I've not got a K-x but looking in the manual 5 points seems
to be the default setting anyway.

1. So all this fuss is over nothing
9 wasted pages on this forum alone.

2. You could buy Nikon, Sony and possibly Canon (not checked)
as separates (body + 35mm f/1.8 ) tomorrow if you wanted.
Cheap as well

3. Difference f/2.4 to f/1.7 = 2.4/1.7 = 1.412
1.414 is a FULL STOP which is half as bright

4. Nikon, Sony and possibly Canon will soon brief him as will anybody doing a review

No idea. Is it a breech lock like Canon FD?.... does the
rear cap not have anything stamped in it?

Have a close look at any good shots of Tamron adaptall mounts
on ebay see what's similar.

I prefer the first one.... more impact!!

I've already stated in another thread that to anyone doing nature photography FF offers no advantage, unless you can get as close as you want too. If you have say a 400mm lens you will need to buy a 600mm lens to get the same shots......... but if your going to buy a 600mm lens you might as well use it on the APS-C and completely fill the smaller frame anyway.

Looking at the C & N forums having two systems seems to be a real mess and confusion, with different focal lengths being needed for each system. It's bad enough on here with just APS-C

Does the forthcoming 35mm f/2.4 not tempt you to stay :

That fooled me Nice sharp shot I love the colour and
texture of the wood. The sharp lettering really stands out.

You mean move down market...... into the area vacated by
Practica, Zenith, Chinon etc. Seem to remember they tried that once with the cheap Takumars and it wasn't very successful and a wrong move.

I hope selling cameras with a 35mm standard lens doesn't catch on.
It could be a bit embarrassing for Pentax if a customer goes in a shop looking at say 3 cameras with 35mm standard lenses and asks.... Why is the viewfinder dimmer on the Pentax? and the salesman answers "It's because the Pentax lens only lets half the amount of light through that the others do. They have f/1.7 or f/1.8 lenses".

It's unlikely that as a kit this will sell much anyway. Pentax kits of the past always had the 50mm f/1.7 option and we all know how rare the F or FA 50mm f/1.7's are and how many 35-70 or 28-80 lenses are kicking about due to people preferring a kit with a zoom rather than standard lens. The price of the F 50mm f/1.7 in the 90's was cheap at about £62 when not bought with a kit, so quite a few would have been sold that way, but it can't have been very successful because Pentax discontinued it and just kept the 50mm f/1.4 which was nearly twice the price and not sold as part of a kit.

What about viewfinders, is the X-r super-bright

Has the Leica X1 even got a viewfinder?

I forgot Practica's used to come with an f/2.8 50mm standard lens the Domiplan (Gareths got one ) Nice one here on ebay camera and lens for 50p. Seem to remember that they had an f/2.4 standard as well?

Ricoh's used to have an f/2.2 standard 50mm.

What about the prestige value of having a f/1.2 , f/1.4 , f/1.7 standard lens? Pentax haven't got any of them in a 35mm standard.

35mm x 1.5 = 52.5mm which is actually what most 50mm standard lenses were. 50mm being the nearest nominal figure.

Sony also have a 35mm f/1.8 at £154 link and it has a distance scale.

Depending on price and manufacturing quality the Pentax might be worthwhile, but if the performance isn't good it could damage their reputation considerably, especially when it filters through to buyers that 35mm is the Standard lens for digital.

Ricehigh has shown the optical formula and size of this lens and the Old FA 35/2 AL and they look identical, so it should perform OK which leaves the problem of price?

Someone on the other forum has started a thread titled:
"So a full plastic 35/2.4 is available at Nikkor 35/1.8 price?"
which just about sums it up

Hoya should have released this lens for testing before announcing it. They are just getting a lot of bad publicity the way they have done it and if they have just put baffles in the f/2.0 why didn't they make it f/2.2 or f/2.3?