Though the same fact could be used to draw the opposite conclusion: that because 4/3 has noise problems above ISO400 fast primes are even more desirable than they would be on other systems.

Under the WEEE Directive recycling of electronic equipment is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the owner. The manufacturer is obliged to fund recycling facilities but there is no compulsion on owners to use them.

Suarez didn't cheat - unlike Henry, he didn't lie to referee and claim he hadn't handled the ball. He did handle the ball, and the referee responded correctly. It isn't Suarez's fault that Asamoah Gyan missed the penalty, nor is it his fault that there is no football equivalent of a penalty try.

Besides, if it wasn't for very questionable refereeing (Serbia having a stonewall penalty for handball refused by the referee, rather than missed, coincidentally fulfilling Blatter's stated wish for an African team to get to the KO stages) Ghana wouldn't have got this far anyway, so justice (belatedly) done.

Case in point the f2 Oly standard zoom?

Bump!

Curse you Mike! Just when I had narrowed my choices down to two you have to throw the 16-45 into the mix Apart from its optical qualities, it's available for around £200 - tempting but perhaps too short at the long end.

It really now comes down to the Tamron 17-50 vs the Sigma 24-70 - I don't anticipate using the latter's macro capability very much (I have the two DFA Macro primes, which one would hope will beat any 'macro' zoom with a big stick ), and though there MIGHT be a DA* 50-135 in my future it will be quite far in the future if it even happens.

Essentially the Tamron attracts me for the extra width, £120 less, and lightness. While the Sigma has the extra reach, am I really likely to be going to 70mm (105mm rough equivalent) at indoor situations like family gatherings, wedding etc. when plenty of Canon shooters seem to get on fine with a 24-70 as their main lens on FF (ie equivalent in view to a 17-50 on APS-C)?

PS: The other obstacle to the Tamron is that I am very sentimental, and love my kit lens!

The SDM is really a side issue to this anyway - the 17-70 is a lovely lens but the fact that it is f4 is more of an obstacle to me than the fact it has SDM (should add that I am fairly paranoid - when handing in an assignment I have the printed copy, and digital backups in 4 different places ). Basically the 17-70 and the Old Sigma 24-70 are about the same price, and I think less wideness is a worthwhile sacrifice for an extra stop of speed/bokeh. Could always get out my kit lens, go to the sorts of places I'd be using any new lens, and see whether 24 is wide enough.

Whereas Pentax have not recalled their SDM lenses, preferring to leave the customers to pay for the fault themselves...

A person on the Other Forum's reviews section had the traditional SDM story (that the lens seized up after having been unused for a couple of months). In essence despite the 17-70 being a newer lens the SDM issues would appear to have still not been solved, which makes me very reluctant to pay as much as the Sigma 24-70 and more than the new Sigma 17-70 OS for the DA 17-70.

I didn't know there was an 18-55? All I knew of was the 18-50 f2.8-4.5 'kit lens'. In terms of focal length I was thinking that something with a bit more reach would be good (this is intended as an indoor lens, so from slightly wide of normal to short tele is ideal) but didn't think that f4 would be suitable (either for shutter speed or DOF)