No, I haven't seen this hunting at the long end that people talk about.

The problem with mine (not purchased new) was that it back-focused horribly - a lot more than the K-5 would let me adjust.

Stopped down it was Ok, and otherwise in mint condition, but I had some strange results which led me to look at the focus accuracy and it was out by a country mile on both the K-5 and the K10D.

I've checked that aspect of it since it's been back, and it's fine now at +7. I just need to get out and use it now.

Since reading about the hunting issue, I've been trying to provoke it into misbehaving, but without success. Or without failure, depending on how you look at it

Talking of the 17-70, is the front meant to wiggle a bit?

I initially bought my K-5 with an 18-135.

It's nicely built, very compact, super quick and quiet to focus, and pretty good at the short end. It has lovely Pentax rich colours.

However, away from the centre I didn't think much of it at all. I was umming and err-ing for a while, and then this picture clinched it:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Problems/IMGP0232.jpg[/IMG]

(PM me if you'd like the DNG to have a closer look at it)

In the middle it's great, but even reduced to web proportions, the softness on the left is apparent, and even though it would probably be better stopped down more, I ended up concluding that I'd just forever be fighting it, and traded it in against a Sigma 50-500.

Whether you'd be happy with it depends on what you'd shoot with it, and how fussy you are

I have a 17-70 now, as it happens, just back from having its AF sorted out, so I've yet to make friends with it. I'm hoping it will live up to its reputation

Ha!

I bought some special chilli powder impregnated bird seed for that very purpose.

It's rubbish!! They just hang from the branch, troughing on it.

I must admit, I did briefly have a look at the price of air rifles!

It was all fine on the squirrel front until about a month ago. There was only one squirrel, and we had a gentleman's agreement - provided I kept the peanuts topped up, he kept off the sunflower seeds and fat cakes.

Then he brought a couple of his mates along, and they lowered the tone of the garden. They empty the peanuts in about a day, and then if I don't refill them, they're all over the rest of the bird food.

And they're fat too. Greedy little *****.

Right, changing the subject a little, I've snapped up another excellent deal on Amazon!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000H6W726

It's to shoot the bloody squirrels that get at the food on my bird feeder!

I've tried a water pistol, but they quickly realised it doesn't hurt, and just sit there getting wet.

Good luck there, my credit card won't stretch anywhere near that far

Sorry, Gwyn, in quoting your post I didn't mean to imply that you in particular had any particular view, I was just picking it up as an example.

It's an example of an implied ethical view, like others expressed on this thread, such as 'It's Ok to make money out of Canon and Nikon users', and 'Forum members are more deserving than Pentax users that aren't forum members'.

Well, until the credit card bill arrives, perhaps! As it happens, I can't justify spending any more money on lenses for myself until I've funded the Bigma somehow.

Not naive at all. I was thinking somewhere about half way between the deal price and the SRS price. Obviously there's no official warranty, so that makes a difference. But as I've taken the chance of getting stuck with them, possibly for some time, as someone has not-very-nicely, actually hoped, I do hope to end up at least not out-of-pocket.

Yes absolutely, which was why I referred to 'individual' items. I realise they're brilliant for customer service, but they don't open the boxes individually and ensure that every one is Ok. Not that I'm suggesting they should - at their sales volumes it would be impossible. As an occasional seller, though, I need to ensure that every item is good, or at least exactly as I describe it.

And if they were?

It's this implied notion of fairness that I'm challenging.

'One each' is as superficial as it is simple, but as usual with these things, there's more to it than meets the eye.

Does someone that earns more, deserve one at price X more, less, or the same, as someone that earns less? Than someone that smokes, or spends money on things that others may deem less worthy?

Or if someone that couldn't afford a lens was able to afford one by selling a couple more at a profit, does that make them less deserving because they took the opportunity?

I'm not seeking an answer, I'm just attempting to illustrate that the 'one each' notion of fairness is over-simplistic.

To JohnX, I'm not attempting to justify anything. I'd feel perfectly happy selling them at a profit to forum members, non-members, eBay buyers, or anyone else, and I don't at all begrudge the money made by those here on the forum that do a lot of selling of lenses. In fact I'm happy for them.

If someone wants one, they know how much I paid for them, and they know how much SRS would charge for one. I may or may not put them in the Classifieds in due course, but in the meantime, I have at least two, possibly three which I won't be keeping.

What I will do, however, is take each one out of the box, take a few shots with it, and establish whether it's Ok, since unlike Amazon, I certainly do care about the quality of the individual items that I sell to people.

I'm open to offers

Suppose all the cheap lenses had been bought up, but only one per buyer.

All those keen Pentax people that were, for whatever reason, too late to get one at the super-cheap price, would then be faced with the prospect of paying double if they want one.

As it is, some of them will be able to pick one up at a price between the super-cheap, and the normal price, as they drift out on to eBay.

Of the four DA 35mm lenses I bought, I'm giving one to my dad for Christmas. He wouldn't have felt able to justify even the deal price, and I wouldn't have been able to stretch that far were it not for the amount I hope to make back on the other three.

I only mention this, since all this talk of ethics makes a lot of unjustified assumptions about people's motives.

Even if I sold all four lenses at a profit, in order to better afford other gear that I might desire, who's to say I'm any less, or any more, deserving, than anyone else?