The description in that auction says it's a Chinon. If it is, I do agree with Niblue that the Pentax one would be a safer bet, and not much more expensive.

But as you say, if it's for the '10, then SMC-A 50mm F1.7 every time (I have two of these now, and an F2, so I'm not so bothered about the prices going up )

You need to be more specific..

Good for the price?
Good for use with your camera (which is?)?
Good compared with some other lens?

"Good" is always relative.

It probably isn't good for use with a K10D, since it doesn't have an A-setting.

It probably is quite good if you wanted to use a reversing ring with it for macro, and didn't want to use one of your good lenses.

I don't know anything about it, but it would help those that do to say a bit more about what you want.

Likewise my wrist strap, which hasn't come off the camera yet since I got it.

Also if you use a bean bag rather than a tripod the micro-switch idea wouldn't help.

I think they've got it about right. If you use a long exposure, you aren't going to want to use it in "push the button, release immediately" mode, so SR will be switched off for you, and if the exposure is short enough for you not to care then I doubt having SR left on is going to be a problem.

I'd be interested to hear more about Chirpy's experience.

How does the FA 80-320 compare optically with the 75-300 FAJ? ISTR someone (George, probably) suggesting that the latter isn't so good.

I'd appreciate a view of the relative handling qualities of the two as well.

Well the SMC-A 50mm F1.7 has an excellent reputation, and the eBay prices are reflecting that. Good ones seem to be going for £40-£60 even though there are lots about.

There are quite a few SMC-A 50mm F2s about also, which go for a bit less.

You might also look at this thread, where another new member asks much the same question.

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5360

It refers to two threads discussing this issue; there are others too worth having a look at.

But getting the A-series equivalent is a good plan. There are hordes of them about at the moment.

I can't say I'm surprised, I've been very pleased with it.

One of the things I like to do is sit inconspicuously at barbecues or other outdoor party-type events, far enough away from people for them to be engrossed in what they're doing without a camera in their face, and grab a few candid shots.

I've found the 28-200 ideal for this, and I can imagine that bit of extra reach that you get with the Tamron 18-250 being even more ideal.

None of the results are the sort of thing you'd blow up to A3, indeed the shots in isolation aren't anything to write home about. But taken together they provide a more up-close-and-personal record of the event than you can get with a compact, and most of them would be completely impossible with the 16-45, or indeed the 18-55, since the enlargement of the crops required from them would negate their superior optical qualities.

It would be most interesting to see some careful comparisons of this lens at the wide end, with the 18-55, and at the long end, with the 75-300 FAJ or 80-320 FA.

I don't think there's any question that such superzooms are worse than the best, but I'd love to see some reliable evidence about how much worse, and indeed whether they're also significantly worse than the not-quite-best.

Indeed. From the 6 MP of the '100 to the 10 MP of the '10, you only get about a 30% increase in the linear dimensions.

To get the same increase again, you'd need to go to 16.6 MP.

Maybe he's hinting that it's more than 12.

Or he could be stringing us along... not sure I'd bet either way, to be honest