Just add a 40mm f2.8 to the MX, makes a very good pocket SLR!

Bring back the 2000mm, only with SDM (an old turntable motor should handle it, and a 12v battery pack to hang from the tripod for stability)!

Dishwashers - ours had a hissy fit and lost its heating element. After some rummaging on electrical spares sites a replacement was sourced, fitted in about 5mins, and sure enough hot water was produced again shortly after.

My Dad is looking at a K7 with the WR kit lenses, so I'm trying to nudge him along although I don't think he's likely to buy anything particularly tasty on the lens front.

Well, to be fair, I did pay another £10 postage. I used the lens briefly on digital thinking that a pocket-sized 80mm was a good idea, but gave up after finding the images lacked much in the way of vibrancy or colour!

The P30 and 50 f1.7 sounds a much better deal...

There are two versions of the FA 28-70mm. There was a * f2.8 version (the expensive one you've found) and an f4 version which IIRC was regarded as an upmarket consumer zoom.

That's nothing. I have one of those big pop-up camping tents. When first deployed it launched itself across the patio and wiped out a plant stand!

Your best bet is to keep an eye on ebay for a cheap example with intact switch. It's also worth watching auctions of Z or PZ series cameras as the PZ 28-80mm was a kit lens for some of these.

I think the main reason for the 43mm not being a huge seller was that it has never been a standard kit lens. Pentax switched to providing a zoom as the standard lens with the attitude that people who want even better quality will be prepared to pay big money, which is how the auto focus primes ended up at £300+ and in some cases over a £1k. That's why the F 35-70mm is plentiful and relatively cheap while the F 50mm hardly ever appears (and is usually £150 or more when it does).

Weirdly I find that I prefer to carry the old three primes kit around than some older zooms. With the exception of the M 75-150mm the older zooms are a bit heavy to carry all the time, while the M 135mm is pretty much pocket sized.

Nope, no filters, shot as JPG. It would probably sharpen nicely if you used RAW and then fed it to Photoshop or similar.

It is a bit soft at 80mm, but not unpleasantly so. You just can't do the crop and enlarge trick that many primes are capable of (I can crop images taken with my 28mm f3.5 heavily without losing much sharpness).

As mentioned above, I've heard good things about the 24-90mm but it is rare and expensive. There was an FA 28-70mm with a constant f4 which may be of interest - they seem to be prone to separating elements but providing you get a good one they seem well thought of.

I am reminded of the wonderful short-lived Newsnight weather forecasts, where a fed-up Paxman came up with such gems as "And for tonight's weather - it's April, what do you expect?"