17-85mm lens

[Muddy62]

Hi everyone. I would really like to hear from some people who have tried the canon EF 17-85mm F4 - 5.6 IS USM lens. I am thinking of getting this lens as a kit lens with the 20D I'm looking at getting. Please explain to me the pros and cons of this lens in laymans terms as I am a beginner.
I want a versitle all around lens that I can take landscapeshots as well as indoor shots of family and friends. If I can swing it I might bye the 50mm 1.4 also.
Also does anyone know if this is a ring type USM on this lens?
Thanks in advance for your imput. I have learned alot from this forum already even if a lot of it is over my head at this point and time.

[Jetmech1]

This is the lens I'm in the market for also. I have the 28-135mm with IS and the 75-300 with IS and I like them both, I keep reading this thread to see what responses you get.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have this lens, and it is a welcome addition. As a walkaround lens it is terrific - no other single lens will give you this range on a 20D. It is not an 'L' lens, but it balances well on the 20D (or Drebel), and lets you get a lot of shots without changing lenses.

I originally thought I could replace my 24-70 f2.8L with it, and for daylight outdoor shooting that may be true. But I do some low light shooting without flash, and the speed is not there on the 17-85. OTOH, you cannot use the built-in flash with the 24-70 L due to shadowing, and you can use it with the 17-85. So there again, if you want to carry just one lens and use the built-in flash, the 17-85 can work well for you.

I would strongly recommend buying the hood (EW-73B) - not as much for flare protection, but to keep your fingers out of the shot. At 17mm your fingers can show up even if they are outside the filter ring, and the 95% viewfinder view will not always reveal that. Keeping your fingers behind the hood will solve that problem.

A couple other things to note. Stacking filters doesn't work so well due to the 17-85 being designed for the APS-sized sensor. And it is susceptible to flare, which is not unusual for a lens this wide. I went after both of those issues by getting a Hoya Pro-1 UV filter. It is multicoated and it is the thinnest filter you can get with a front filter thread.

In short, I like it and I plan to keep it. If you get it as the kit, you get it for less than by itself.

Hope this helps.

Have Fun,

[Muddy62]

Thanks alot cooltoolguy, That was the kind of feed back I was looking for. Do you think the 50mm f1.8 would be a good lens to get the indoor shots I might not like with the 17-85mm lens? Again I am on a very limited budget but I'm trying not to be limited on what I can shoot. Thanks again for your input.

[mikesd]

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great indoor lens and for the money you cannot beat it , if you dont mind your legs being your zoom.

[Muddy62]

Thanks Mikesd, I guess I'll have to do what I can for now. This is sure an expensive hobby. People don't believe me when I tell them if I had it I could spend $10,000 in a heart beat on equipment. My next dilema is to go for the 70-200Lf4 or an external flash. I guess I'll have to see which I miss more after shooting for a while.

[dhbailey]

If you don't already have it, get an external flash! There are lots of situations where the built-in flash just won't be adequate. I got the 420EX and should any money fall into my lap, I'll get the 580EX.

As for lenses, I have found that the faster the lens the better, for a general walk-around lens. I picked up the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens, and I much prefer it to the 18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens. For these focal lengths, IS isn't necessary unless you have a nervous condition which gives you hand-shake. IS is definitely a help with longer lenses (I use it almost all the time with my 70-300 IS zoom) but for most people it won't give you much help with shorter lenses.

Better to buy faster glass to take those lower light shots. In my opinion.

[charlesu]

I was in a local shop when someone brought back a 17-85 claiming something was wrong with it. He'd had it a week and a buddy and he had done some testing (the buddy was a film shooter) and decided the lens was faulty because it was too soft.

The customer said he wanted something sharper. The store is really good so they offered him a refund or credit. He wanted the 17-40L. Just for curiousity sake they took both out and shot them both under identical conditions just outside the store. Then the customer and salesman compared images on the workstation there at the store. Amazingly the 17-85 he brought back was actually sharper than the 17-40. Clearly so. No other work done to the images.

Despite this, the customer took the 17-40. A week later he returned it because it was too soft.

I have no idea what the heck he was looking for. Both lenses were fine. If I had the $$ lying around I would already own a 17-85. Instead, I am shooting my 28--135 IS on the 20D. The nice thing about it is that it also fits my 1D MK II. But I don't believe it is as sharp as the newer lens. Not by a long shot.

