One option that would be worth considering is cutting the connector off your sync cable and off the wireless unit and wiring then together.

I've got the same wireless unit as that and I just bought a 2.5mm adaptor from Maplin and it works fine with my Portaflash units. I don't recall if it was mono or stereo or how long it was, but I'll have another look tonight.

I've got something similar although it's by Panagor. I've done some initial testing with it using both a normal 50mm lens (SMC-M 50mm F1.7) and a 1:1 macro one (Vivitar 55mm F2. and the results have been pretty decent - certainly better than using a standard teleconvertor with the macro lens. The one I have doesn't allow infinity focus so it can't be used as a normal 2x convertor, however it does have a flash mount on the adaptor which is usefull for macro work.

Regards
Steve

Until fairly recently in addition to my Pentax kit I also owned a Contax G1 rangefinder system, with the 24, 45 and 90mm lenses. All of those are very highly regarded - especially the 90mm. I rarely used the 45mm but the other two were focal lengths I found useful, however I also owned the Pentax FA* 24mm and the FA* 85mm so was able to directly compare my own results with the various lenses. The Contax lenses were clearly very good, but the Pentax lenses more than matched them optically plus had the benefit of being considerably faster and also being used on an SLR body (Z1p in particular) which focused faster and better and also metered more accurately. The ultimately result of which was that the Contax kit didn't get used much and was eventually sold.

I own more primes than I do zooms, but certain of those zooms do get used a lot. The 10-20mm I expect to get a lot of use, and the 80-200 F2.8 Tokina certainly does. With film the humble SMC-FA 28-200 also used to get a fair amount of use as I found it optically ok (certainly better than the current 18-55 and the old FA 28-80 powerzoom that was my first Pentax lens) and exceptionally convenient.

I'm quite happy to accept that they're optically superb (although I doubt they're noticeably better than the FA* 24 and FA* 85 I do have experience with) but they're a little too slow for my liking, and not at focal lengths that appeal to me. They're also way too expensive. Back in the days when I lived in Hong Kong and could afford to buy these things then there is not a shadow of a doubt that given the choice I'd still pick the FA* 25 & 85, and had I still cash remaining my next choice would have been the 20mm F2.8.

I'd probably have more time for the limited lenses if there were actually cheaper "unlimited" equivalents available in the Pentax range...

It was cheap for a F1.2 (£25) so I thought it'd be worth a look - I do seem to have ended up with a lot of 50mm lenses now though - the addition of it and the FA lens will mean I'll have no less than 7 prime lenses in the 50mm range!

Once I've got it (and assuming it works!) I'll let you know how I get on. One thing that persuaded me to buy it was some pictures I found on the web that had been taken using one on *stDS - you can see them here http://www.overseacruise.com/digicame/gallery019/. The text is in Japanese however a google translation indicates that with the pairs of pictures the left hand one is at F1.2 and the right at F8. At F1.2 the rendition of the out of focus areas looks quite attractive.

What about FA*'s? While there are plenty of other FA*'s I'd love to add to my collection I find that the limited lenses don't really appeal to me.

I agree to this to a certain extent, however there are cases where the best isn't Pentax (e.g. professional quality ultra-wide to wide angle zoom for film), and there are also cases where the best might be Pentax but too expensive.

F2.8 zooms are a good example of that - there is no doubt that the FA* 28-70 and FA* 80-200 F2.8 are the best lenses available in those focal ranges, however they are very, very expensive even used. The third party alternatives (Tokina in my case) perhaps aren't quite as good as the Pentax offerings but they are very, very good. They're also much better than any of the other non-FA* AF Pentax zooms in the same focal length range.

My concern when purchasing a lens is whether it's good enough - that might mean it has a Pentax badge or it might not. I've owned a lot of lenses over the years and while two of the best three lenses I've owned where Pentax ones, 3 of the worst 4 also wore Pentax badges....

Oneof my SMC-M 50mm F1.7's does exactly the same, but the results from it don't seem to differ from the other SMC-M 50mm 1.7 I own.

I've had 3 Tokina ATX-Pro's (80-200 F2.8, 20-35 F2.8, 28-70 F2.6-2. and all have been superb, both optically and in build quality.

I've got a few lenses due to arrive this week as well - an SMC-FA 50mm F1.7 (an Ebay purchase which comes with a MZ50 & 28-80 which will be going straight back on Ebay!), a Sigma 10-20mm F3.5-4.5 and a K-mount Porst 50mm F1.2

I've made the decision that I'm going to go with the 16-45 as my primary lens but I haven't decided what longer zoom to partner it with yet. I've got an 80-200 F2.8 but it's quite heavy to carry about. I might keep the FA 28-200 for now but it would be nice if Pentax were to release something like an AF 50-130 with a constant F4 maximum aperture.

The issues I've had with the 18-55 haven't particularily been vignetting, but instead it's the lack of sharpness which I dislike (it could be down to the small file size but that shot of yours also seems to lack sharpness). It's a lot better when stopped down to F8 or F11, but still not particularily good - especially in the corners. I've seen some CA with the lens but it's not been a great problem so far.

I should also mention that the lack of sharpness hasn't been compared to prime lenses, but compared to other consumer zooms (Pheonix 19-35 and the FA 28-200) I had at the time I was testing.