This, of course, assumes that that the surface you have placed the camera is perfectly level...

(they do call me PerdanTim)

Well, I actually meant the query was for fun. Of course all my photography is for fun, but not for humourous shots.

My natural bent is to zoom in close to the detail - more tele than wide, so wider than 18 is not so appealing....yet (LBA.)

So, I've added the FA50f1.4 to my wish list, put a tick on the Tammy and the 18-135.

...now I need to find the funds!

I'd love to; While Pentax is a minority, here in South Africa we are an absolute minority. I don't seem to be able to find a shop that sells it. In addition, second hand lenses are rare or else more than new lenses!

I realise that asking for advise is opening up a thousand views and a lens choice is subjective, but just for fun, what do you suggest I buy next? I have a k200d with DA18-55 II kit and DA55-300 and have been browsing the web for my next lens. I did have a FA28-80 F3.5-5.6 and a sigma 70-300 and an A50 F2 before they were stolen. Using Exposureplot I discovered that I take photos predominantly at the ends of the zoom (where they are not so good!)

Which of the following should I get next?
- Pentax DA18-135 F3.5-5.6 ED AL DC WR
- Pentax DA35 F2.4 AL
- Pentax DA40 F2.8 Limited
- Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD

Are there any that I should avoid?

Thanks!

I agree. For normal "closed loop" control, the camera would adjust the lens until it was in focus. Hence the only calibration would be that the focus sensor and the actual photographic sensor were the same distance optically.

However, my logic tells me the fact that one has some lenses front focusing and some back, means the focus system does not work this way. Indeed, there needs to be some "feed forward" system to speed up the focus algorithm. A standard PID controller would be too slow.

What is missing from my understanding is exactly how they manage the focus algorithm. Perhaps this is a closely guarded secret. Do you want quick focusing or accurate focusing? (I could cynically say Pentax has neither, but fear the flames!)

Hi

Having just purchased both packages, and progressing from being a PS2 user, my initial comments are that LR3.3 is all I will need to work on individual photos. PSE5 will allow me to merge photos into a collage as well as manipulate photos to morph them or "artistically" modify them (not likely to do that often!). LR3.3 is ideal to correct spots, eaxposure, contrast, sharpness, etc. as you would expect keeping the photo "true" to the original. My artistry is in the photography, not in the post processing.

If you are a graphic designer, wanting to cut out the background, PSE is your bet. If you want an intuitive RAW processor, LR is your bet. LR is designed for taging and filing photos and very suited to a photographer.

What I like best is LR's non-destructive RAW processing. The RAW file is untouched.

Personally, I can see that I will only use LR except when I need to produce a collage.

Hope it helps
Tim

It's wonderful the response. I had hoped that I would have a concrete answer, but that was naive. What I can tell is that either (or more lenses) would do. How about the new DA 35f2.4? Any experience? DA35f2.4 vs DA40f2.8?

Sorry Dr Mhuni - 2nd hand not an option here. Brand new is also a mission. Cannikon has rather killed the competition in SA.

Tim

I have realised that my lens line up leaves a hole in the middle. On a K200D, with 18-55 kit lens and DA 55-300. I have realised the kit lens' weakness is that it is soft at 55mm, close up and the 55-300, well it has no close up! I am looking for a good "natural" lens to allow me to take portraits as well as close ups of flowers (not strictly macro, but the 45cm is ok).

I am attracted to the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM because of the stunning good reviews, although it appears that quality control is an issue with many front / back focus issues (or is it users not familiar with the small DOF?). It is a substantial lens, but no bigger than the Sigma 70-300 that I used to have.

The Pentax pancake 40f2.8 is also stunning, but with screwdriver drive and f2.8 not f1.4...um..will I notice?

I cannot find any direct comparison between these. Is the quality control of the Sigma so bad?

Please help. Advise on other lenses in this range is welcome (please no second hand ones - in South Africa there is no real Pentax presence)

Thanks
Tim

Loosely speaking professional has implied "good quality". Pedantically professional means that it is being done for money. Do you take photographs predominately to sell or for your own use? That is more the indication of professional / amateur.

Agreed, spending GBP1000 on a hobby indicates that you are serious about it. Either that or your disposable income is such that GBP1000 is not a lot of money, in which case you are possibly not serious (I know some people who throw money at the latest 6 week hobby..grr).

Targeting the camera to the professional / serious amateur does not make the purchaser either of these!

I know of people who can take fantastic shots with basic cameras. I know many more who will take forgettable photos with a Hasselblad. However, if you can take good photos with a camera, will you take better ones with a better camera? Possibly. The great conundrum. Technically they are more likely to be in focus (of what?) and have correct exposure, but will the better camera improve the composition of the photo. Arguably the composition has much more to make a photo unforgettable. Lack of technical perfection is more likely to detract from a well composed photo than technical quality can improve a badly composed photo.

In our materialistic society, one is always striving to get the latest. While I "need" the K5 to improve my shots, my humble K200D is meeting my aspirations. I just need to get my LBA under control...

Tim

I believed it was to Lady Astor:
LA - Sir you are drunk
WC - Lady you are ugly.
(pause)
WC - In the morning, I will be sober.

However, Wikipedia confirms it is Bessie Braddock...

Tim