The ISO shouldn't matter within reason. 200 should be OK.

Sorry about the confusion I just posted the A lens results to show
that very accurate exposure in terms of the result
is possible with the K-5

Speeds for some reason do vary from what they should be, possibly
some correction in the camera. I noticed on the K20D that it quoted
an Effective LV which was different to the LV metered in each segment.
The K-5 doesn't seem to give the Segment LV's in PhotoMe

When I look at the figs for the 'A' Lens posted above the speeds are correct at
f/4 and f/11 1/800th and 1/100th (3 stops) and they are
correct at f/2.0, f/2.8 and f/16

The speeds given for in between aren't right, but the exposure was
correct going off the RGB values? Speeds are rounded off but not
by this much?

They are:

f/5.6 - 1/320th (should be 1/400th)
f/8.0 - 1/125th (should be 1/200th)

I think if you just meter at f/4 or f/5.6 and adjust the
compensation +/- so that it looks right you won't be far
out.

If there's any white in the scene the burnt out indicator
will show indicating that you need to reduce the exposure.

It's a lot easier Chris just to photograph a white or grey card
and read off the RGB value in any editor.

A piece of tracing paper over a filter will also work.

Generally your meter should read right at f/5.6 and then you
will need a +/- constant applying to the exposure.

I've just checked a Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens and apart from the
1st reading it's constant right through:

All 3 RGB values were the same so I'm just listing one value on each line:

ExpoDisc shots at sky on Av
f/1.7 - 105
f/2 - 94 About 1/3rd stop too dark
f/2.8 - 92
f/4 - 94
f/5.6 - 93
f/8 - 93
f/11 - 92
f/16 - 93

There's not a lot of thought gone into that name? which isn't a very good sign

They need to change it quickly

BL used to have a Manager in the Complaint's Dept. in Japan
called Mr. Nakamoto........ where are BL now?

That could effect the Lifetime Guarantee on my DVD-R's

Strange that no one asked which version of the 28-80mm this was

The smc version is very good, but awkward to manually focus because the focus mark on the lens varies depending on the focal length.

I would have sold both and bought the Pentax-A 35-70mm f/4.

There was also a Takumar version of the 28-80mm and looking at the
lens element layout the A series 28-80mm looks the same as the
F smc version.

Use of AF with a remote is set in the options menu on the camera.
It can be either on or off.

Bad marketing on Hoya's part, theres also a UV(N) Nobody has a clue what they mean? ..... possibly Normal and Compact.

UV(0) is the original Kodak Wratten ID for a UV filter, just as 1A was for a Skylight.

I tried an old Hoya(0) not HMC etc. and an Olympus UV yesterday and they didn't effect the image either way. I'm going to order a recently made Hoya UV(0) and see how that goes.

Last week I tried a Tiffen Haze-1 filter on a Takumar 35mm f/3.5 lens and there was a massive improvement at the edges.

Lenstip also have quite a good test of UV filters.

Surprisingly the Hoya HMC UV-0 came out best link

The shot of the balcony does look better with the filter than without. It's not clear if it's a crop or not.

They do mention on one of the reviews that apart from where they have noticed problems the filters generally don't degrade image quality.

There's also a later supplement with more filters added.

The 82mm diam. filter on the Tamron 500mm was part of the design
and actually improved it's sharpness

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=18954

It's just a myth that filters reduce sharpness. Some filters
actually improve it particularly at the edge of the frame

That reminds me these non-slip car mats really do get a strong
grip on anything you put on them link