An amazing price for what is often held to be the worst K-mount prime made by Pentax.

See, eg Stan's Pentax Photography Site.

The only Pentax prime to get an "x" in SPLOSdb.

Definitely a result

R

That explains why they have none left

I do hope you'll be able to sell them all!

R

Ordered my 50-200 on the 2nd of December and got the Tamron 70-300 offer twice (before and after Xmas). I accepted the replacement the second time and it turned up last weekend.

Checking my CC statement, it would seem Jessops haven't charged me for postage, so even more of a bargain

After trying it out, I'm pleasantly surprised. Not quite as well made as the equivalent Pentax zooms, but light and reasonably sharp. Not at all bad for £38

As others have said, there can be a lot of PF and CA. Here's a shot I that illustrates both these points. Nice detail in the feathers, but also loads of PF in the OOF area at the front of the image:




R

My 16-50, is sharper than my 16-45 at all focal lengths. However, mine is probably a good sample as I went through 3 others first (thanks to Chris for his patience )

I don't believe my 16-45 is sub-standard either because it's at least as sharp as my A20/2.8 and FA*24/2 at the same focal lengths.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a lot of sample variation in the new zooms

R

Whilst I understand Ned's reasons and applaud his honesty and integrity, I can't help feeling this is a bit of an own goal.

Unfortunately it's not what you do or say that counts but how it is perceived...

R

Perspective depends solely on where you're standing relative to the subject and not on the lens you're using. "Wide-angle" perspective is created because you're standing a lot closer and the opposite for "telephoto".

In your 85mm/55mm case, the perspective will be the same because you'll be standing the same distance from the subject.

BTW, these issues with angle of view, DOF & perspective are well covered in the venerable, but still excellent, "The Asahi Pentax Way". The laws of physics have not changed with the introduction of Digital

R

I'll be coming along, as it's only a short trip for me.

The wife will want to come as well, to make sure I don't buy anything

R

It never occurred to me that it looked like a kebab, but it does

This page shows a lot of the Russian Optical factory logos.

R

My experience with the 16-50 (which is similar to that reported on photozone.de) is that it is very sharp in the centre right from f2.8, but poor around the edges. The edges are a lot better at f4 and good at f5.6/f8.

Mine is slightly de-centered as well, such that the left edge is always slightly softer than the right edge at f2.8.

This doesn't affect what I use it for though, as I never shoot stuff at f2.8 that requires edge-sharpness

There is also a lot of CA/purple fringing at the wider focal lengths.

All in all, I'm sufficiently pleased with mine that it stays on the camera most of the time
R

There were a few f1.2 lenses produced for M42, but none by Pentax

Search the M42 lens database to see what I mean.

Does that make me a geek as well

R