jean_b.

<p>Steve, I had the same experience as you had. My K-7 arrived from B&H last June in a box that looked like it had been used for soccer practice by the UPS guys (it was, after all, the summer of the World Cup). It even had tape that was not the original packing tape applied to try to keep it together. I should not have signed for the package but did (it was my first DSLR and I was pretty excited to get it), though I did have the UPS guy put a note in his file about the package being damaged. Inside the package the box that contained the spare battery that I had ordered was completely crushed, and the box for the K-7 had a dinged corner. While everything probably survived, I did not want to own a piece of electronic equipment that had experienced such brutal handling. In the end B&H was great about letting me exchange it. It is for situations like this that I shop with them.</p>

<p>It was great fun reading this over breakfast. Thanks for writing it up.</p>

<p>I agree with Javier: you make very good use of the DA 15mm lens, both in this series and in others that I have seen.</p>

<p>Had some technical difficulties. Here is the second photo.</p><div></div>

<p>Happy Holidays everyone. I bought my K-7 last June, but Thursday was the first time I took it out with my FA 50mm. Here are two photos from that day.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

 

<p>K-7, FA 35mm, ISO 100, f2.8,1/125</p>

<div></div>

<p>Oops, meant to post in 11/14/2010 post.</p>

<p>K-7, FA 35mm, ISO 100, f2.8,1/125</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I too like "At the exhibition, Wellington". Great image. Also like "Farm, Hawkes Bay." Though I am not a fan of power lines, without them this shot would have to be recomposed somehow to make it as interesting as it is now.</p>

<p>Can I ask how you do your B&W conversion? I really like your results, both in this series and in others that you've posted before.</p>

<p>I like Andrew Gardner's forest shot and Rick Womer's Halloween Lights.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses so far. No polarizer or filter was used when these photos were taken. I often take a series of exposures at different apertures (when possible), since I don't always know in the field what I want, and I can take my pick in the comfort of my home. I took a series with my FA 35mm f2.0 a while ago with this same camera (a K-7) and I see no change in exposure there. BTW: after I uploaded the photos and looked at my posting I too found it difficult to see the difference in exposures. It's when I'm clicking through them on my computer, when one image replaces the other, that I can tell the difference. I could be that what I'm seeing is too minor to be relevant, but I thought I would ask here to see what others thought. I too am unlikely to use f16 or f22, but the sequence shown is in the sharpness sweet spot for this lens, so I want to make sure it's OK there.</p>

<p>Oh, and I forgot to mention: it was love at first sight when I pulled this lens out of its box. What a great complement to the camera!</p>

<p>At least on my monitor, when I scroll through these images, they get progressively darker as I go from f5.6 to f8.0 to f11. Histograms agree with what my eyes tell me. Though I did not show you the others, f16 is darker still, and f22 gets brighter. Is this normal? I have not seen this with other lens that I own. I am about to leave on a business trip, so if this sounds like something with the lens I need to return is ASAP. Please advise. Note that white balance was accidentally set to Tungsten when I took the photos, but I converted the raw files to daylight and resized to smaller JPEGs in the Pentax software. Original Tungsten photos show the same phenomenon, in camera and on screen.</p>

<p>Final one.</p><div></div>

<p>Next one.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi folks, got my new (used) DA 21mm f3.2 from KEH this week and took it for a test drive today to make sure that there weren't any bugs. Also wanted to confirm that the performance of the lens was as predicted by photozone.de, which it appears to (i.e., soft in the corners at f3.2 and f4, but awesome overall at smaller apertures). However, I did notice something disconcerting: the exposure seems to shift with changes in aperture. I don't yet know how to post a series of images in a single post, so bear with me as I upload the following examples one at a time.</p><div></div>

<p>Great work. I hate to be unoriginal, but I really like "Storm, Wairarapa 2" as well. A lot. And I agree with Peter that the caption to "Man inhaling paint fumes" changes the image for me and makes it disturbing, something it would not otherwise be. Finally, Eyes Wide Shut: was this staged, or did you wait there until the opportune moment? I like it.</p>

<p>Steve, I know that this doesn't really address your question, but I had to comment: I was eyeing that very same DA 21mm on KEH as well. I ended up buying the other one that they had (EX+) for use with my K-7. I love that camera, and I look forward to using it with this new lens.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your input.</p>

<p>Hi folks, I'm a long-time viewer of the Pentax forum and a first-time poster. I hope to start participating now that I finally own a K-7 (purchased in June).</p>

<p>I'm about to pull the trigger on a new DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited lens (to replace my heavy-as-a-rock FA* 24mm f/2.0) and have a question about filters. I put UV filters on all of my lenses for protection and want to do the same for this one. If I purchase a standard 43mm filter (I plan to get a B+W UV Haze 010 F-Pro filter) will I still be able to use the fancy hood that comes with this lens?</p>