The Pro version is twice as fast and does RAW and JPG.

Unlikely? The best.. but hard to find is just
a straight tube hood with 49mm at both ends. Then anything
with a 49mm thread can be put on the end of the tube. I've
got one in 52mm that I use on a Pentax-K 28mm f/3.5, not
noticed any cut-off on the K-5. It's very convenient being
able to put a cap on the tube and it looks very neat.

I suppose I could use a 49-52mm step up

Edit: This one sounds right and the hood can be used
although they don't say if it stays at 49mm, but it
should otherwise you need two sizes of hoods and
filters. link

I was amazed how much difference/better a Tiffen Haze 1 filter made
to the edges of a Pentax-K 28mm f/3.5 over about 100m. Never looked
at anything closed because it was over water. After using filters
for over 40 years I've never seen one degrade the image.

Nothing wrong with that lens.... excellent shots!

That's the big problem with tethering..... just a USB cable
between the two

At least only 2 items can get damaged when you pull the
cable.... the camera.... or the laptop.... or both!

Eye-Fi is a lot safer

Say Nuts! doesn't work as good as say Cheese!
Very funnee!

The 400mm is probably a T-Mount and you can change if for a K version (T or T2) for about £5

You can get closer with a small extension tube.

So paying the extra £3 for 1st Class wasn't necessary, because yours arrived the same day as mine and were probably ordered the same day... i.e. when the offer was posted here.

Gorgeous shots! ....... Have a haggis on me!

Do you have any proof to support this nonsense?

Every site/report I've ever seen confirms that filters don't
degrade the image and it is a fact that lens makers such as
Tamron include a filter in certain designs and not using one
degrades the quality.

From a lens test: link

Next, I wanted to see what effect Tamron's large 112mm front "normal" filter would have on the sharpness. I repeated three of the measurements with the filter on. This is shown below:

I didn't expect there to be a significant difference but I was surprised to see that the presence of the filter increased the sharpness quite a bit when the aperture was wide open (f2.8 ). Personally, I wouldn't want to use this lens below f4.0. But if I did, I certainly would use the filter. Besides, it also protects the front lens element.

Some UV tests at Lenstip link

-