Thanks for looking Adey, though they are a tad too expensive for me, to put on this cam anyway. I might run to the price for the 85mm 1.8, but certainly no higher. I'll probably just do as I said at first and get the 50 1.4. This was only meant to be something I could play around with and I can't afford to play with just under £500. If I had that amount to play with I'd be putting toward a Canon 1D mkIII.

I'm sick of falling over the box of FD fit lenses at work...though most are telezooms, but sure there 'must' be some faster glass in there too.
It's funny how now in the digi world we think of a f/2.8 lens and is considered 'fast'! Cranking up the ISO setting and getting great results is an option we've gotten use to.

Thats another reason for me wanting to play with film.... OK you can turn up the ISO to get faster shutter sprrd, but the noise is UGLY. Give me a nice film grain off a 400+ film anyday.:)

Oh.......... If you find any fast glas, I'm only 30 minutes away, drop me a line and I'll be happy to take it out of your way ;)

High ISOs are downright inconvenient with film, because you can't change it. I find ISO 400 gives intolerable grain, with ISO 100 being nearly unnoticeable. Besides, if you have ISO 400 loaded in and the sun comes out, bad things start happening on the f16 1/1000th of a second front. Give me a shallow DoF with nice wide open aperture any day.

I hope you enjoy your A-1, and if you see someone with a digicam do what I do--challenge them to a camera battle. At this point they will say something like: well MY camera has variable ISO, 3fps, a 5x optical zoom and I can take all the pictures I want!

At this point you grasp your A-1 firmly and bring it down rapidly on their fancy 21st century plastic and silicon, and then depart with a smug smile ;-) This trick works particularly well with my Leica R3, which weighs in at a back-breaking 960g!

Now now Alex, that's not the right attitude, is it?

You seem obsessed with equipment, thinking that if you have high-end equipment, it will make you a high-end photographer. This is complete rubbish. If you give a Leica to a bad photographer, they will still produce poorly composed, unimaginative pictures that lack any great merit and leave the viewer wondering just what it is they are supposed to be looking at.

Give the most modern, "plastic and silicon" camera to a photographer that has put thought and imagination into the composition and structure of their picture and it will beat the unimaginative Leica user any day all day. It's the photographer that makes the difference, NOT the camera.

Quite right Yelvertoft--which is why most of my kit is actually not far above the 'prosumer' level. You have grasped the wrong end of the stick slightly; I am not saying that kit matters more than skill, merely that cameras were generally far better built in 70s than today. The Leica I own is a rebadged Minolta really. What I am referring to when I say 'crappy plastic and silicon' camera could be something like a D90--which will certainly not produce shabby pictures at all. I am referring to build quality; while the pictures it produces will be excellent, will it be able to keep on working after 40 years?

You would not believe the number of old 'pro-sumer' level 35mm SLR cameras we have binned, just as the number of DSLR which will also probably be binned.
I'm not saying that an average DSLR is more durable than an average 35mm SLR once was, far from it. In fact, yes, some older kit is probably over engineered.....BUT, there is a myth that all older solid metal 35mm SLR cameras will last and last. Have seen enough defunct Canon F1n's Minolta XD7 Nikon FM FE FA's and Pentax LX dodgy electrics. Only today I was talking to a chap with a mint looking Nikon F3,hardly looked used and still boxed!, but non working due to shot innards (ironically probably due to non use and damp storage). bearings and moving parts SOMETIMES arent as durable are a circuit board.
Just saying that because a camera looks solid from the outside, doesnt mean it is inside. This is also probably apt for many ebay hunters too I guess?.

Yes, they're not invicible. I still remain convinced that if you shoot at least 4 rolls of film a year and give a CLA every 5-10 years an old SLR will last a long, long time. In fact just shooting the shutter with no film and pressing/turning every button and knob on the camera to keep the contacts clean will keep it going. Broken ones can often be repaired (admittedly at a cost higher than buying another used one).

Yes, agree totally.
Along similar lines I think shutter counts which can often be found from DSLR cameras is a long overdue aid to buying s/h, and will become more so as the earlier DSLR's get older. Its' a shame its not quite so easy with something like a Pentax K1000 35mm film SLR, where serial numbers can produce a red herring if a later model has had lots of 'actuations'.
Spare parts availability is a major issue with some film SLR (oddly some of the later cameras like Eos3000 being worse than some earlier models like A1).....I'm guessing spare parts issues will become a major factor with DSLR's too. I shudder to think how many Sensors will fail in future years

on the reliability issue I have a canon 17-85mm kit lens that is 18 months old the zoom locked up no play either way ..when I contacted Canon dealership they informed me "oh yes its a common fault with these " at 18 months old!!!! I have a Miranda 100-300 zoom so not exactly cutting edge and it is 25 years old no problems whatsoever it did cost £120 all that time ago so maybe it is related somehow ..ie digital kit is cheaper in relation to our earnings now as to then ....maybe