One of the longer threads on the forum I see! It's got me looking in my beer cellar and there's plenty of Fuller's of different (stronger) varieties, some Brakspear's Triple Crown, TT Landlord & Dr Okell's from the Isle of Man (waiting for summer).

A couple local to me that haven't been mentioned are Otter Head (one of my favourites, about 5. and Cotleigh Old Buzzard. Going further afield Sharps Doom Bar (better draught than bottled) & Ringwood Old Thumper.

Mine's not the APO version and I regard it simply as a lens I picked up cheaply that's good enough for the rare occasions I use it. It's not one of Sigma's better lenses, it seems about kit-lens standard.

I've got a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DL macro which cost me £30 from a friend who was selling off some Pentax kit - so not a considered purchase, but it's my least-used lens and takes very acceptable pictures. It's slightly soft at the long end and there's a small amount of pincushion distortion noticeable in macro mode (which is limited to 300mm). The zoom is also slightly stiff to operate, but it has a nice wide focusing ring. I've heard these lenses don't always autofocus as well as they should, but I normally focus manually. Not sure though how the quality of this compares with your 18-200 Tamron; if I used it more I might be more critical.

Regards,
Stan

Thanks Stefan, I'm off to look at the New Delhi 770, Lowepro 650 and 250 in Bristol next week. Only downside to the Crumpler is that it doesn't seem to have a handle to use like a briefcase. I cycle also - usually with a pannier, but occasionally take the laptop down to the station in a rucksack.

Stan

Hi James,

Which version did you get? I think there are 3. The additional stop is tempting v. the slightly wider angle of the Pentax 16-45.

Stan

I spotted this one years ago in the Gambia.




Stan

For tripod work I agree with Kris, but for walkabout I'm more inclined to John Riley's thinking as I don't want to be constantly swapping lenses. Also not convinced I'd use the ultra-wide setting that much apart from the occasional dioramic cityscape or mountain shot. So wish-list rather than impending purchase.

PS i-Berg, thanks for the tip on image sites.

Stan

I've been following this discussion as I'm in a similar position to vjayshutterbug, thinking about the 16-45 in particular. My main 'walkabout' for my K20 is an FA 24-90 f4 which I like using and think gives slightly sharper results and better colour rendition than the kit lens. It's disadvantage is that I could do with wider than 24mm for cities and architecture, which is when the 18-55 goes back on. The 16-45 was going to provide a slightly wider angle than the kit and hopefully better quality. But I'll also look seriously at the Tamron.

I've just acquired a 50mm f/2 manual lens for my K20 and it was a bit fiddly to make it work at first, but it seems fine now. I had to 'allow aperture ring' on the 'custom' menu and select the focal length on the 'record' menu. Then set the desired aperture on the ring, press the green button next to the shutter release (which allows the aperture to close down and sets the 'correct' i.e. metered speed), and if necessary adjust up or down. After a couple of sessions it becomes much more intuitive than it sounds.

I've only tried a couple of test shoots but the extra couple of stops make a lot of difference for portraits, flowers etc (it's the first prime I've owned for about 10 years). However, it's highlighted the limitations of the standard focal screen for manual focussing, and a Katz Eye replacement is on its way.

For walkabout (landscape/buildings mainly) my K20 is set to manual focus, manual shutter & aperture (tend to take on f8 to f16), ISO100 (though find myself changing to 200 or 400 in lower light), spot metering, SR on, WB auto except indoors. Very occasionally I use AF & 'green' for snaps - normally use a P*******c compact for those. JPG (****) rather than RAW most of the time, though that's probably more to do with my limited skill in manipulating RAW images than a considered preference.

When I bought the camera I took a long series of shots with different brightness, saturation etc and after a lot of deliberation over the results (on the computer screen) set everything to 0. Pentax has the 'natural' mode at +1 for one of the settings, can't remember which.

I usually have an FA 24-90 mounted, which is acceptably light, versatile enough most of the time, and in my view sharper than the kit 18-55. I'm just about to invest in a 16-45 as a city walkabout.

Re Kris's comment on underexposure, I did have a couple of images that were unexpectedly underexposed in auto mode. However there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the meter when used in manual; if I have an underexposed shot it's because I've forgotten to compensate appropriately for contrast.

Agree with Andrew's comment about using it like an ME (mine was a Praktica MTL3 which I loved apart from the screw-on lenses).

Stan