -FA 50mm/f1.7 - astonishingly sharp. I've seen them for around £50. Well worth it, especially for the discipline of using a prime

SMC-F 70-210 - very contrasty, and very sharp. I got this for next to nothing in an ebay bundle (sold what I didn't want back on ebay ) Can be seen secondhand for as much as £90. Suffers from flare quite a bit, so you need a hood, but uses 49mm filters which is handy.

SMC-FA 80-320 - wonderful sharpness and colour. Around £90 second hand.

SMC-F 35-70 - I had this for a while in the above mentioned kit. Took some super sharp images, especially as it has a close-focus mode. Limited range, but very cheap

SMC-FA 28-70/f4 - well repected lens. However, I've had two of these go fungused (could have been storage).

SMC-F & -FA 100mm f2.8 macro - wonderful lens, super sharp. Around £200 second hand (had a £550 rrp tho', and for good reason).

I have had other lenses (including Sigma and Tokina), but chosen to sell them because I have always had better overall results from genuine Pentax lenses, especially on the digital body (*ist-D).

As for the newer lenses, here are some that I am mighty pleased with:

SMC-FA 24-90 - lovely lens. Not as sharp as the 50mm/f1.7, but very useable. Excellent for portraiture. The price might shock you, but believe me, it's worth it

SMC-DA 16-45 - one of my favourites, especially for landscapes. It really shines on the *ist-D. Razor sharp. I've had several A3 photographic prints at true 300dpi printed. Price is reasonably high, but again, for good reason.


So, to summarise, you only get what you pay for, and searching around eBay or other second hand places you can get good deals on older series Pentax lenses that work an absolute treat on the *ist-D/DS/DL

Hope that helps,
Matt

George - ROFL!!
That site is terrible! What a way to "dispose" of a Super Tak!!!!

Just a PS to Arthur's post... Panatools (from here: http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/ ) was always able to correct distortions (and a good deal else besides). Has a very "math" interface, which isn't too difficult to sort out if you read the instructions.
Works in Photoshop Elements, and all versions of Photoshop

CS2's lens correction is nice though
Matt

Photoshop Elements 3 is good and the RAW conversion is ok.

Personally, I would recommend both, but if your budget can't stretch, you'll get better results out of C1LE, especially if you persist with it

The Adobe Camera RAW (ACR as shipped in PS-CS2 and a cut down one in PSE3) is better than it was, but I still find the workflow in C1LE much faster, and more intuitive. C1LE allows you to rattle through a whole set of images, converting as you tweak. I find that a wonderful way to work.

Photoshop Elements is a fine product (I used it for years), and even Elements 2 is worth getting. However, you may find it a bit of a culture shock after PSP (which is also a good product). PSP is much slower when it comes to previewing basic filters such as levels, colour balance etc. PSE and PS are extremely fast when previewing.

So, my suggestion is - stick to what you know for now and get C1LE. You won't be disappointed (But go through with the trial to see what you get!)

Matt

Actually I found an email that I sent out to a few ePhotozine users who were in exactly the same position as you

Just took a while to format it for the forum

I'm still busy working on the sharpening algorithms... fun, fun, fun!

Matt

George,
Yes, I've commented on C1 many times But I can't remember where I put it all...
I've stuck a new topic: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8233#8233

(May need some reformatting... should be stable now.)

Matt

Here's the link to the article I remembered:
http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/20357.html

Now, what's interesting is that I've been combining the information on some of these articles, and I think I have a really good general technique for sharpening *ist-D images that gives natural results. I need a few days to play around with some more ideas before I write this technique up, but my initial findings are wholly positive.

So, to update what I said above:
1. Use Capture One
2. Don't sharpen from Capture One
3. Apply a modest amount of "Capture Sharpening" to restore lost detail in Photoshop
4. Do all the creative stuff - local curves, colour adjustments, localised sharpening (e.g. around the eyes for portraits)
5. Save the layered file (you did use non-destructive layers didn't you?!)
6. Flatten, resize and sharpen for the specific output device and save as a different file name.

It's the sharpening in step (3) that I'm concentrating on...
I'll let you know
Matt

Not always Arthur... but most definitely in general

There's a very interesting argument for applying "Presharpening" at the beginning of a RAW workflow - to "undo" the softening of the RAW conversion. As far as I can remember it is the process of applying subtle sharpening first.

I'll dig out the links and reading matter and get back....
In the meantime, here's an interesting link:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials_05/essay.html
Which raises further questions about whether all RAW convertors are the same or not... methinks I have some experimentation to do...

Here's another related link:
http://photography.about.com/od/digital/a/a111904.htm
(It's not the one I remember reading, but the principles are very similar)

Matt

FYI, there's a very long thread on the subject:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1598
(I covered Rawshooter Essentials there).

One other thing while I'm at it - it's almost always best to do no sharpening, or very little, within the RAW convertor, but apply this further down the line, in Photoshop.

I got a little over zealous in using the C1 sharpening (which is great for saving time), but was finding there were some artifacts appearing which were becoming too obvious in large format hi res images (upsizing to around 30 mega pixels). After a little experimentation I found I could get better results with advanced sharpening techniques in PS (won't cover them here). Just so you know

Matt