Odd question, I just noticed when I stop down on the aperture ring (both on this and my other non-PKA lens) I had thought it would do that immediately - which it doesn't seem to. I.e. would make the viewfinder darker as the blades shot out. Also, I don't seem to notice any difference in exposure / DOF when I stop down in the pictures. When I'm looking at the front of the lens when I take a shot, it is stopping down as I can see the change in the aperture.

Am I doing something wrong here? I'm in Av mode.

I was watching it as well. I was really close to bidding on 'er as well! Great catch - but I must know, what was your upper limit set to?

That's what focus trap is for

I'm kinda surprised. Just went outside in the dusk (my camera is home!) to try out my Porst 55mm f1.2 PK mount. First thoughts, what gives, why do people call this soft wide open? I'm pretty impressed!

Got to run but will post more shots later

55mm @ f1.2 at ISO 400 with no PP

[IMG]http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3380/flower1t.jpg[/IMG]

100% crop of the stem in the middle
[IMG]http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9186/flower2t.jpg[/IMG]

I'd rather the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 constant, or any make 70-200mm F2.8 + 1.4x TC instead. Barring that, this one comes next in line. That's saying something as those are some serious pieces of glass! Not to mention they cost 3-4x the amount of the DA 55-300mm.

I ask this, because even the limited / DA*'s seem to get at most 3.5*'s. However, when they use a very similar lens (which most Pentaxians think is inferior) on a Canon (for instance) they give it 4*'s.

Example: Tokina 50-135mm F2.8 on a Canon, versus, Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 on Pentax

As far as I had read, they are basically the same design but apparently 'better materials' went into the Pentax. Thoughts?

Well with shipping + insurance it'll be closer to 900. Not to mention (for us) VAT

Also, the FA*85 is a completely different beast!

Depending on the mount it's not too bad. On the old 50mm F1.2's, for instance, you actually have to add to the base. That's because when you strip off the Canon FD mount, the overlaid Pentax one is actually thinner. I think for that lens it's 0.5mm you have to add. I'm sure there is TONS of sample variation though

I saw the website somewhere for the FD mount conversion, but apparently I've lost the bookmark. Alas. I really wanted to do that conversion but the lenses are so expensive that it just made more sense for me to get a PK mount. Got a great deal on a Porst 55mm f1.2 which I'll be showing off in the next few days when my camera gets back from HK!

Well, if by convert you mean professionally strip the lens down, file off a few 1000th's of a millimetre here and there, calibrate it, and attach a suitable mount to the bottom of the newly shaved lens after drilling new holes .... then yes, it's possible. I really want to do it myself, but I got a Pentax mount lens of what I wanted for less that I had to pay for the Canon variant of the lens.

You're better off selling the canon lens and buying a Pentax one - unless it's for the love of doing something crazy. If that's the case, go for it!

Edit: Just as a disclaimer - I by no means think that the resulting images will be great out of the converted lens, so you quite possibly would be flushing cash down the drain. So at your own risk!

Seems quite nice, but quite the dollar value on this guy, I mean comon 900 quid for a f1.4 when you can get the 1.2's on canikon for 1100ish?