The DA Ltd's look good. Affordable, well built & good IQ. They should have larger max apertures though imho. I know they've been kept to a compact design but I would've thought the majority of us would prefer the trade off of a larger heavier lens that gives us an extra stop.

The FA Ltd's are faster, but are alot more expensive, more than I can justify sadly.

This is true, they did remind me of the tree-folk from Lord Of The Rings.

I've read that it isn't that usuable at f2.8 anyway. But a brighter viewfinder is always nice !

Don't forget to book an official meet photographer & don't forget to make sure they use Canon or Nikon equipment as we don't want any duff photos !

Certainly no shortage of scenery around me Steve. Didn't really see myself targeting Landscape when I bought the camera a few months ago, but have since taken up Geocaching with my wife & friends & it takes you to some beautiful & unique locations so it'd be rude not to photograph them.

I also like Industrial landscapes, modern architecture & disuse/disrepair. All of which will also call for Wide Angles. The South Wales valleys are prevalent with all 3, If we just had the weather here I'd be out shooting it !

GivingTree: As I hadn't saved the PSD file I just cropped off the border of the first posted image, so it is indeed exactly the same image with same colours/tones. It's just a trick of the eye. There's one photo gallery (which one escapes me right now) that has an option to "View on black" & it can make a world of difference to contrasty or saturated images.

Womble, yes there seem to be alot more possibilities with these trees & I'll be returning when we have good light/weather & also when near dark for some "light painting" experiments.

edit: Mike, I've been a bit heavy handed with the contrast in some of my colour images, I forget it works alot better in B&W -

Thanks Steve

I'd have to disagree with that statement. I've shown 2 images on this forum that are Neither "Brilliant" or "Total Pants" although that last option is open to some conjecture obviously. First at 10mm 2nd at 17mm

[IMG]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q105/RR76/frozenwalkframed.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q105/RR76/trees4web.jpg[/IMG]

With regards to your comment about competition entries - I've been looking at the images on pentaxphotogallery where the competition is very high for places & there are nearly as many accepted images from the 10-17 as the 12-24. I'm acutely aware that it's the photographer & not the lens that produces great images, I can't help myself looking to see which lenses are used in the kind of styles I'd like to produce.

The 14mm f2.8 looked appealing at the price point (especially compared to Canikon offerings) but seems a little unloved within the Pentax community.

I think I may well go with the 12-24 at the current price available as It should retain alot of it's value, I don't know why I don't get excited by this lense, it's wide, versatile, great contrast & rendering, little distortion (for a WA zoom) - just doesn't really get my juices flowing. It's definately a head purchase rather than a heart one.

Well as Lee Evans says about the phrase "It's always in the last place you look" -

"Of course it is, what kind of Retard would keep looking for something they had just found ?"

Hi Womble. It was just to bring out the contrast in the photo. There's alot going on in the pic & viewed on a bright background it can lose some contrast to the eye.

Here it is sans border...

[IMG]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q105/RR76/trees4web2.jpg[/IMG]

Don't have any experience with them personally. They are a pretty big concern though & have a reasonable reputation iirc.