If I may return to the topic for a moment before letting the thread die a natural death. I'd like to thank everybody who shared their experiences / expressed their opinions on the subject. All comments have been helpful regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them.

I think K10D especially is to be applauded for going to the trouble of carrying out all these tests and making the results publicly available. Regardless that the tests don't show "the full picture" it is still useful data that is well worth taking into account. If people choose to draw conclusions beyond what the test data shows, that's their problem - it certainly isn't the fault of K10D who never claimed the data showed anything beyond what was there in black and white.

What's the point of a Pointless Thread when this thread is already pointless? (Sorry, I'll stop now.)

(The following are just personal opinions of course. I'm no expert.)

I like the last one the best, it's a nice well balanced shot. It might be even better by cloning out the patches of red and dark blue visible on the bridge which are presumably people crossing it.

The second one could be just as good with some lightening up, as it is it's just too dark for my liking. If you have the RAW file it could be improved no end. Even with just the JPEG it could be improved, though you probably wouldn't be able to restore as much detail.

The first one I find actively frustrating to look at; all the tree branches in the foreground dominate the picture too much and all I can really see of the bridge is its vague reflection in silhouette. This kind of 'through the branches' composition can work, but only if the subject behind the branches contrasts with them strongly; this scene is just too dark for that to happen.

Why are you arguing with me? You said you weren't allowed to do that anymore.

I am also very interested but I shall wait to see if a deal is struck with Grandnax before sticking my oar in. Consider me next in line, please.

Onestop refund vat and import charges if you have to pay them. (Okay, I was skeptical on this one at first, but searching through forums etc. for opinions on their service I found almost nothing but positive reports).

Also, the 28-75mm range leads on nicely to the Tamron or sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses when I can afford one of these at a later date. i.e. It plugs what would otherwise be a 20mm gap.

No thanks, I've learned my lesson. It's clear that these third party arguments fail to deliver the stated page count. Next time, I'm spending my money on a genuine Pentax™ argument.

Oh, it wasn't.

You need to shop around more. I paid £299 for mine on SRS. (Price was around £250 on Onestop but they didn't have it in stock and couldn't say how long they would take to get it, so I spent the extra £50 and SRS got my business).

Lots of reviews on Pentax Forums: http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/Tamron-Macro-SP-AF28-75mm-F-2.8-XR-Di-LD... - It seems to be pretty highly regarded.

As to whether the 17-50 is a better option on APS-C it really depends on what you want to use it for. I've already got the 17-50 and I'm thinking of getting the 28-75 in addition, basically because I'm going to get into doing a lot more portrait photography in the near future. 50mm is a bit short for head shots (although admittedly this may be partly a matter of personal taste). 75mm is good, and 28mm is easily wide enough for full length and even small group shots, so I can see the 28-75 staying on the camera for most if no all of a portrait session.

Since you (cabstar) have the DA* 50-135 I can appreciate you really wouldn't need it, but the Tamron 28-75 can be had from Onestop for about £250, the DA* would be around three times the price. Useful enough to worth the cash, in my book.