Given the current lens lineup and the probable priorities I fear a 35mm f1.8 would be quite unlikely, but you can buy a very nice 35mm f2, albeit at a price:

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/7773/Pentax-smc-FA-35mm-F2-AL-Lens.html

Howver, the 40mm f2.8 is not a million miles away and this version is very moderately priced:

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/8499/Pentax-smc-DA-40mm-f2-8-XS-Lens---UNBOXED....

The fact it is 1.4x is good, as moderate converters have a better chance to be OK optically.

The 1.7x is possibly the desirable one to have, but this one is actually quite tempting at that price.

No mocking wooden handles - the Pentax 67 has a very nice wooden handle....and a very functional one where wood is likely the best material to use.

A walnut dashbiard can look good in a car as well.

With respect, don't get hung up on the word rule. It doesn't mean someone is issuing a command, the phrase simply means "usually", or "all else being equal".

The comment merely means that as lower ISO values equal lower noise, so it may make sense to use the lowest ISO that you can in whatever the circumstances may be. A long exposure by moonlight can happily be ISO100, whereas an action shot by moonlight might benefit from incresing the ISO, but by no more than we need to for an appropriate shutter speed.

Unless of course we want noise, and then the "rules" of the game change again.

Not sure photography is ever going to be cheap. Can't agree the 35mm f2.4 is "cheap build quality" - I would say it was beautifully made, albeit using plastics. Good quality plastics and terrfic results.

The 21mm is the nearest to what you are looking for and true maybe the 31mm, but more likely the 35mm macro or aforementioned 35mm f2.4, other marques aren't cheap either, certainly not for their quality ranges.

If we want cheap lenses I'm afraid we may have to look at cheaper product standards. I don't really want Pentax to go for cheaper standards - at the moment the quality is escellent so why spoil it?

Beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder, but they are all intended to be cameras.....

Interesting spread of results.

There are, I think, less Pentax lenses than Nikon or Canon, but more than Sony or Olympus.

In practical terms, the lenses we are likely to be able to buy are well catered for. For very long lenses, apart from the new 560mm, we might have to turn to Sigma and maybe Tamron, but likely we would anyway given the costs involved.

I'm curious as to what lens you really want to buy that isn't available?

Factual and ethical? Not guilty.

No I'm not siding with anybody, just saying what I think. And nobody knows what percentage of failures there is, so 51% is presumably just pulled out of thin air.

Anyway, if anyone has a problem with a lens it obviously needs to be addressed. It's certainly true that the more complex lenses become, the more possible faults also become. Manual focus lenses rarely failed, although early SMC Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 lenses could have a problem with the aperture ring. That's the only lens problem I personally have ever had.

So now all the doubters can look at this and the Leica X2 Paul Smith edition and happily go and buy a K-01. In yellow.