jim_mcdermott

<p>No point looking at the 31mm - its price is now beyond anyone with less money than common sense. Try hunting around for an old SMCA 28mm f2. Yes, manual focus, but 98% of the 31mm's performance for less than a quarter of the price (this from my own experience of the little beauty).</p>

<p>Ruslan,</p>

<p>Don't know how useful this will be (as I'm not a wedding photographer!), but I have the 35mm 2.8/K-7 combination...</p>

<p>The lens is bitingly sharp (centre at all apertures, corners from F4.5). I haven't had focus error issues, nor have I heard of any with it. The camera and lens make a high quality, unobtrusive combo, though if you want the option of taking more candids, the better high-ISO performance of the KX/KR may be better for you.</p>

<p>There may be just two downsides. The maximum aperture is of course relatively slow (but not really an issue if you do have high ISO capabilities), and it IS a macro, which means that, though autofocus is usually very fast, it will hunt like hell upon occasion (no focus limiter). In good light/non-close-ups, this, again, won't be an issue.</p>

<p>On the whole, I regard it as my most useful all-round lens. Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Perhaps a little less time spent in front of the computer, posting on sites like this, and a little more time with camera in hand?</p>

<p>Chuk Tang: compare them to a classic manual lens like a Pentax K or M and you will instantly see that the days where build quality was king has long gone now. Recent Zeiss lenses are not quite there but close.</p>

<p>Chuk, I have to say that I've never found any K or M lens (much as I own and love them) to be nearly as well built as the current ZK series of Zeiss lenses (I have the 50mm f1.4 Planar, which, if anything, is better built than its Contax-fit predecessor). But an alternative to the stretched (on APSC) standard of 50mm might be a fast 28mm (35mm equiv: 42mm). I was recently fortunate to pick up a mint Pentax 28mm f2 'A' lens for just GBP150, a razor-sharp beauty that almost exactly works the same as the FA 43mm f1.9 on a film camera (autofocus excepted, of course).</p>

<p>The Louvre has some stunning internal vistas, so it would be a pity to miss these by not having something at least mildly wide. On the other hand, nothing too wide to make candids difficult. The last time I was there I did very well with my Pentax DA21mm (FOV c. 32mm), and, as I recall, kept my 70mm in my pocket.</p>

<p>In the digital age it's all too easy to switch to machine-gun-snap mode, and generally you get what the effort you put into it deserves. I recall wandering around Venice one Sunday in 1996 with my Rolleiflex T, terrified to take photos because I had just two rolls of 120 film with me. An unusually high percentage of them turned out well (yes, the location helped) because I concentrated on getting things right. <br>

As to walking around for a couple of days without the camera, noting the light, etc. Great if you've got the willpower; I certainly haven't.</p>

<p>The Samsung NX10 (with the K converter and 21mm f3.2?) would provide the best IQ for the least size/weight. Initial user reviews of the camera have been very good, and the sample shots (kit lens and the 30mm prime) I've seen are excellent.</p>

<p>Lenstip.com (a Polish site, but they post English translations) did an extensive test on various manufacturers' polarizers. The best bang for buck appears to be Marumi's offering (their UV filter also came out near top in a separate test), and they were very nearly the cheapest on offer. </p>

<p>I'm a little puzzled by the comments here re: the Rollei T's fragility. I've had mine since 1980 (bought second-hand, of course), and it hasn't given me a single problem. The film-loading system is technically less complicated than the automat models, and so there's less to go wrong. Results-wise, you'll probably not be able to tell the difference between photos taken with the Tessar lens and those from (much) more expensive Planar and Xenotar models (Rollei engineers never could). As for the price, $425 sounds a little too much. I've seen a near-mint example here in the UK recently for £175 (about $300).</p>

<p>Like Petrana, I find the decision surprising - a clutch of Pentax fanboys coordinating their votes? The features and reported performance of the K-7 (svelte as it is physically) don't come close to making me want to part with my already feature-packed K20D. And to disagree with Andrew, I suspect that, by contrast, a Canon 50D owner will look upon the 7D as a massive upgrade.</p>

<p>Hard to understand why Pentax so radically re-worked this offering for so little optical gain, when a modest upgrade of the FA 50 f1.4 would have allowed them to sell cheaper and more. For me, the Carl Zeiss Planar 50 F1.4 (better built, a bit smaller, no QC issues) for less money makes this a non-choice </p>

<p>I assume that<em> Consumer Reports</em> is similar to the UK's<em> Which?</em> magazine. They 'test' thousands of consumer items across the spectrum of domestic usage, so unless they're entirely staffed by Einsteins, their input is not going to be as reliable as that from specialist photographic equipment users/testers. These are basic-level reports for the benefit of purchasers coming new to a type of product. </p>

<p>This far more accurately reflects my own experience with the lens than the DPReview piece, which really puzzled me (no, I don't think they do it deliberately, or because they're Canikon acolytes, but either they used a bad example or their testing methods need some serious overhauling).</p>

<p>Much as admire LL usually, and being by no means a Pentax fanboy (having already decided the K-7 was not nearly a sufficient improvement for me to part with my K20D), I have to say that this skated perilously close to being a Rockwellian review - that's to say, effectively not worth the key-strokes it took to get in onto e-paper.</p>

<p>I have to say that I've never drawn so much attention to myself as during a visit to Venice in 1996 with my Rolleiflex T. The same camera also drew me into a chance conversation (in Henley-on-Thames, c. 1997) with a rather famous comedy actor from the 1960s, who told me that he'd once been given a Rollei T by Paul McCartney (who got it in turn from his brother Mike). Incidentally, the T also takes great photos and handles so intuitively that it feels half its actual size in use (unlike 6x6 SLRs, which to me always feel bigger than they are and have massively clunky mirror actions)</p>

<p>My first reaction was 'well, it probably won't be a stellar performer at the price'. But then neither are the Pentax, Nikon or Tamron variants at much higher prices.</p>

<p>I don't think live view for action photography is viable with any camera; no matter how quickly it functions, the moment's gone. For me, LV is great for architectural subjects - but only, of course, with an articulated screen, as with my old Sony R1, so I can 'do' high or low features without stretching out on a stone floor or flying. In an age in which correct exposure can be checked with an instant, throwaway shot, I see no (well, very, very little) point to fixed-screen live-view. I think Pentax probably tossed in the feature because everyone else is doing it.</p>

<p>Valco,<br>

Both are excellent cameras - if you can't take a brilliant shot with a 20D then you should find a new hobby. Unless you intend to make enormous prints the differences will be subtle, despite the different sensor sizes, pixel density, etc (anyone who says it's black v. white, or one blows the other away, is a gearhead/pixel peeper who should be ignored). Far, far more important is the glass you use, so if it was a choice, budget-wise, between a 20D with, say, a 17 - 40L, or a 5D with something less (some of Canon's cheaper film era lenses do not make the transition to digital very well), then the former's the way to go.</p>