If you decide to split them I'd be interested in the 20mm if the price is right. I already have copies of the other three lenses.

Kris (K-series nut)

I'll agree the M28 f/2.8 was pretty cheap and cheerful (it is a very common lens). The f/3.5 version is better (although harder to use as it is darker) and the K series f/3.5 is better still.

I appear to have gone the other way in that I almost never put an AF lens on my K20D any more. Even my precious 50-135 is hardly used these days, and my FA43 is used on my LX more than my K20D. Come to think of it, I hardly use the K20D. I have used my ES/ESII combination more in the last month than anything else. If I want autofocus I use my SFXn with the F35-70 lens. Oh well. Courses for horses...

K.

In my speedbag (I don't know which version it is) all the foam inserts have rotted and turned to sticky dust... the bag equivalent of the light seal problem. I keep wondering what to do with it, and am thinking I'll have to strip it out entirely and re-line it.

K.

I'm never quite sure why manual focus necessarily means "should be cheaper"? Surely, the key thing is the optical qualities of the lens? AF is only fluff on top of the important aspects. Having said that, there do seem to be some lenses where "legendary" status (and to a certain extent rarity) has pushed the price up horribly; e.g., the K series 30mm and 85mm lenses.

An object is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. When someone argues "it isn't worth it", they really mean "it isn't worth it to me". Value is not an objective dimension in the same way weight or other physical measurements are.

Now, if someone can point me at a cheap K series 85mm or, even better, the K 200/2.5...

Best wishes, Kris.

And the MX is just a touch wider... The main give away is the leather straps and poppers to hold it onto the camera rather than the plastic hooks. It feels just as good as the original M series cases, which in themselves were nowhere near as nice as the various leather cases for the M42 and K series cameras.

K.

Yes. I bought one for my MX but it didn't fit. It fitted one of my ME Supers perfectly, however.

K.

I now have a SMC 50/1.4, S-M-C 135/2.5 (v.1) and a S-M-C 150/4 to add to my bag. I think I need a bigger bag. And a sherpa.

K.

You have an early Super Tak and I have a late Auto Tak that are pretty much identical, including the back-to-front aperture ring. Takumar models tended to morph from one model to the next in a less cut-and-dried way than modern lenses. Take the S-M-C 135mm f/2.5 lens, for example. The second version is often argued to be a much better lens, but the only visible difference is the part number stamped on the underside of the auto/man switch!

K.

I've never seen the hood, I guess it is even rarer than a working copy of the lens!

Swings and roundabouts and all that. I must admit that I never really look at the little arrows. It is so similar to the ME Super that I just focus on the ground glass as I always did when I was young...

K.

What can I say, we wanted to actually enjoy our wedding! Apart from a little unfortunate sunburn, it was a stress-free day and great fun.

K.