Personally, I think that designing a lens for extremely high levels of sharpness tends to eliminate character, good rendering and that 3D/pixie-dust look. Striking a balance between those two things is an art that I think has declined and at which I suspect Pentax has been better at than most, though even they have caved to the market and seem to value sharpness over all other aspects of lens design (rendering, size, weight, cost etc etc).

Of the lenses I've used, the two that immediately come to mind as being extremely sharp while retaining fantastic rendering are the DA 35mm Limited and the Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4. Some others to a lesser degree - the Sigma and Tamron 17-50/2.8s, the DA 70mm Limited, the Auto Revuenon 50/1.4, the old Minolta 50/1.7 (though there are several versions and I don't know if all have the same formula as mine). I'm sure there are others.

Yes, I've wanted one of them for ages but haven't yet bought. Microglobe are the only company outside of Japan and the US that I know has stocked them.

I should mention I picked up a non-Pentax branded case that serves the same purpose very well, though it stores the lenses in two rows rather than one. I can't remember the brand but it seems pretty good and will store all the DA Limiteds and one other small prime (FA 50mm f/1.7 for example). It's good for any lenses with a 49mm filter thread.

Edit: Amazon UK's "Global Store", which I assume means it comes from the US, has them but at £47.93 they're very pricey.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pentax-Limited-Lens-Case-Black/dp/B008AXOBAO/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=limited+lens+case+pentax&qid=1583061393&sr=8-3

I don't touch the SDM lenses for this reason. Better off with Sigma or Tamron alternatives where available.

Given that many SDM repairs fail later on anyway I wouldn't have thought it worth having such a lens unless it's one of the ones that can be converted to screwdrive.

I have something similar which I think attaches to a belt, the idea being you pull your camera & lens upwards and that stabilises it. It's absolutely useless. I used it once and then never bothered again. I imagine a monopod provides far more stability.

A bit of googling shows that there are some monopods that have three feet and could possibly provide more stability than a standard monopod. Have a look here:

https://www.better-digital-photo-tips.com/monopod-tripod-combination.html

Maybe getting rid of the last few of the old SMC ones to make space for the new HD version.

I wondered exactly the same thing and thought it must be the new DFA*. I'm amazed that it's the old FA version - sharpness and out-of-focus rendering are superb.

The only advise I can think of is to switch to a tripod instead of a monopod, or move to an Olympus or Panasonic camera where (at least in theory) a lens with a slightly shorter focal length will get you the same field of view. Of course, you'll get a smaller sensor with poorer dynamic range and high ISO performance and lose all the nice things that Pentax has to offer.

I just read this morning that the newest Olympus bodies can manage up to seven stops of stabilisation. I'm not sure what Pentax claims but I've never managed to get better than around two from my K-3.

There is no such thing as a do-it-all lens due to the trade-offs in design:

Small/light - Big/heavy
Small max aperture - Large max aperture
Small focal range - Large focal range

It's like the "good, cheap and quick" dilemma - you can only have two of the three.

I have the DA 16-85mm and while it's a good lens with plenty of range, nice and sharp with great colours and contrast, it's obviously slow, so no good for low light (except maybe at the wide end) or shallow depth of field. I also have the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, which has less range (at both ends) but is much faster, and I'd say with equal optical performance and fewer quirks. Then there's the HD FA 35mm f/2 - fixed focal length but smaller, lighter and faster than the other options.

So it all depends on your priorities.

The electronic shutter solves most of the problem, the exception being when there is fast movement in the image, which can produce what is referred to as rolling shutter in videos. It's caused by the sensor readout not being read at exactly the same time.

A tilt screen could partially compensate I suppose, but if you're shooting with the OVF then it's no good as you can't leave it flipped out. I suppose it's because all two DSLRs I've ever owned have upper screens and I use them all the time, I would miss them and feel like I'd down-graded if I bought a new DSLR which lacked one.