With the debate over the 18-135 (not wishing to retread that!) my search for a walkaround lens is leading me towards the 17-70, which I had previously discounted. I had been planning that my walkaround kit would be the three macro primes and the Sigma 10-20, but having used the Sigma a lot I'm coming to prefer zooms for landscape/cityscape stuff due to the versatility in composition. My 'walkaround kit' would then be 10-20, 17-70, and the DA35 for closeups, which would have the additional advantage of fitting in my smaller camera bag.

Could owners of the 17-70 give me ideas as to what the IQ is like in actual use? My aversion to SDM was what put me off the lens before, but am I correct in thinking that such problems as Pentax had with the tech have been sorted?

I was more meaning for handholding: whether supporting the lens's weight with one hand (or using a lens-attaching strap like the Rstrap) is essential rather than having the lens 'hanging' from the camera. If I were using a tripod and the lens had a tripod collar I'd always use that for balance if nothing else.

Speaking for myself, I would only consider a protection filter if I were going somewhere with nasties that might get onto the front element (e.g. sea spray, blowing sand in desert etc.)

Something in a thread about the Bigma made me wonder: how heavy a lens can the mount on our modern DSLRs bear without support? Expecting the camera to bear the weight of a Bigma or similar is probably a good recipe for a snapped-off K mount, but what about the fair few lenses (the DA*60-250 and Sigma 180mm Macro spring to mind) which come in at about 1kg or so? Where do the folks out there with heavy lenses draw the line between lenses which can just be carried on the camera, and those which require special measures such as a strap attaching to the lens tripod socket?

This is the site which reviewed the 18-135 superzoom (or semi-superzoom, perhaps) without once mentioning the biggest 'issue' regarding such lenses i.e. barrel distortion.

[quote="The review"]The Pentax FA* 85mm F1.4 [IF] is also known for its tendency to fringing, but the Sigma is slightly worse.[/quote]In my opinion the 100% crops they offer (of the palm trees) don't actually show that: the Sigma has retained some of the original colour in leaves which are completely purple in the FA* sample.

In short, this review only reinforces my growing impression that these PF reviews are of very little value. Is an 85mm prime really a sport lens, for example? I know that 'every lens is what the photographer makes of it', but to actually recommend it for such use strikes me as very odd. But then I'm not a sport photographer

It shouldn't do: if I understand it rightly, having a higher resolution sensor increases the maximum result which can be measured but does not decrease anything. For example if they were to retest the FA43 with the K5, then its measured centre resolution at f4 would be higher (because it exceeded the measuring capabilities of the K10D sensor) but the measured centre resolution at f1.9 would be the same (because it was within the resolution of the K10D).

Someone on the Other Forum said (I haven't checked myself) that the corner resolution results for the 18-135 were less than those in Photozone's review of the 50-200.

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/597-pentax_18135_3556

To summarise, the performance at 85mm and above was so bad they actually sent it to Pentax service to be checked over - and were told that it was performing properly. Needless to say the Other Forum now has a two page thread saying how inept Photozone is, but personally the 18-135 is now off my list of potential travel options.

I have the DA35 and it's a brilliant little lens. For walkaround use it's just about right, but I think that if it was any longer it wouldn't be as good - I find it "slightly too long" on the odd occasion, but being "slightly too short" is far rarer in my own experience. So if it's a "one lens walkaround" you're after then the 35 Limited wins.

What does the FA43 have going for it? Well it's faster, and is very nice for portraits (though IMO the 35 Limited is no slouch). Its main weakness according to those who have used it (and I haven't, personally) tends to be its minimum focus distance - obviously not an issue for the 35!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the new OS version of this IS coming in Pentax mount, along with the 150mm OS macro.

I don't own the DA40 (I went for the DA35 Macro, since I already have a 50mm lens), but as I understand it the attractions are:
*Least expensive Limited lens
*Ridiculously small, barely larger than a body cap. This has both portability and 'show off' value
*Very sharp wide open
*Very, very fast autofocus