At the end of a silly week of looking at various options I am now ready to upgrade my kit lens, and have narrowed it down to these three lenses. I have a Tamron 70 - 300 along with a Signa 10 - 20.

The Sigma would give me full coverage from 17 all the way to 300,but some users seem disappointed with colour rendition etc. I am still
undecided so comments on the Sigma would be welcome.

The Pentax appeals because of its wide end, 16 or 24mm equiv was always a size I dreamed after in film days, and as I shoot landscape it would be so good. My other post on it against the LX3 has satisfied me the CA can be dealt with, does the 16mm end cause any concerns with it being achieved by the lens fully zoomed ?

Some here have posted stunning results from the Tamron and the photozone review is very good, it is probably my favourite so far, but it would be nice to have a Pentax body/Pentax lens.
Can I please have help with this as I an really uncertain, worst case scenario I suppose is that at least anyone of them will give good results, help !!

Many thanks for your replies. I sometimes convince myself that I need a compact, and that is the reason why I "looked " at an LX3. However when I look at the 16-45 which covers the same as the LX3, but cost £100 less and think of the IQ difference, then it just does not make sense for me. Others will be able to pay the extra and be happy and it comes down to what you are willing to accept in terms of IQ, now the only question I have left is one that has been asked before I am sure, is the 16 -45 worth getting if you have the 18 -55 Mk11. I have to say that I find mine sharp but is the difference worth paying £200 ??

Ok yesterday it was the 18 - 250 or the Fuji S100FS. From replies, both here and the Fuji forum on dpreview, I have kicked that idea out.

I am going to keep my K200D and was looking at getting an LX3.

My fear is that if I do get one and start using it that I will become lazy and leave the Pentax at home and then kick myself for shots where the IQ could have been so much better if I had taken the Pentax instead of the LX3, so is it better to get the LX3 or but the 16 -45 ?, is the CA issue in the photozone review as bad as they make out ?

I have a K200D which I love, but want an all round lens.I have £300 to spend and was looking to get the Pentax 18 - 250. For the same money I can get the Fuji S100FS which covers 28 - 400mm and is very sharp. The Pentax lens does not get a great write up on photozone and I am wondering if the Fuji would be a better performer.I am currently toying with the idea of selling my Pentax and getting the S100FS and an LX3, do I need to see a shrink !!.

I use both polariser and nd grad. Used to have Nikon but jumped ship cos K200D is weather sealed. I live in the Western Isles of Scotland so hence the reason for weather sealing. I am very pleased with the results I get from it and it will take some camera to make me move.

On ebay, quite happy to sell on here as well, first £190 secures.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170309724898

Much has been discussed on here regarding Jessops, now the chickens are coming home to roost,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7893176.stm

I own one and cannot think why I would not buy one. It replaced a Nikon D40 which was dreadful for dust. I believe dust may be present on many D40's but the owners are unaware as they do not shoot small apertures,it is only clearly seen past f16.
Mine went to Nikon three times before they gave up and replaced the sensor !!. Our office D40 went in for a sensor clean this week as it is also bad for dust and it did not clean well first time around and had to be sent back.

I have not encountered dust so far on my K200D. The build quality is very robust and is something worth taking into consideration,along with the weather proofing. What I really like is the colour rendition which I find to be exact.
Buy one if you can, get off the dslr body merry-go-round for a few years and get some decent glass. I put a Sigma 10 - 20mm on and it is so so so good.

I apologize for asking this but I am so confused by all the different permutations for processing raw files. I had a copy of Adobe Lightroom 1.4 (education copy) which I lost in a recent house move, but I never used it, far less understood it. I can pick up a copy of ver 2.0 for £75 but I wonder what users on this forum would recommend. Is the bundled K200D software fine for someone like me who does mostly jpeg but might want now and again to shoot raw, and if I see a big difference move might over to shooting raw all the time.
Is one of the free convertors like raw therapee as good as anything ?
As of present I use Picasa 3 for jpegs and am quite happy with it.
Link is to my flickr page where everything is jpeg and done in Picasa, would I benefit from raw ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/donaldm/

Many thanks to you all for replying. I am torn over what to buy as I want a versatile lens starting from at least 18mm. I am worried about the 18 - 250 being too much weight and difficult to handle at the 250mm end, not that the Tamron 70 - 300 isn't.
I have been looking at the Pentax 17-70 MattMatic, but it is dear, best I can find is £345 inc p&p at Bristol Cameras, the 18 - 250 is still available for £299 at London Camera Exchange. I am really all over the place but I thought the 18 - 125 might be an option, Sigma 18 - 200 gets bad review on Photozone, Tamron doesn't seem much better, suppose I should have titled this HELP !!