The only lens I have bought lately for more than £100 was my K 15mm f/3.5. My S-M-C Tak 28, M 100, K 200, K 135, K 35, S-M-C Tak 200 were all well under £100. Since the price of new Pentax lenses went from just about affordable (to me that is) to unaffordable I have been more than content to pick up older lenses from here or ebay. The prices are definitely on the increase though.

I bought my K 50mm f/1.2 for £150 with a camera attached. (I was actually looking for the camera and was delighted to see the lens attached to it. Sadly so were a few other bidders.) I bought it with the intention of selling it on at a profit as I couldn't see the point of paying all that extra money (£90 more than I paid for an A series 50mm f/1.4) for half a stop. Having had it and used it, however, I am rather loathe to let it go. Story of my life!

Old Polaroid anyone?

K.

I've ticked every day although the truth is probably somewhere between daily and weekly. I rarely leave the house without one or other of my cameras although on work days I find I have taken it there and back and not had a chance to use it. If I want small and compact I take the MX with the 40mm pancake in its blimp.

K.

I use film some of the time because:

I enjoy using the equipment.
Some of the old equipment is beautifully made and deserves to be used, not just left collecting dust on the shelf.
I hate sitting in front of the computer even more than I already do.
Its different.
I like the challenge.
I like learning how to use different types of equipment.
It makes me chuckle when I chat to a young photographer on the NY Metro who cannot use film because he couldn't get the exposure right.
Because I cannot afford a Leaf back for my LF system.
The images look different and have a different quality to them that I (personally) couldn't reproduce in PS even though I know it is possible.
It slows me down and makes me remember all that stuff I once knew about exposure.
I find the double-take people give me when I am out and about using a Spotmatic mildly amusing.
There isn't a digital LX.
I still get good photographs using film (witness the abstract shot in the PUG magazine).

I often find that detailed tests and theoretical comparisons less illuminating than they should be. For example, the FA 43mm Ltd ought to be a much better lens than the S-M-C Takumar 28mm f/3.5 lens I bought the other week. For some reason or other, I have never entirely "bonded" with my 43 and I rarely use it whereas the 28mm hasn't been out of my kit bag since I got it. Go figure...

Best wishes, Kris.

I must admit they came out a bit more dayglo than I intended when I was editing in Lightroom. I often find what looks OK at night by electric light looks less wonderful during the day. I'll tone them down a bit, thanks Mike. I really must get a decent monitor for photo editing (adds it to the long list of things I 'must get').

K.

Here is the usual thread for discussing this weeks competition. Good luck to everyone.

Kris.

Ohhhhh innit lovely! But not approximately £1,438.85 worth of lovely. I especially like the Ltd style lens cap.

K.

Congratulations! I especially like the backlit tulip. Summer sunshine... I vaguely remember that...

K.

I really like "Blown Out".

K.

About £225 to £250. The "lenscentre" had four for sale on ebay, BIN, from £500 to £600 but none sold.

Most AF bodies go for peanuts as the market is either for digital, or older largely manual film cameras. Most of the S, Z and MZ series cameras go for next to nothing. The MZ-S is the exception as it was the top-of-the-line flagship model and fetches similar prices to the LX.

HTH, Kris.