snik75

<p>And last</p><div></div>

<p>Another:</p><div></div>

<p>I remember those "walks"! A fair bit of pulling along, always.</p> <p>We got our first snow. Here's a few looks:</p><div></div>

<p>Fall joy</p><div></div>

<p>With leaves:</p><div></div>

<p>Bob, looks like a great panorama! Matt, that kitty picture is fun, but with a little more DOF could be epic.</p> <p>I was goofing around in the yard with my daughter and the 18-135 on my K3, got some fun fall pics:</p><div></div>

<p>I'll go for a throwback! 2010, with a *ist and probably Tmax 100.</p><div></div>

<p>Finally, this colorful little fellow was napping on one of the leaves. Maybe 4 mm long?</p><div></div>

<p>And another look:</p><div></div>

<p>Doug, those are all cool, but Mustangs is really special to my eye. Nice work!</p> <p>I read a post about how the DA35 macro "can't really be used for close up work", so I grabbed a couple of quick snaps of proto-sunflowers in my back yard. (Planted late, don't know if they will make it to full bloom).</p><div></div>

<p>Lastly</p><div></div>

<p>Around the yard:</p><div></div>

<p>Spring plants and flowers here:</p><div></div>

<p>My K3 seems ok. What went wrong?</p>

<p>Hi Hin! I got a 16-60 with "dodgy" SDM, but when it arrived to me it was totally dead. I'm debating having the SDM repaired vs. getting it converted. I have used it on my *ist, and the AF is pretty noisy with screw drive. Also it fails to lock more than my other lenses, hoping this will be better on the K3. Anyway, I think the lens with SDM is preferable for the price difference you quoted (and that's what you are getting, anyway!) Enjoy!</p>

<p>The previous shot was hard due to a proliferation of runners, bikers, hikers and cars. Someone drove into the frame a few seconds later.</p> <p>The flowering crab trees are just starting to... flower:</p><div></div>

<p>Next from our local Arboretum, Spring is coming!</p><div></div>

<p>Great owls, Doug! Matt, that's an amazing shot of the cliff. My first shot is from a convention center in the midwest that oddly contains what look like ruins:</p><div></div>

<p>Finally, some colors that caught my eye:</p><div></div>

<p>From a walk in the woods:</p><div></div>

<p>I'm late, but I'll throw in a few pics. Here are our dyed eggs, on display:</p><div></div>

<p>If size isn't a priority, I'd go with 16-85. I find the results from the 18-135 to be perfectly usable, and the 20-40 better IQ. I guess I don't care much about corners, as I've never noticed them being problematic. I had a 16-50 for a while, and while it had to go back for an unrelated issue, I wasn't that impressed that the IQ was any better than the 20-40, and possibly worse. I prefer small size, so I will stick with the DA limited zoom. But it would be tempting to get the wider range of the 16-85 if IQ was about the same.</p>

<p>Here's a cat shot:</p><div></div>

<p>I used to have an SMC F 24-50mm, decent lens with nice wide to normal coverage on film. I took some test shots with the 18-55 and had decent results above 24mm, so concluded the F lens wasn't needed. I am no master of measuring vignetting, though.</p>

<p>Hi Justin -<br> <br />I feel like the K3 is a big jump up from the K5, and you would really notice better high ISO performance than with a K7. And I really like the 20-40. It may be be quite as good as a Limited prime, especially at the long end, but it gets darn close. It has become my main wide lens, when I don't need super wide or fish eye. </p>