Given Pentax's particular strength in offering good prime lenses, with at least three offerings around this focal length, I don't think I'd have bothered either. Sigma lenses are made for Sigma mount even if they sell next to none of them....and the others all offer FF .... Oh b****r, have I just talked myself into thinking Pentax needs FF after all?

If you expect to use 200mm regularly, I'd also suggest buying a XX-300 lens, as you'll probably get better performance from one of those in the middle of its range than from a shorter zoom fully extended.

The 55-300 is a great option if you can afford it, but the Tamron 70-300 (which has the advantage also of being FF compatible and having an aperture ring so usable on film bodies too) is stupidly good value for money. Very long warrantee too. I have the Tamron as I don't need telephoto very often and it's good enough when I do. Compared to the 55-300, there is less vignetting and centre resolution is higher. But the DA lens has better borders at longer lengths, better contrast, and less fringing/CAs.

Fabulous set of images. Hope you have an equally good year in 2014.

Well this obviously means the old lenses are now close to worthless so if anyone wants to sell me their holy trinity for a couple of hundred quid each please form an orderly queue....

Anywhere along the Thames Path from the Thames Barrier in the east to Kingston in the west is good. The Thames Path has a good website with suggested walks. I prefer walking along the south bank. Kew is well worth visiting, or Hampton Court, or the various parks and hills as suggested above. Cemeteries can be interesting too...eg Highgate. Then there's busy places like Camden Lock or Brick Lane.

And if you're up for it, suggest a meet up on the site here and you might not need to be on your own unless you prefer it that way....

Cheers,

Jon

What Pentax could perhaps more successfully aim for is what Olympus has started to achieve with the OM-D and Fuji more successfully with the X-Series - be the camera that pro's love to use when they really don't want to bother with lugging around all their heavy "pro" Canikon gear. I think if Sony back it up with decent lenses, the A7(esp R) will get there too.

In other words, cameras that make pro's wonder if they actually need all the stuff Canon and Nikon have been marketing to them, rather than cameras that simply copy what Canon and Nikon have been making. I'm convinced that doing the latter will do Pentax (or Sony) no favours at all.

I think I'd do it slightly differently to be honest. I don't think Pentax should aim to compete with Canon or Nikon particularly - I don't see how they can. I see them as a more of a niche player - perhaps Subaru would be the automotive equivalent: slightly quirky, bloody good at what they do well, a bit rough around some of the edges, but tough as old boots with a good deal of brand loyalty.

Where that leads me is to think about Pentax's USP as a dSLR manufacturer, and for me that is not about sports or indeed studio work (hence focus and flash has never been quite the priority it might and perhaps should have been). It is almost certainly about rugged outdoors, nature photography and weatherproof work. So where I think they should concentrate their effort is the landscape and street ends of the market. They have excellent equipment relevant to these markets already. Another niche is military and war photography - I've seen some excellent portfolios by war photographers who use Pentax equipment and swear by it. Ricoh might do well to pubicise those - if these cameras are good enough to use in the extreme conditions of Afghanistan etc, then they're more than capable for Croydon.....

If I was them I think I'd also be concentrating on getting some pro's to use the 645D because that really is in quite a nice niche of its own. Given the increasing capability of newer FF bodies, a 645Dii(S!) with some serious professional support might get noticed, at the top end of a market where I think Pentax has a unique offering. I think we should forget the idea of getting journalists or sports photographers to shift brands. Ain't going to happen without a system that Pentax can't afford to manufacture.

As for FF, well I guess they will have to do something at some stage, but I really hope it's closer to the new Sony A7 and 7R implementation rather than another bulky me-too FF dSLR. Unless, that is, they are somehow able to cram a full frame sensor into the K-3 body. That might make people take notice. They've already done that trick with a larger sensor in the Q so who knows.....

I think you'd have to spend rather more to get much of an increase in IQ. The MX-1 or Q would both beat it (but without the superzoom range), and outside Pentaxland, the Panasonic FZ200, Canon SX50 or Fuji XS1 may be worth a look. The X-5 is included on the ImagingResource comparometer, so you can have a play with that - I was surprised to see quite a lot of purple fringing in some shots.

It might help if I add that I was the first owner of this superb lens and it was barely used before being passed on to Daz. On the assumption he hasn't used it as much as he expected, it must be pretty much in as-new condition. It is stunning.

Cheers,

Jon

For me the 18-135 made a lot of sense as a decent quality and flexible WR option (my only WR lens). If I was choosing between the two 17-70s I'd personally go for the Sigma - by all accounts the new version of this lens is superb, and the old one was pretty good already (I had one and was very happy with it).

You might want to check out the test on the US Pentaxforums site, which concluded:

"We'll get straight to the point and say that if we were limited to having only one walkaround lens, this would be the one. While it does not offer quite as much reach as the Pentax 18-135mm, we prefer it for is versatility (faster aperture and macro capabilities) and improved image quality. If only it were weather-sealed, it would be the perfect lens! If this lens is indicative of the quality and performance of other lenses in Sigma's new lineup, then the Pentax community will surely be in for a treat. At $499 (MSRP), the Sigma 17-70mm is also a great value. It's $100 cheaper than the Pentax 17-70mm, and also better optically, which leaves very little room for discussion".