I think the reason will be low demand. Pentax have totally revamped their line-up of lenses and they have simply decided upon their priorities.

I can see a pattern to their DSLR and lens releases, and it's all been steadily building every since the release of the second wave of DSLRs.

It's my guess that they are generating business as fast as they can, and as that gathers pace they are expanding the range as fast as they can.

Esoteric fast primes at low prices don't really fit into the pattern at this stage. I think there is a viable range as it is. Yes, there could be more, and there may be yet, but are they a priority?

It just goes to show how far things have developed when we're asking for real innovation and we already have 12-24mm f4 lenses at less than £600.

How much more real innovation do we need to be impressed?

The kit that we now take for granted would have been beyond comtemplation five years ago.

In a way you can, with Horizon panoramic cameras and the like. There are some medium format oddities around that are ultra-wide.

Generally, though, 35mm is the format that caters for extremes.

There is such a device in existence - the human eye. The eye vibrates and hence the image contantly is scanned by more than one set of receptor cells. The resolution is astonishing.

However, the software is also quite sophisticated...

Why indeed. The Pentax K mount is a very generous size, larger than the Nikon F mount that's for sure.

The critical thing will be how the image looks on the print, so it is the final "output sharpening" that will largely definew this and it may need to look a litle over-sharp on screen to achieve the effect you want.

One of the things I do is competition judging, and there has been a definite tendency for some photographers to considerably over-sharpen. This gives a dreadful unnatural look to a picture, where edges are so sharp they could be scalpel blades. IMHO I think the correct amount of sharpening will be the least possible, avoiding the srtifacts that scream "digital print" at us. After all, it's the picture content we want to catch our attention, not the technique used.

Portraits are another matter, and most models will not thank you for sharpening all the defects in their skin! Sharp eyes are a good idea, but nicely smoothed skin will meet with a higher level of approval.

Oh, how dull.....

I'm fascinated to find out the answer, but I have a few more shots to go before my camera gets to these figures. Just short of 2000 shots at the moment!

I've been using the 16-45 for a couple of weeks now, and it is a nice lens.

The 24-90 is big by comparison, but then it does cover the 35mm frame. But again, a nice lens.

You could always shoot JPEG....

We use an Epson P2000 which is effective and has a brilliant 3.8" screen. We have added a laptop to that, and I think the laptop might well be more useful overall. It wasn't that much more expensive either.