The title (lenses just being corrected) does say Most Used.

I'm not sure who you're addressing this to, but the answer is no, they are not the ones most traded on here and certainly not Pentax's top sellers. The Limited lenses? I doubt it very much. The DA* lenses?

We're talking big money in those top 10 lenses.

The biggest sellers will IMHO be much more mundane, starting with all those kit lenses. The most used likewise.

By all means disagree, but please refrain from personal comments, whoever they are addressed to.

It's an electronic instruction to a mechanical device. There must be feedback to say "I've arrived at the point of focus" but of course there will be mechanical tolerances.

Deceleration also is a factor - nothing stops instantaneously. So a lens with a long throw may reach higher speeds and overshoot more, just as a lens with short throw won't offer the potential for accuracy because of the shorter scale. Going from infinity to the point of focus may also give a different final point than going from closest focus to the point of focus.

Then we have different distances affecting accuracy, different zoom positions. Don't forget to zoom first and then focus with modern lenses - very few of them hold focus properly. They are often varifocal lenses, not parfocal. The old idea of focusing at the longest length and then zooming out will cause a focus shift, in fact an enormous one with some lenses.

Try it and see!

It is a decent lens and because it's WR I find myself using it quite a bit instead of my 16-45mm.

As previously mentioned, and no doubt long fogotten, my own avatar is me. Shot by friend and glamour photographer Paul Jones - www.pauljones.org - and conveying a sense of mystery....if anyone cares to look at it that way.

Being wrapped in shadows does help to hide the unwanted details though....

I'll move this to Lenses until you're sure you're actually selling it!

Is it? Just because you claim that to be true authoritatively therefore it may not be so...or it may be.

Common sense is better, but surely yes, we don't believe everything we read. But we don't substitute the argument that those with no authoritative standing therefore have more valuable opinions.

The garden picture now makes more sense. The top image is focused on the spot you indicate, the second one is perhaps focused elsewhere as the Live View system takes a wider view of things when focusing. I was puzzled that the background focus varied, but it may make sense after all.

I would suggest a flat target to avoid discepancies. The clock isn't a flat target either.

For some reason there are more rivet heads showing as white on the left picture even though the images are clearly as close to being identical as possible. Whatever the reason, and whichever lens it is, the left picture appears to be the better of the two. It may be helped by increased contrast and there is little in it at this sort of pixel count.

I've looked at the larger version, but it's still quite a small image.

Maybe, but the logical conclusion of Smeggypants's argument would suggest that nobody knows anything more about anything than anybody else. A sort of reverse snobbery if you like.

These arguments may be fallacies themselves and just because Wikipedia have published them doesn't mean to say they are right.

It is a lesson in irony.