Dan - sorry about that, something went wrong with the quoting in my earlier post but I've fixed it now.

I'd agree with you if this thread was about UV filters but it's not, it's about polarizers and I've found them just as useful with digital as I did with film.

The only filters I use these days are polarizers, ND grads and IR - I've never (with film or digital) found any benefits for slapping UV filters on all lenses (although I did buy a very expensive Pentax multi-coated one when I first bought my FA* lenses).

I've had one of the Hoya ones in 77mm size for a few years and I've found it pretty good. Any filter is going to increase the chance of flare definitely, as John suggests, getting a decent one will reduce this as they're better coated. It's also worth checking if you can still operate the filter ok when the hood is fitted - I think the newer Pentax hoods have a little segment that slides our to facilitate this although I can't recall if my 16-45 hood has one of those.

I've also got a Cokin 'P' one and it's also pretty decent although, if it's the only filter being used, doesn't handle as well as a normal one.

If you keep the horizon across the centre of the frame and are careful of what's in the foreground you can minimise the fisheye effect with the 10-17.

The Pentax is undoubtedly a lovely lens but personally I went with the Sigma as it's also a very good lens but wider and half the price. Having a constant aperture is a worthwhile feature but with wide angles you tend to shoot more often at smaller apertures (or at least I do!) anyway and given these lenses don't have aperture rings I've not found the Sigma being non-constant any kind of issue.

Warehouse express list the Pentax 12-24 at £629 but for the same sort of cash you could by the Sigma 10-20 (£290) and still have cash left for a Pentax 16-45mm F4 or a 10-17mm fisheye.

The 14mm F2.8 I'd love to own but not at £599!

I've had my Sigma 10-20mm for some 18 months or so now and I've found it an excellent lens both in build quality and optically. I'd have been willing to pay some premium for the Pentax lens but not the difference they currently are - from what I've heard the price difference is significantly less marked elsewhere in the world than it is here in the UK.

Congratulation to Daniel and also to Dirk for the interesting theme and judging - not difficult picking a winner this week and I can't imagine many people will argue with the result.

Having different judges each week is definitely one of the strengths of this competition especially if, as is the case this week, my own opinions (other than for the winner) differ to a marked degree - having a commentary from the judge on each photograph is particularily enlightening and helpful from that perspective.

I'm looking forward to next weeks installment and what Daniel has in store for us.

Pentax *istDS, Pentax SMC-FA 28-200mm, hand-held, no filters

I'm sure the MZ7 will be able to - I know my Z1p & MZ5 can.

Usually the case but not always - I was just looking at the EXIF data from a studio portrait of my son I'd shot using the *istDS and the 85mm:




Most of the details are there but the aperture is blank. I suspect that's probably because I normally use the aperture ring when shooting with studio lights.

I was actually quite surprised I had the information but I'd noted it against the file when I originally uploaded it to the web. I think it might have co-incided with a (very) brief phase where I use to note camera settings - that was also one of the first films I ever developed at home as well so perhaps I was keeping details for that reason.

Thanks Dan. I also generally prefer natural light portraits and that shot was in a phase where I did quite a few using very minimal DOF (the main reason I bought the lens in fact).