It is indeed the finder for a Spotmatic

It will also fit a K-series camera (KX, KM, K2, K1000).

Pentax changed the width of the fitting with the M-series cameras (making it a bit bigger).

The width has remained unchanged since though, so you can use M-series and later accessories on the digital bodies (I use an M-series finder myself).

Apparently the Olympus OM finders fit Pentax as well, although I've not tried this personally

--
R

Personally I prefer the DA21 on digital, hence I recently sold my A20 to another
forum member.

The A20 is very sharp in the centre, but rather soft round the
edges on digital. Whereas the DA21 has a very consistent edge-to-edge sharpness
and is also a lot smaller. In my opinion, landscape-type lenses need to be sharp
in the corners

I've had 2 A20/2.8's over the years and they both behaved the same
way, so I don't think this is sample variation.

The other, much cheaper option, is to use a Zenitar 16/2.8 and de-fish
in software. The Z costs around £65 and the results are very good on
digital.

R

My recommendation would be to buy a K-mount Zenitar 16/2.8 and de-fish in software The Z can be had for £60-70 and is very sharp on digital (soft in the corners on film though).

I have the DA-14 and (much to my chagrin) there's not a huge amount between them once the Z is stopped down from F2.8. The Z is also a lot more compact

De-fishing can be done in most image-editing applications and is a quick and fairly painless process (I use the excellent Proxel Lens Corrector: http://www.proxel.se/lens.html).

The Z does have quite a lot of blue-yellow CA, but again this is also easily dealt with in software.

If you want to go even wider there is also the excellent Peleng 8mm, which is by far the cheapest circular fisheye option and is a great performer for what it costs.

R

Actually only the hood is real, but you never know

Cheers,
Reuben0

I did the opposite

I was going to buy a 16-50 with the money from my recent lens clearout, but couldn't resist the 16-45 at the £229 on offer at SRS!

It arrived on Saturday - so far I'm pretty impressed. If the 16-50 is better than this then it's a very good lens indeed!

R

Sound like I got a good one then

I've got one that I bought new about 15 years ago.

The focus and zooming movements are fairly friction free (which is not great), but I wouldn't call it loose or wobbly.

I'm afraid that "rather wobbly" doesn't sound good for an A-series lens

R

This whole notion was put to the sword on DPR last week (qv).

I guess we're a much more polite group on Pentax User

R

No disagreement with that John

I've taken a lot of good shots (mostly portraits) with my 50-200. It's got great contrast and good bokeh, but I just wouldn't class it as a "very high quality optic" in the technical sense of corner sharpness, vignetting etc.

R

Well I think GC is talking out of his proverbial

I've had at the same time both the Samsung and Pentax variants of the 50-200 (sold the Pentax one now) and they are IDENTICAL, apart from the rubber grip. I don't know how GC measured the "colour" of the coating, but it looks identical to my eye. Performance was also identical as far as I could tell. Even the cardboard box and packaging is the same, apart from branding differences.

It's also far from being a "very high quality optic"! It's an ok zoom which is very good value for money, but definitely not "very high quality". This is confirmed by every test I've ever seen of it...

I look forward to reading the review for myself

R