Sorry to hear this Gary. In some ways we are lucky that we have photos, and that one is a lovely image.

Andy: according to the article he was 68.

K.

I've done two books via blurb (for family consumption only) and both were fine. I bought a few from them too, and again they were fine. The fact that you can get them to sell it print-on-demand so that you don't have boxes of books hanging around the house is something that I find an attractive idea.* I'm vaguely planning a book on the work my team of volunteers have done, and it seems easier than trying to take pre-orders and then getting a batch made.

*My house is bursting at the seams with my library without adding boxes of unsold books to the chaos!

I have what I think must be a later version of this. It is a twin tele again (135 / 225) but it is a bit faster (f/2.8 or f/5.5 when at 225mm) and the 135 mount covers the M42-> adaptor. It still has a mass of aperture blades with a preset aperture ring near the front. It isn't a zebra design though.

I think is still has the clunky mount changing system, however as my M42 adaptor won't screw onto the extension bit.

I hate to say this, but I have never used it in anger, so to speak. I bought it from a forum member because no one else was interested and I felt sorry for this quirky lens.

Yes. No point having it if you don't use it.

Am I right that we would now pay 20% VAT too?

Have a look at the US Pentax Forum as they have reviews of all these older zoom lenses. Many of the consumer grade ones are a bit ropey but some are great. If you don't need a large range, the F35-70 is surprisingly good and is both fairly common and quite cheap.

I should have bought a lottery ticket...

Thanks Gary. I was going for tree being an echo or shadow of the cow parsley, but I don't think I got the composition quite right.

A friend of mine found an unopened box of 1950s washing powder in the back of a cupboard which he then sold for a reasonable chunk of cash. I think it was bought by someone who does props for films / TV shows.

Pentax KX, M100/2.8, FPP Let it snow film, commercial dev and scan.



icy cow parsley par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

My ref-convertor M (or is it an A? I don't remember...) fits my K-3 fine with no problems. The older ones (K-series cameras and before don't fit. Ever since the M-series cameras (ME, MX etc.) the eye-piece has stayed the same size. Some things are a snugger fit. The magnifying eyepiece I used now is quite tight to get on the K-3, but the old dioptre correction eyepieces I have for the MX etc. fall off at the drop of a hat.

K.