and where you live, when you're likely to be away and where abouts in the house you store your camera equipment......

looks like the Ansmann one comes with a battery, not sure if the Pentax one does.

If the price difference is only a tenner for an equivalent product, I'd certainly go with the Pentax. Even if the Pentax one doesn't come with a battery, you can buy a generic battery for under £10.

mine has never let me down yet, unless I ask it to do something which is unrealistic for a lens of this class (eg 100% crop at 300mm).

reckon you got a good deal there, Pentax glass for less than the price of the Tamron 70-300.

One point to note, my 80-320 HATES UV filters. I use UV filters for protection on a lot of my lenses, but this one goes bare. It looses a LOT of contrast as soon as any light at all hits that filter.

Otherwise, great lens, the only reason it will eventually be replaced in my kit bag is that I push it too hard at 300mm when really I should be using a longer lens.

the 80-320 is very well regarded, I have one and the only thing I'll say is it gets a little soft at the long end. My brief comparison at SRS last month (hardly a scientific review mind) suggests that the shortly to be released DA 55-300 is better at the long end, but it's also likely to be more expensive.

One thing with that auction is the item location is listed as New Zealand, but Postage is only listed as £10. I would question his postage method, particularly as this is a mint example you want that baby insured.

I don't watch them because I have one already, but I would expect a mint condition 80-320 to go for ~£150.

after you've bought all that stuff (and don't forget that computer needs as much RAM as you can shoe horn into it!) I doubt you'll be able to afford to go anywhere exotic enough for that sort of thing.

especially when the cheap ones last just as long. My generic one is badged as slightly lower capacity than the original, but if this makes a difference I can't detect it.

yes the 16-45 is roughly equivalent to a 24-70 in old money.

I use a generic battery alongside my original Pentax one. I have been using them in turn for over a year now and have been unable to detect any difference in performance.

The generic I have is a £6.99 7dayshop battery. As always your mileage may vary.

no problem

forgot to say, welcome to the forum!
enjoy your new toy, the K10D is a marvelous piece of kit.

1: Both are well regarded for their price, the Tamron is slightly faster and 50% longer but has more chromatic aberation. I have the Pentax 50-200 and it's a very nice lens for when you need a telephoto but don't want to carry much bulk or weight.

2: All three flashguns will work in manual mode, but not in TTL since the Pentax DSLRs after the *istDS don't support old fashioned TTL.

3: All your film filters will do exactly what they did on film. The more relevant question is whether it's worth it with digital since you can achieve most effects at least as well in post processing. The two filters for which this is not true are the polariser and the neutral density. Those two are still just as useful as they have always been and the effects cannot be reproduced digitally. Oh and IR of course if you're into that sort of thing.

4: I would keep them all at least to start with. There are some issues mounting old non-Pentax lenses designed for Ricoh bodies on Pentax AF bodies. Still if these lenses worked on your MZ-5s then they should be fine on your new toy. I would have thought the Sigma 24 macro would be very handy as a standard lens, the 400 sigma should make a lovely super-tele and the Pentax 70-200 should work flawlessly. The power zoom will even work to a certain extent on the K10D.

hope this helps