[CoolToolGuy]

Thanks alot cooltoolguy, That was the kind of feed back I was looking for. Do you think the 50mm f1.8 would be a good lens to get the indoor shots I might not like with the 17-85mm lens? Again I am on a very limited budget but I'm trying not to be limited on what I can shoot. Thanks again for your input.
I think the EF 50mm f1.8 should be in everyone's bag. For the cost, it can't be beat.

Have Fun,

[ron chappel]

Here are some comparison shots between the kit 18-55 and the 17-85.
(im posting this because these are the obvious two first choices for a normal lens)
Viewed at full size the 17-85 looks massively better!!
I kind of makes me wonder how close the 17-85 gets to the genuine sharp lenses-17-40/4L,24-70/2.8L,etc.

[Andy_T]

Ron,

I can't see a link in your post!

Best regards,
Andy

[edsarkiss]

muddy - on a camera that costs $1500, using a cheap, slow, low quality lens like the 17-85 does not compute.

if you are a beginner, i recommend getting the 20D "body only" and the 28mm f/2.8 lens (about $150).

it's not a zoom, but you will learn more about photography with it (the wider aperture opens more possiblities with depth of field and available light shooting).

the 50/1.8 would be a good second lens (after you feel intimately comfortable with the camera and lens you have), as it would serve as a mild telephoto on the 20D, which would be good for portraits of one or two people. or you may choose to go longer (135mm f/2.0 or 200mm f/2.0 are both excellent) or wider (16-35mm f/2.8 L is excellent but expensive).

[Bruce Watson]

muddy - on a camera that costs $1500, using a cheap, slow, low quality lens like the 17-85 does not compute.

if you are a beginner, i recommend getting the 20D "body only" and the 28mm f/2.8 lens (about $150).

it's not a zoom, but you will learn more about photography with it (the wider aperture opens more possiblities with depth of field and available light shooting).

the 50/1.8 would be a good second lens (after you feel intimately comfortable with the camera and lens you have), as it would serve as a mild telephoto on the 20D, which would be good for portraits of one or two people. or you may choose to go longer (135mm f/2.0 or 200mm f/2.0 are both excellent) or wider (16-35mm f/2.8 L is excellent but expensive).

Uhhhh.......the 17-85 ain't cheap, and although slow, the IS somewhat compensates. I find it to be a very good walk around lens. I think it is a yard or two above the image quality of the 28mm 2.8.

I am quite content to use it on several thousand dollars of 20 and 300 bodies. Not L glass, but quite respectable.

Check out the reviews of it and its mate the 10-22 (just got it) at Luminous Landscape before writing it off as "using a cheap, slow, low quality lens.

[donlavange]

I agree with edsarkiss! Spend your money on a better primary lens and you will not regret it. I say this not from any comparison tests, but from a general feeling I have after using the lens in conjuction with better quality lenses,

[charlesu]

I have to express some disagreement with last couple of posts disparaging the 17-85. It is, from everything I have seen including some limited testing myself, an excellent lens from almost every other perspective.

I disagree that a prime will teach any more about photography. Instead, the user just uses his or her feet for a zoom. The 50 1.8 is a bargain. So is the 50 1.4. So is the 85 1.8. I could go on. But, frankly speaking, even at $500 (kit price) the 17-85 IS is a pretty darn good deal.

It's a good lens, it's a reasonable price, and it's a very flexible choice. A good, daily shooter so to speak.

It's possible people are confusing the 18-55 with this nicer lens. They have little in common.

[edsarkiss]

It's possible people are confusing the 18-55 with this nicer lens. They have little in common.

damn flying fingers. my apologies for speaking out my arse about the wrong lens.

though my opinion about starting with a prime "normal" lens still holds. zooms make learning photographers compositionally lazy. "mkay, i'll just stand here and zoom around till something happens".

as for the image quality of the 17-85 being "yards above" the 28/2.8 -- please show me a comparison that shows this. i don't have a review of the 17-85 that shows the MTF, but the 28/2.8 scores well in photodo.com's tests ( 3 . 8 )...
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF28_28-73.shtml

the only canon zooms that score this high are "L" series, which the 17-85 is not.
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml

