Thanks for the tips guys, I've now got two options. The 1.4 that I want, and the 1.7 that I need.
I'll let you know the outcome.
Regards

Hello all, I'm after a 50mm lens to fill out the camera bag. Preferably an older A series lens, which will fit the minimalist budget. The f1.2 is rare, and I'd never be able to get the focus plane right anyway, but the f1.4 and f1.7 are more common. I'm leaning towards the f1.4, simply because it's so fast, but is there much difference in real terms betweenthe two? Any thoughts please?

Thanks for the info guys.
If I didn't worry so much about my gear, I'd have more time to use it.
Merry Christmas all. I've enjoyed contributing to this site over the last few months, (even though, sometimes the conversations are somewhat volatile) and I'm looking to forward to more of the same next year.
Regards

Here's my tip. Scratch him near the base of the tail while placing the camera up to his face. A small aperture and a macro lens will get the look of absolute pleasure on his face. You might even see the tongue licking madly in appreciation. But maybe that's just my dog....

Hello chaps,
I'm expecting a Takumar 135mm lens to arrive any day now, and after reading some negative reviews after my winning bid, I'm a little concerned about the non-SMC issue. I was wondering if the absence of lens coatings can be improved by using a filter of some sort? UVA or B for example? In short, is there a screw in filter that can compensate for the non SMC glass? I welcome your expert opinions.
Regards.

I've changed my mind, now. Turns out the f2.8 is mechanically not up to speed with the older lenses(4 elements in 4 groups as opposed to 6 elements in 6 groups for the f2.5. Even the f3.5 has 5 elements in 5 groups. As for the f1.8, 7 elements in 6 groups blows everything else away.) Not that the element count is the defining factor in a lenses worth, but I figure more glass can only be a good thing. So now I'm shifting my focus(no pun intended) to the f2.5, and in particular, the one with the exact designation: smc PENTAX 1:2.5 135mm"" This model was made from 1977 - 1985, I believe. Anybody have one available??
By the way, iceblinker, I'm sure the Sears is very good, and it has the A connection, but it's time I bought a real true blue PENTAX.
Regards

Wanted: SMC Pentax 135mm f2.8 A.
I know this one gets some bad press, but others say it's great.
I just want a fairly good Pentax lens to fill a hole in my camera bag.
I'll also consider an f2.5(although it's fully manual and I really do prefer those little electrical contacts)or maybe an f3.5. Any views on my selection are most welcome.

Pollution? POLLUTION?? What I wouldn't give for some pollution to break up the monotony of blue sky here in Newcastle, Australia (now that BHP's shut down of course..)
Welcome Doug.

I've now acquired a Tokina 80-400 version 1 from a fellow member of this site and am hoping to try it out next soccer(football) season. Early impressions are promising. If I can get some good sunny weather, I'll give it a decent test. Ironic, that I should receive a 'dream'lens from mother England, and it seems to have brought the rainy days with it...

Pentax are still plugging away and from what I can see, are on the verge of another golden era, similar to what they had with their film cameras back in the 70's/80's. In short, they are really starting to get their s*** together. Their new models - K-X, and K-7 are excellent cameras, and if the jaded photographic press can get their heads out of their A**** long enough to realise that there are BETTER options than Nikon/Canon around, then we might see some unbiased reports placing Pentax products further up the rankings. Stick with Pentax. They are kind of unique. They have a unique appeal, and the models seem to last longer than the other manufacturers who roll out new models every six months and completely forget about the previous ones. If you follow this site, you'll see that the members are followers of a brand, not brainwashed by marketing techniques. That's my rant. Hope it helps.