The F's are quite rare really, only made for a short time between the A and FA models. With the 50mm F.4 it was only around for 2 years. Other examples include the 28mm (1987-1989) F 50mm F1.7 (1989-91)

Pig ugly really, but optically well up to the job. Some models are exactly the same (the fifties) and some are different F28mm v FA28mm.

Personally, I would say if you enjoy using it, keep it. Then again if you want a lens that is optimised for digital and you have a desperate need for one, sell it (as F's for some reason are fetching good money these days - I paid £180 for my superb F28mm) and buy a DA50 or DA*55. Then again, keep it and enjoy using what is a fine lens.

Thats good to hear Kingfisher.

Gareth, I love that story. It really makes you think in a positive way.
I have found that when using my Pentax kit, I get the following:-

1. People who don't use cameras or know brands - "Thats a nice camera very impressive, Must cost a lot"
2. Pros - "Nice to see Pentax still around, I used to use Pentax, they are a good make"
3. Enthusiasts - "What, you are using Pentax, you should get proper stuff like my CaNikon" "Toy camera" "There are a lot more lenses you can get with my CaNikon than your Pentax (although the persons in question probably only have 2 lenses at most, the kit zoom being one of them)"

Interesting thought Chris. But is was thinking of the Q with the fisheye as an option, the zoom would be a bonus. Oh and I was thinking of new over pre-owned.
Having said that, the thought of an original Q with its metal body from the likes of fleabay and then getting a toy fisheye maybe even cheaper.

Here is an interesting thought to ponder.
The SMC-DA 10-17mm Fisheye zoom is currently £329.

On the other hand, if you get a Pentax Q10 with the 5-15mm and the Fisheye "toy" lens from SRS, you would pay £318.
So £11 less.

So what would you do?

Pro's of the 10-17
It is APS-C
It is a zoom (albeit) reducing the effect of a fisheye at 17mm
IQ will be better

Pro's of the Q
You would get another tiny body and a tiny zoom to enjoy
The fisheye is fixed focal length and F5.6 for 3.2mm EVERYTHING is in focus.
It is cheaper.

Now the downsides

10-17 -
CA is not that good
the HD version is surely on the horizon, which will possibly address the CA issue (maybe, maybe not)

Q bundle-
Sensor size = more noise over the APS-C at a given ISO
Another body, albeit tiny, to carry around. Then again it is probably the same size/weight as having the 10-17 anyway.
It's just a "toy" lens, so no aperture control and manual focus. But as it is so wide it really does not matter.
I already have a mighty Pano LX-5 for compact camera stuff.

So what would you do? I want a Fisheye but would not use it that much.....but having one would be ideal.

This is an interesting thread as I am looking at getting a dedicated Portrait lens of around this focal length.
I am afraid that I disagree with John that "why an 85mm when a 55mm will give a similar angle of view" That may be the case, but a 55mm is still a 55mm, and an 85mm is 85mm and will act as such. Even if you have to stand further back,I would much prefer a lens in the 70-90 range for portraits, they have less distortion and are far more flattering for portraits.

So in the end, there are more that just the pair as mentioned by the OP for this use.
FA*85mm F1.4 - I would love to have this lens, but finding one for me is like gold dust. Seeing shots taken with it on the likes of Flickr make me drool.
Sigma 85mm F1.4 - Actually, due to its control for digital, it is a better lens than the FA*, but then again it is third party and like Siggys "can" have issues with colour rendition and reliability.
Okay the others:-
FA 77mm F1.8 - I always thought that the FA* was the ultimate, but actually it maybe this one looking at the results.
Samyang 85mm F1.4 - I have played with this and almost bought it, but held back. Why? It is manual only and when you wear glasses that is an issue, and secondly, it just is not a tactile delight for some reason.....Optically it is well up there and if you don't need AF, a worthy alternative.
DA 70mm Limited - This is another one I am seriously considering, nice and small but not as fast. Personally I think the bokeh on the SMC version is too fussy, but maybe the HD version is better for this. Downside it is not FF capable
Tamron 90mm macro - I have a really old F2.5 version, and it is great for portraits, maybe too good, as it is VERY sharp. No AF though so very slow to use for me. The AF version will be better, but won't give you that shallow DOF of the others.

Will be interesting what others think as I am in the market next month for a dedicated portrait lens and both the 70mm and 77mm are on the shortlist, as is the Sigma.

Ian,

Good choice with the K30. It will be a great first DSLR and hopefully she will be impressed.
As a caring uncle, buy her a DA35, DA50 and a couple of cheap old K or M manual primes, and she will be addicted to Pentax, she won't consider another brand in the future......

Given that Aussie prices for everything else are eye watering (e.g., £10 for a pint!), the cheap price of photo gear is very puzzling.

K.[/quote]According to this you're drinking in the wrong place

]http://www.pintprice.com/region.php?/Australia/GBP.htm[/quote]

I want to live in Cottesloe. 25P a beer? Excellent

A Ricoh GR with a lens that gives the same angle of view as a 36mm in 35mm terms. Now that could be a great street camera.

They are indeed Percy. Get a proper Pentax one, and it will be sealed.

It's funny as my friend had a similar problem with his 67. In the end he got it serviced. Not cheap, but worth it. Now? He is delighted that he has got his 67 back. It's like a new camera for him.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but like John has said, they are worth getting a service every so often.