The main question will be what the trigger voltage of the flash is because if it's too high it might damage the camera.

It sounds like the flash has an auto setting (i.e. where you set the lens to a certain aperture manually and the flash uses its own sensor to measure the light required) and if so that would probably work (barring any issues with the trigger voltage as mentioned above). I've used an old Pentax flash (AF200S) with an auto mode with my K10D and it worked fine giving accurate exposures.

I've had a few plays with the lens now so I thought I'd post a few images in case anyone else is interested in one of these (I've see a few on Ebay recently).



Bee on a flower in the garden



Playing around with the technique Prieni used in the "Water" competition



Small insect on a flower in my garden



Snapshot of a flower at Edinburgh zoo

So far I'm pleased with it. I don't think it's as sharp as my old Vivitar 55mm F2.8 Macro but it's a lot more convenient given it has AF and works in all metering & flash modes.

The lens has arrived and even came in the original box and, most importantly, with the 1:1 adaptor (which wasn't mentioned in the listing). I've only had a quick play with it however so far I'm quite impressed. The build quality isn't as bad as I'd expected and the lens certainly seems pretty sharp - even wide open. The noise when using AF at macro distances is somewhat brutal - but I prefer MF for that anyway. It seems to work fine in P-TTL mode and the extra working distance compared to my 55m Vivitar means that having the flashgun camera mounted works pretty well even at 1:1 magnification.

Cheers John - it also means I won't be bidding on any other macro lenses in the near future...

I just won an auction for one of these on Ebay as it seemed worth a punt at £37, even if it only does 1:2 without an apaptor.

I've seen a few reviews which say these (and the Pentax badged version) are decent optically but not the best mechanically - anyone got one that they could comment on?

I know the Tamron is supposed to be a good lens but does it perform sufficiently better than the mirror lenses that can be had cheaper (e.g. the Tokina) to justify the substantial increase in price?

Item 120153470149 for a Tamron 500mm F8 mirror lens just sold on Ebay for an astounding £212.50 plus postage.

Ok the advert is exceptionally well put together and the lens looks in immaculate condition however that's an awful lot of cash.

[quote="Flink"]The 18-55 is so soft at the edges at wider focal lengths I can't say I'm surprised...

I sort of agree, although it's not the whole story. I own one of (if not the) best lenses ever made for a 35mm film camera - the FA* 85mm F1.4. I love it and it's my favourite lens, however I also have an AF 80-200 F2.8 zoom and while I don't love it quite as much as I do the 85mm prime I do use it a lot more often.

If I owned the 31mm prime and the 16-50mm F2.8 I'm absolutely certain I'd use the zoom far more often than the prime (especially given that particular prime isn't at a focal length I use all that often).

I usually put together a zooms set-up and a primes set-up and while both get a decent amount of use I find decent quality zooms more useful in practice so I'd definitely go with the zoom first and then consider the prime at a later date.