Good on you, John. I'm sure that Sue will enjoy the K-3 as much as I enjoy its recent sibling.

It's too cunning to divulge...

I have a cunning plan ...

John: of course it was relevant, I would not have mentioned it otherwise. The 20-40 reference is related to the lens I use; I could easily have mentioned the kit lens instead, but I don't use it. It was provocative not only because of the irrelevant price reference for the 20-40, but also the obvious statement that it's not a superzoom. As you acknowledged, the point was that it's a short zoom, complemented by a long zoom, both of which perform very well. It helped Louise because as others have also said, she already has lenses covering the bulk of that particular range, and to me there seems to be little point in replacing those lenses with one of essentially the same range.

I'm very pleased that your experience with 18-250s has been so positive; I don't have a superzoom because as I mentioned, having seen first-hand how another manufacturer's lens of this kind of range performs, I'm not convinced that it would be a viable alternative to a two-lens kit. You and I clearly have different perspectives on what we require from our kits, that doesn't mean that either of us is right or wrong. If Louise wants to get a superzoom, that's her privilege, as it was yours. She as the OP was canvassing opinion, and she has certainly got those.

@John K; thanks for your response. I just checked and I didn't actually say that you could get a 20-40 for £149. What I did was to indicate that a multi-lens kit was likely to outperform a single lens kit. Since that was a point that you agreed with in your post ('you're not wrong'), I fail to see what the point of your post was, apart from trying to be provocative.

It has to be the HD20-40 Limited. It's not stunningly fast, but it's compact and very sharp across the frame once you get to f5.6. There's virtually no CA - haven't seen a purple fringe with it yet, and its flare resistance is astonishing, so much so that I'm happy to work with the small hood that it came with rather than strap on the larger one that I got for it. Mechanically, the build quality is simply the best I've encountered, and that's going back to the M series and the Takumars before that. Silky smooth zoom action, and the manual AF override is also very smooth. The lens has a very retro-Takumar feel to it, as the zoom ring is knurled in the same way that the Taks were.

So: optically excellent, compact, quiet-focussing with the DC motor and a perfect complement to the K-3II as it gives outstanding pictures in pixel shift mode as well as normal. Build quality and 'feel' is second to none.

I agree with Nigel; don't trade quality for convenience, especially as the range you'd end up with would be pretty much the same. A little story: a friend of mine had his K10D kit including two Sigma zooms stolen while on holiday in Italy, so he bought a Nikon D7200 and the Nikon 18-300 superzoom to replace it so that he didn't have to change the lens. Apart from the discussion on why have an ILC if you're only going to use one lens, the issue he's recognised is that this particular superzoom has so many optical compromises to achieve the wide range, that it's not outstanding anywhere. Compare that with the quality of what you already have, and I don't see why you need to change. My kit finds the 20-40 on the camera as a walkaround, with the 55-300 and 50/1.8 available when I need them - but the 20-40 is on the camera for the bulk of the time.

You should be able to get some really nice atmospheric shots on the Broads - maybe a tripod would be more useful in setting up for that special shot.

When the Good Mrs Micro and I go out for a walk anywhere that has potential, then the K-3II plus 20-40 goes with me in its ever-ready case. The case is very compact (fits camera and lens perfectly) and has a small pocket in the front that just holds the AF201 flash and a spare battery.

The GLW (good lady wife) tends to use the K-5 now, with the 18-55WR attached. But she's not sure that she likes it. Why? Well, she used to shoot with a Nikkers F-something or other film camera until it broke, and since then (about ten years ago) has either used a no-name compact or her iPhone 4. Now she has a very artistic eye for a photo, but the technical aspects (um, like focus and exposure!) tend to pass her by. Until the K-5 which exposes and focuses very well - and I think it's the improved technicalities that bother her!

She gazes uncomprehendingly at me when I enthuse about pixel shifted photos (especially the successful hand-held ones) with 'yes, but is it art?'

Ah, ok. Although it's possible to download and use DCU5 (which will process older RAWs like those from my K-5 and *istDS), your suggestion of RAWTherapee sounds like it might be a good way to go. I haven't used it in a while; it was a little bit inscrutable a few years back - maybe it's better now.

...or you could use the software that came with your Pentax camera.