88% of a perfect performance I suppose, but of course what constitutes a perfect performance changes as technology moves on. An *istDS given say 88% in its day would be a much less able beast than say a K-3 given 88% now. It really makes it meaningless.

The worst section in ratings though as far as I'm concerned is the Value For Money one, followed closely by Features. VFM is entirely subjective and, for example, a 70mm Limited lens might seem expensive, but might be great VFM offering Leica or Zeiss quality at a fraction of the price. It has few features as lenses go, but then that's not the point of it. So what score would it get?

In the olden days of Practical Photography we had people saying proudly about their lenses that they were five blob lenses in every category. It was a nonsense then and it still is now. IMHO of course.

Why not right now MattyH?

WE still use the K20D for studio shots of small products, but apart from that we use the K-5. I tested the K-5 II, K-5 IIs and K-3 for EPZ and as things stand at the moment would upgrade straight to the K-3. It's a spectacular jump from the K20D, which is excellent but things have moved on.

If I had to upgrade (perhaps because of camera failure/loss) and I couldn't afford the K-3 then it would be the K-5 IIs. That would go very nicely with my Ricoh GR, which has similar characteristics.

These are really questions only you can answer. The 18-135mm is a lovely lens that I use all the time and I wouldn't use the 18-55mm instead. The latter is on the K20D now for eBay images, for which it is excellent.

If you get an 18-135mm you might as well keep the 18-55mm as a spare. The low price these fetch is a tragedy. The 55-300mm will serve very well and the new HD version, although desirable, could perhaps wait for a while? The 17-70mm I have never tried so I'll leave it to others to comment on that one.

We digress, but I don't like Heinz beans. They may be market leader, but yuck!

I think we've established the contrary views on batteries though, yet again. No doubt we'll revisit it soon!

Very good reason to take suitable steps then!

Maybe Stan, but maybe not. I'm sure that in the end the spec will be delivered. The labelling doesn't wear off Pentax batteries like it does with some cheap ones. I feel that quality is reflected at all levels and clearly Pentax don't make "cheap" products, be in cameras, lenses or accessories. They aren't going to go against the grain with their batteries.

I buy the branded versions of accessories and I guess you don't expect I then go and buy the cheapest can of baked beans I can find?

That's interesting, although on the face of it could be a bit OTT.

Hmm, an interesting point dpm.

The RAW file from film is the developed film. It's not an electronic file, it's a chemical file.