In which case I'd buy it as long as it is in good nick. Having said that I think the second hand one on the window of SRS comes with one. Could it be that it is also purchased separately?

Hi Chris,

Does that mean that it does not have an original hood? Any dust/scratches on the lens? Packaging? If it is in great condition with the original hood and box I'll can do a bank transfer tonight! Please let me know as soon as you can as SRS has one of those just down the road from me but a bit more expensive!

Thanks

Vasilis

Yes Engadget's reviews are normally quite pointless, not just their cameras ones which are almost unreadable but their phone ones as well. I thought they didn't get the point of the Q at all and just kept one negative comment after the other just because they cannot do a decent review.

In any case as I have stated over here before the Q is a whole different type of camera, it does not fit with the norm that everybody tries to compare it with. Yes for a niche product is quite expensive but it is a niche product and it deserves to be reviewed by someone like that.

The Nikon 1 though is a rather pointless product.

I'd buy one of those I think any combo is a bit pointless as they overlap so much. The 50-135 is a brilliant lens - got one - but you seem to have most of it covered by the 55mm and 90mm lenses of yours.

In your shoes I'd buy the 70-200 . You can always crop a bit the 16mp of your K-5 to get the same field of view of the 55-300 from a pic taken with the 70-200. I'd only get the 55-300 if I was worried about size/weight.

If at a later date you think you absolutely need 300 you can always buy the 55-300 or complement your 70-200 with a DA* 300

MI think you are confusing the two concepts, the 100% would be referring to the coverage. Coverage is how much of the capture image is visible on the viewfinder.

The numbers quote above are the magnification. ie how much the picture you see through the viewfinder is magnified compared to not seeing it through the viewfinder.

worth buying/borrowing another battery?

1 more question do you have it to do any lens correction on the photos you take?

Ouch that is very low... I got something like 450 on the first charge but has been creeping upwards since. Nothing like the D7k... I got 1400 pics on the first charge....

Yes haven't managed to get more than 800 pics with the battery either. Might be the SR that eats a lot of battery!

I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 preferably non VC. Used one on my D40/D7k (for the few weeks that I had it) and it was a really amazing lens for the 290 I paid for it. Build quality and AF speed are a bit lacking but both adequate given the price.

Sigma also has a new 17-50 out which sounds like a good alternative especially if fast focusing is a priority for you (I had the 50-150 HSM I on my Nikon and the AF was so fast it makes my 50-135 cry). It does cost an extra 150£ or so from the Tamron.

S/H 16-45 f/4 is your other option if you are on a budget and you don't much care about the slower aperture - as pointed above you can get them for as little as £160 and doubt you will lose out much if you don't get on and end up selling it on.