Here is another question.

What is the dynamic range of the type of media we used today:
so print, monitor... and the rest

I really don't know, average I believe.

I quite like the *proof of this, many others don't have that certainly not with a lens comparable with a 28mm lens on fullframe.

The price is around $299.95 USD

Doesn't sound much though 80 quid if that includes man hours as well.
Quite strange they didn't know they could get the parts though

Hopefully you have it back soon in working order and you can enjoy the lens again.

ps. glad you think different Ken

Too bad to hear that John
It's of course very good for marketing.
I'm quite glad that Pentax seem to label everything correctly now and I believe that many brands except the third party use them more correctly or am I wrong about that?

Thanks John for the correction and clearing things up.

So there is no rule when you're allowed to use the term macro (micro)?
Might be a good idea to have some regulation about that.

Don't know about the wide angle lenses, so no comments on that.

For walkabout / holiday type lens I think that the 17-70 pentax or sigma would be advisable. Superzooms such as the 18-250 aren't lenses for everyone and they are quite heavy and large when fully zoomed out.

Welcome to the forum
Don't have an optio so can't say something about the operation manual but here is the one on their site link

The card problem is strange, it might be that you accidentally have locked the card.
There is a small switch on the side of the card, take a look at that and try if it makes a difference.

Glad it's readable Jamal

Going a bit off topic but when can you put the definition MACRO behind a lens name?
Are there any rules or standards for that?

As far as my understanding goes that isn't a true Macro lens.
A true macro lens have a magnification of 1:1 or greater, I believe that most zoom "macro" goes to 1:2

Macro lenses are also (mostly?) prime lenses and special designed for macro, the Tamron 70-300mm macro isn't designed specially for macro but to do well as a tele-zoom lens and has the macro as extra feature to say it simple.

With macro the DOF is important and it is also very flat with macro lenses, with most other lenses certainly zooms the DOF can be curved.

Some normal lenses also don't preform well with close focus as with normal focus since they aren't designed for that.
Macro lenses of course will preform well with close focus but might preform not as good with normal focus.

sorry that it isn't written very well, hopefully it's readable

Jeanette you almost got it
It's the sharpest of the bunch.
F-number 2 is pretty shallow for this kind of shot.
Here to give you an example.

the flower was probable 60cm away with f/2 that makes a depth of field (DOF) of 1.06 cm.
That 1.06 cm is the width of the field were everything is sharp in.

when doing a portrait on someone who stands 2 meter away you get a DOF of 12.5 cm with f/2 so far less critical

With the above shot you used
1/500
f/2
ISO 200

1/500 looks good but you could have gone slower probable so to 1/250 probable
that means you can set the f-number higher so getting a wider DOF
With 1/250 instead of 1/500 you would have f/4.
You can also double your iso from ISO 200 to ISO 400 then you could have used f/5.6 if I'm correct.

f/5.6 will give you a DOF of 2.99 cm at 60cmm focus distance.
so with f/2 you had 1.06 cm and with f/5.6 almost 3 times that much, just makes life a bit easier.

With true macro you often use f/8 and above or else the DOF is so shallow.
With flowers I would say f/5.6 is a good starting point.

so basically next time use f/5.6 in av-mode and set iso on 200.
if shutterspeed is not fast enough use iso 400.
still not fast enough lower you f-number down till you have it.