[CoolToolGuy]

muddy - on a camera that costs $1500, using a cheap, slow, low quality lens like the 17-85 does not compute.

if you are a beginner, i recommend getting the 20D "body only" and the 28mm f/2.8 lens (about $150).

it's not a zoom, but you will learn more about photography with it (the wider aperture opens more possiblities with depth of field and available light shooting).

the 50/1.8 would be a good second lens (after you feel intimately comfortable with the camera and lens you have), as it would serve as a mild telephoto on the 20D, which would be good for portraits of one or two people. or you may choose to go longer (135mm f/2.0 or 200mm f/2.0 are both excellent) or wider (16-35mm f/2.8 L is excellent but expensive).The EF-S 17-85 IS lens is the digital equivalent of the EF 28-135 IS on a film camera - same angles of view, similar maximum apertures, and IS as well. Prior to the EF-S lenses, the 28-135 was generally the most popular lens sold with the 1.6 bodies like the 10D. That computes fine in my book!

The 28mm as a normal lens is a great idea, but don't knock the 17-85 'til you've tried it...

Have Fun,

[Bruce Watson]

damn flying fingers. my apologies for speaking out my arse about the wrong lens.

though my opinion about starting with a prime "normal" lens still holds. zooms make learning photographers compositionally lazy. "mkay, i'll just stand here and zoom around till something happens".

as for the image quality of the 17-85 being "yards above" the 28/2.8 -- please show me a comparison that shows this. i don't have a review of the 17-85 that shows the MTF, but the 28/2.8 scores well in photodo.com's tests ( 3 . 8 )...
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF28_28-73.shtml

the only canon zooms that score this high are "L" series, which the 17-85 is not.
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml

I am glad you put so much of your faith in test sites. Back to the original poster's needs, he wanted opinions from 17-85 users.

I am one. It is a good lens. Along with several other users, we recommend it highly.

Please feel free to follow your own path on the "beginners can only have one lens in my world".

[edsarkiss]

will do. thanks for the permission. and the sarcasm. really.

[charlesu]

damn flying fingers. my apologies for speaking out my arse about the wrong lens.

though my opinion about starting with a prime "normal" lens still holds. zooms make learning photographers compositionally lazy. "mkay, i'll just stand here and zoom around till something happens".

I kinda guessed you might have meant the 18-55 which is not as good a lens as the 17-85.

You make a good point about learning composition and esp about DOF. There are too many snapshooters on the web who don't have a good understanding of the way things work in photography. They point, zoom, push and pray.

Of course, some don't really want to learn the hard way (manual pentax 35mm with 50 1.7 lens) like some of us did. I 'inherited' a Pentax Asahi Spotmatic from my mom and used it for years until I could swing a Canon AE1 Program. Some people just want to make pretty pictures.

[CoolToolGuy]

will do. thanks for the permission. and the sarcasm. really.
Just curious - what sort of mileage do you get out of your Geo Metro? :D

Have Fun,

[edsarkiss]

Of course, some don't really want to learn the hard way (manual pentax 35mm with 50 1.7 lens) like some of us did. I 'inherited' a Pentax Asahi Spotmatic from my mom and used it for years until I could swing a Canon AE1 Program.
both awesome pieces of equipment, even today! solid metal. i'll never forget the first time i heard the AE1's smooooooth shutter.

Some people just want to make pretty pictures.
excellent point. sometimes i forget this -- my own crazed passion for the technical art of photography makes me COO-COO sometimes! (well, most of the time).

sorry folks. i know i'm being super curmudgeonly today -- back to your slow, gadgety lenses and take some purdy pictures. ;-)

[edsarkiss]

Just curious - what sort of mileage do you get out of your Geo Metro? :D

the stickers give it an extra 10MPG, and the seat belt pads add another 3.

(apologies if the original [deleted] message was overly harsh. sometimes you just wish you could "undo" things....)

[Bruce Watson]

Argus Cosina match needle with 1.8 lens paid for out of my summer job washing dishes. Loud, heavy, but built like a tank and great to learn on.

Followed by a couple of Pentax Spotmatics and a bunch of Pentax screw mount lenses. Still match needle, took me through journalism courses and a couple of years working for a variety of weekly newspapers.

Brief dalliance with Miranda and then Minolta but settled down with Canon to raise little AF lenses.

