I'm sure they do. However, there are other reasons for putting prices up.

In my own business, we discovered a perception amongst some potential clients that because we were much cheaper than our competitors, we must therefore be not as good.

We therefore changed our pricing structure, such that the non-discounted price was still less than our competitors, but no longer much less.

Although it's not possible to be entirely sure that the one was a consequence of the other, our sales did increase.

You'll see where I'm going - if it were to turn out that Pentax are increasing prices for the same reason, one might argue that they're penalising their loyal client base in order to go after a different market segment.

Clearly, we're not going to be fooled into believing that a higher price means a better product, since we're already used to it.

It might do, of course - for all I know, they're putting the extra margin into setting up a QC department, rather than relying on customers for QC.

You should, especially since it's £219 delivered now

Ah well. Smooth and quiet, SDM certainly is, at least compared with screw-drive, which can often make a hell of a racket.

No disagreement there.

So you basically want super-quick focusing, fast lenses, and not have to spend too much.

Erm...

It would have been harder. But an ME costs £25.

For £1000 or more, it's not unreasonable to expect better.

It is pointless to argue that technique would have had to be better with old gear. It's true, but irrelevant.

This sort of statement is far too simplistic, and consequently uninformative.

As Mike said earlier, it's also about the length of the focus throw. Obviously, a focus ring that has to rotate further, will take longer, all other things being equal.

The 17-70, which is SDM and has quite a short focus throw, is probably at least as quick as some of the screw-drive lenses of equivalent focus throw.

It is much quicker, extreme to extreme, than the screw-drive 55-300, which has a particularly long focus throw.

Lenses like the FA 28-200, which are both screw-drive and have a short focus throw, are very quick to focus, and a lot quicker than, for instance, the 60-250, which is SDM, and also slower than treacle.

So you have to compare like with like to make statements that have any meaning at all.

It was probably this one.

As I said, edge sharpness at anything longer than about 50 is pretty poor.

But other than that, it's not at all bad, and it's a lot cheaper than when that review came out, so in value terms, it's a lot better.

Well I'd say that the 18-135 on the K-5 is a reasonable chunk of 'part way there'.

Rent one from SRS, see how you get on. Or buy one. You'd get back something close to what you paid, less the cost of the rental if you decided you didn't like it.

If you decide to go down that road, have a poke about on here for reviews of the lens. It's fast focusing, compact, light, in fact a delight in every way except that at anything longer than about 50mm it's not great away from the centre.

But a baby will mostly be in the centre, and you say you want the shorter end of the range. So it might be just about the right compromise for you.

You're hardly comparing like with like

If lightning fast AF is your main requirement, you'll need to spend money, lots of it, and not on Pentax.

18-135 is DC, not SDM, as Gwyn, I think, pointed out to me when I made the same mistake.

The other thing is, a lot is made of the lenses that have a longer focus throw, and all other things being equal, they are slower, as Mike says.

The 55-300 is often cited as a slow one in that regard. However, that assumes it needs to go from infinity to close up, which it rarely does. Get it close to where it needs to be, and it's quite quick.