That Cosina 100/3.5 has a plastic and wobbly build but takes wonderful pictures.

And here's a secret: the achromatic adapter alone is worth 80 quid.

After a flurry of lens buying over three years I have stabilised and LBA is a thing of the past. Last Pentax lens bought was maybe a year ago. That's because the only lenses possibly better than the FA Limiteds cost thousands. And I am satisfied in knowing I will never afford them.

Yes, you can attain peace.

You are missing a taste of the FA Limiteds and the DA 12-24mm which is the best wide angle in terms of IQ. And a macro.

So, yes, you need more lenses.

I think most of these lenses are at least "good" if not "very good". It's hard to make a bad lens in that focal length.

Just found this thread. I have written a general article on Pentax 135mm lens options, and then a second one considering three excellent non-Pentax choices. Although I have not tried all these options I can heartily recommend the Vivitar 135mm Close Focusing, pictured here on my Olympus E-P1.

[IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2078/5800862093_00f1bf84ee.jpg[/IMG]

Why do I like it? Clear rendering, sharp, nice soft OOF areas, great handling, almost macro performance. Here are two more reasons:

[IMG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5601853480_24da9357af.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5052/5475773929_6638609f18.jpg[/IMG]

Click through my images for larger on Flickr.

This forum would be a lot better with an ignore feature. As it is I must abandon threads completely. I am far too old to tolerate passive-aggressive behaviour. Then again, I felt the same at 14.

In this and other threads you feel the need to tear apart the information I am giving to help other people. The fact you do so quite badly, with no regard for either context or logic, hardly helps your position.

From now on I will respond to your negative and unhelpful comments with "please stop being a prat".

Anvh I can only assume there's a language barrier in operation here. Otherwise you're being obtuse for the sake of it. You ask me for "prove" and I give you two points of evidence. You don't have to "take my word for it" you can find lots of backup for those two sentences by using a tool we call Google. The fact that some files don't have problems is hardly evidence against the fact that other files do have documented problems. Nothing I said was about the Q but about the Adobe software issue; please read clearly. I was simply trying to help by adding some further points of information.

I just mentioned it!

1. Since all DNGs are fundamentally the same, there is no reason files shouldn't work unless the software is looking for an ID and restricting access based on this.

2. You can simply change one ID key in the software and files miraculously work.

The behaviour is not how tagged file formats are designed to work. A programme should read the tags it understands and ignore the rest. Instead Adobe software deliberately rejects any camera IDs not on their white list. That way they force you to upgrade continuously.

The easiest way to get around this is hack the camera ID to one Adobe software likes. Simply open the camera RAW plugin (Camera Raw.8bi) in a hex editor, search for a camera string it does recognise (but which you don't use) and change this to the one that corresponds to the RAW file. I am sure there are fuller details out there somewhere.