[aikidoforever]

Wow, I'm a little worried about giving my opinion on this thread... things are getting a little steamy. However, here it goes.

I own the 17-85 and love it. You do need to find it's "sweet spot", just like most lenses it better (sharper) at certain aperture. I agree that it's an excellent walk around lens. The IS works well, doesn't seem as affective as my 100-400L but I'm guessing it's simply because of the focal length and the fact that I notice it more with the longer length.

People have commented that it's better to learn on primes such as the 28f2.8 or 50f1.4, suggesting that you work harder to compose your shots thus teaching you more...? I don't buy it. This is old school thoughts that has no logic behind them. Such as: "I use to walk ten miles in 4 feet of snow to get to school. I lost both legs to frostbite but I loved it! It builds character!" ??? No logic. As others have indicated, the zooms just help. That's all. They are simply tools people. Yes you might be able to take more pictures in inadequate lighting, but that's if you're using film guys. Welcome to the modern area where you can bump up your ISO and snap away. It's the creative eye behind the plastic, metal and glass that makes it. I would prefer zooming in and getting the shot rather than running over and missing it!

Also, I'm not putting down the old-timers, I have great respect for them. Many have achieved a lot with low-tech equipment. But let's not put down technologically advanced equipment.

Soooo....... Bottom line, if you have the money for this particular lens, buy it. You won't regret it.

Ok, let me have it...

C'mon

Ivan

[charlesu]

People have commented that it's better to learn on primes such as the 28f2.8 or 50f1.4,

There's more to it than just convenience. I think one of the points is with the faster lenses, you more readily see how powerful DOF can be. When everything is shot at 5.6 and 8, you don't get to see that so much.

Also, switching focal lengths changes perspective. It's more difficult to see when zooming a moderate zoom lens. Switch from a 28 to a 135 and wow, there it is. You see some things more quickly.

I think that's all that's really being said. Not just you need to put your time in.

Though, by learning on a completely manual camera where each shot costs money, I think you learn more, better and faster than an "auto everything with 8x zoom". That doesn't mean the guy with the auto camera and no knowledge will fail to make nice pics, just that he might get them more by happenstance than by plan.

You guys know my work. I can't tell you how many models come work with me and rave over the images. Not just that any 1 or 2 images are good. But that almost all are keepers, even if they are not stupendous shots. Most models have worked with MANY photogs that get a few good shots by taking 200-300 snaps and kinda praying that some come out right.

Or as I say....."even a blind squirrel can find a nut in a snowstorm."

[aikidoforever]

Hey Charlesu,

I agree with your comments regarding DOF and perspective, however what the person who started this thread was asking was simply the pros and cons for the 17-85. The people who are simply stating that he/she is better off buying a prime are not being helpful. And some of these people haven't even tried the lens in question!?? They are simply throwing the "old school" argument once again. He/she already mentioned in the opening thread that in addition to the 17-85, there would probably be the purchase of a 50f1.4. And don't forget, this person asked for everybody to keep it basic as he/she was a beginner.

Though, by learning on a completely manual camera where each shot costs money, I think you learn more, better and faster than an "auto everything with 8x zoom". That doesn't mean the guy with the auto camera and no knowledge will fail to make nice pics, just that he might get them more by happenstance than by plan."

I hope you are not suggesting that beginners with digital SLRs are not learning (or won't learn) as much or as quickly than the beginners on fully manual cameras. That would be a little, well... nuts! The simple fact that manual film cameras cost so much money, "on each shot" in film and processing is enough for a beginner not to want or be able to learn. There is a statistic that I read that states people with digital cameras (p&s / SLRs) take more than 10X the photos than with film cameras due to the cost factor.

Finally, I don't think anyone is questioning your ability charlesu. Many of us do know your work but as a beginner myself, with only 20 years experience, it get's a little old when people suggest that you will learn more and quicker on the primes.

Good luck to all ;-)

Ivan

[donlavange]

I have to express some disagreement with last couple of posts disparaging the 17-85. It is, from everything I have seen including some limited testing myself, an excellent lens from almost every other perspective.

I disagree that a prime will teach any more about photography. Instead, the user just uses his or her feet for a zoom. The 50 1.8 is a bargain. So is the 50 1.4. So is the 85 1.8. I could go on. But, frankly speaking, even at $500 (kit price) the 17-85 IS is a pretty darn good deal.

It's a good lens, it's a reasonable price, and it's a very flexible choice. A good, daily shooter so to speak.

It's possible people are confusing the 18-55 with this nicer lens. They have little in common.

I am pleased to see all the positive comments on the 17-85. It is by no means an inexpensive/cheap lens. I am not particularly a fan of a lens that is wedded to the digital format and see the lens loosing usability as sensors get larger as time goes on

I think that my feelings toward it stem from its use at the wider angle. On film, I often used Canon's 24mm FD lens and was very pleased with my results. The smaller sensor of digital seem to result in less "impact" when used in wide angle mode.

I also think that someone relatively new to photography gains little with all the "options" of auto everything combined with the ability to choose the focal length without thinking about the results that come with that size lens.

I plan to do some people shots with the 17-85 at the 85 end and compare the result with the 100 and the 80 end of the 80-200. I guess I spoke to soon.

[4walls]

Have you considered the Sigma 18-125 DC lens? I have heard good things about it... but that said, I tried it in store and it is a little more noisy in the focus and there was a slight color shift from the 18-70mm lens on my D70.

[Richiyaado]

The 17-85mm was the first lens I purchased for my XT Rebel (apart from the kit lens), and have no regrets. I find you really have to zoom in slightly to avoid too much CA at the wide end, and images do appear a bit soft at apertures larger than f/8 or so, but on the whole a good walkaround lens.

The second lens I purchased was the 50mm f/1.4... wonderful for low light. And I agree that it's a great lens to "learn" with... very easy to zoom with your feet!

(A note to Aikidoforever: "Onegai shimasu!") ;^)

[accord]

The 17-85 is my first lens. More than 99% of the images shooted were keepers. It is easy to use in a sense that it forgives most human errors due to its IS and deep DOF (slow).

I precede that it is not that sharp if compares with prime or L. This make me having difficlties when comparing its images with prime and L.

My images coming out from 50 f/1.4, and 70-200 f/4L were not as sharp when compared with 17-85. Do you know why? If I use 50, I'll use f/1.4 to 2.8. If I use 70-200, I'll have problem in focuing and keeping shutter speed higher that 1/f for sport.

I also have Tomon 28-75. Its f/2.8 is not that great when compared with 17-85 at 85 f/5.6. However, I want the shadow DOF. Or otherwise, I prefer using 17-85 for its IS and range.

I wish Canon has a 17-85 f/2.8!

[Richiyaado]

Whoops! I just realized I responded in an old thread, thinking it was current (a bit dyslexic... transposed the dates). Sorry!

[Andy_T]

I also have Tomon 28-75. Its f/2.8 is not that great when compared with 17-85 at 85 f/5.6. However, I want the shadow DOF.

I am a bit surprised by that statement, as it contradicts most I have heard about the EF-S 17-85 so far.
I assume you mean the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI.

Do you mean that the EF-S 17-85 is sharper wide open on the long end than the Tamron stopped down to f/5.6?

That would mean that you either have a very good copy of the EF-S 17-85 that is as sharp as the 24-70/2.8 or a not-so-good copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Do you have sample pics?

Best regards,
Andy

[accord]

Do you mean that the EF-S 17-85 is sharper wide open on the long end than the Tamron stopped down to f/5.6?

No, Tamron at f/2.8 is by no way sharper than the EF-S at f/5.6. When using Tamron, f/2.8 to f/5.6 are intended range I use for this lens, or otherwise, I prefer the EF-S because of the range and color.

[Andy_T]

Ok, obviously I asked the question in a way that can easily be understood ...

I mean: Which lens is sharper on the long end at f/5.6?

- The Tamron (which is stopped down from f/2.8 to f/5.6)
- The EF-S 17-85 (which is wide open at f/5.6)

My Tamron is tack sharp from f/4.0 on... comparable sharpness to my EF 50/1.8 I prime at f/2.8 (or my EF-S 18-55 at f/8.0 :shock: ).

Best regards,
Andy

[accord]

Here is a quick test using f/5.6 on both lenses.
The full size image:

[accord]

First one 28-75 f/5.6 flash on @75mm.
Second one 17-85 f/5.6 flash on @80mm, same distance.
The flash metering look different.

[Andy_T]

Accord,

interesting comparison!

The 17-85 image looks good, about what I would expect from a decent lens at f/5.6
The 28-75 image definitely does not look good ... but I suspect the reason is that part of the writing on the reflective surface is blown out because of too high flash output. Maybe time for some more testing with manual settings ??? Also, a focus test might be helpful.

Best regards,
Andy

[accord]

I have not done flash on the Tamron before. May be I'll do a test during day time.
Will let you have the result by tomorrow after work.

[Andy_T]

I'll also try to get some examples from my lenses (Tamron 28-75, Canon 50/1.8 ), if I have time.

Maybe newsprint or something else that's printed on non-reflective paper.

Just one suggestion ... maybe we should add the sample images to this thread in order not to deviate too far from the 17-85 IS in this thread here:

the old "should I keep this lens" thread!! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51644)

Best regards,
Andy

[RodneyCyr]

I bought this lens a few months ago, along with two "wide angle thin" filters, a skylight/1A and a polarizer.

I bought it as a "walkabout" lens because my back is getting too old to carry around a camera bag with two or three lenses.

So far, I have taken a lot of pictures with it and have these observations:

The 17mm setting seems to be significantly wider than the 18mm setting on the kit lens - more than I would have expected. But I have no way to quantify this by measuring the focal length of the two lenses.

The lens seems very good at close-up and semi-macro photography. (I like taking pictures of flowers and have a hard-drive full of them.) At the 85mm position, the lens focusses very close and the pictures are very sharp. If course, in this range, I crank up the ISO to 400 so that I can use a small aperture and high shutter speed. And the IS helps.

The lens does not seem to obstruct the built-in flash on my D-Rebel, provided I remove the optional lens shade first.

However:

The sharpness could be better at larger apertures.

There is some light fall-off in the cornersat the wide-angle position. I noticed this when testing, but don't seem to notice it otherwise.

The lens has signicant barrel distortion, particularly at focal lengths wider than about 35mm.

The lens is perhaps overpriced by about $150. Its zoom range and aperture are roughly comparable to the Canon 28-135mm IS lens for full-frame cameras, but that lens is cheaper.

Nonetheless, both me and my back are happy I bought the lens. I carried it and my camera around a museum for about 6 hours without the usual backaches.

[Andy_T]

The 17mm setting seems to be significantly wider than the 18mm setting on the kit lens - more than I would have expected. But I have no way to quantify this by measuring the focal length of the two lenses.

Rodney, you might put the camera on a tripod and get the exact same shot with both lenses, maybe including other lenses and settings as well.

It might enable you to come up with a comparison like that done by Bob Atkins for the 18-55.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/zoom2s.jpg

Best regards,
Andy

[uumode]

The lens seems very good at close-up and semi-macro photography.

A very good summary.
Though with my own lens, I was disappointed that the 17-85mm IS could not focus closer than my kit lens.
Despite it's longer 85m Vs 55mm it's unable to claw back any telephoto advantage.

http://www.wan.st/public/18-55mm_vs_17-85mm/macro.jpg

[accord]

As promised yesterday, I should post some comparisons using daylight.
However, it is late after work. I use newspaper and flash like yesterday.
This time three lenses at 50mm, 20D, iso1600, and center crop 320x240.

The first one 17-85mm, f5.6 1/60 sec:

[accord]

The second one Tamron 28-75 at 50mm, f/2.6 and 1/250s on the left and f/5.6 and 1/60 s on the right:

[accord]

The third one 50mm f/1.4, f/2.8 and 1/250 s on the left and f/5.6 and 1/60 s on the right:

[accord]

Here is some additional information. The Tamron was adjusted by Tamron HK. The technician has shown me test that my copy was better than an average lens in the market. He also told me that the Tamron lens in general is sharpest at its 28 mm side, getting worse in the middle and recovering until 75mm.

[mkitson]

Of course, some don't really want to learn the hard way (manual pentax 35mm with 50 1.7 lens) like some of us did. I 'inherited' a Pentax Asahi Spotmatic from my mom .

Ah. Me too. Learnt on a spotmatic with a 50mm 1.4 belonging to my father. Did not realise at the time what a great set up I happened to be starting off with.

Caught my father about to sell it on ebay the other day! I have pinched it off him for nostaligic reasons. AND hopefully if my kids want to get into photography they can use it too.:D