I was going to suggest the Tamron too, namely the 90mm F2.5 Adaptall, which is a seriously sharp lens. But it is MF only.
Best thing is to trawl around the second-hand places to see if you can find FA 50mm F2.8, FA 100mm or Sigma's 50mm, 70mm, or possibly the most available second hand 105mm macros (even this is getting scarce)

But, if you can cope with MF, you will find many K-50mm F4 macros, and Tamron 90mm macros in the price range.

Hope this helps.

I am looking at getting an improved "standard" zoom to replace my much loved but battered 16-45mm zoom. Now I would love the DA* 16-50 F2.8, but the current cost means it is out of reach.
So, the options are either the Pentax 17-70mm F4 or the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4 (now before you start John, I like Sigma lenses as I have a small number of lovely ones..:wink

So, firstly looking at the specs
Aperture - Sigma is faster at 17mm and matches the Pentax at 70mm
minimum focal distance - Sigma goes slightly closer at 0.22m as opposed to 0.28m. This could be useful.
Size - Sigma has a wider diameter (79mm) as opposed to the Pentax (75mm), but is shorter (88.9mm) as opposed to 93.5mm for the Pentax.
Weight - the Pentax is lighter by 35grammes (485g)
Filter - the Pentax is the same as my 16-45mm at 67mm, which means it will take my poloriser. The Sigma is 72mm.
Both have motor AF, which is a need (I want it quiet)
The Pentax has semi-sealing, having a rubber ring around the mount, the Sigma does not.

Both have pluses and minuses.
Pentax is lighter, slightly smaller, and will take my existing polorisor.
Sigma is faster (at 17mm), closer focusing, and cheaper (by £50)

Now I know a dedicated polorisor for 72mm would cost a lot more than £50, but I DO have a polorisor for my Cokin filter holder too, so it is not necessarily a need.

So, the questions are:-

1. Of those who have used either or both, what is the IQ like? (flickr shots show both are excellent), important are edge, contrast, centre and CA.
2. What is the distortion like at 17mm on either? The 16-45mm is pretty well controlled, so I want something similar or better.
3. which has the faster AF? the Siggy or the Pentax?

I have seen a thread of 2009, but 2 years is a long time, so people my now have either of these lenses

I am erring towards the Pentax, but you can't escape the Sigma's Price, speed and minimal focus distance.

Thoughts please

The imaging division will stay Pentax. Why? Pentax has more history, better known than the Ricoh brand in the camera arena, and hence more marketable. Everyone has heard of Pentax, less so Ricoh. The question should be, how much of the Ricoh gear will be re-named Pentax? And which lines will become Pentax, and which Ricoh.

DSLR's - Pentax
Compacts - Ricoh
GX series? Not sure, but the GXR could be re-labelled Pentax quite happily.

Whatever, I am looking forward to the future of Pentax under the Ricoh umberella, we can see exciting times ahead.

Still don't like the PRIC acronym though.

Here is one I took with my 10-20mm this very evening. Admittedly not 10mm but 11mm (why? I don't know, I thought it was zoomed right out)
But gives you an idea
[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6198350453_989b9eaed6.jpg" class="comment_image" />

MediaCityUK by IHD Photography, on Flickr[/img]

I used to go to Max Spielmans, until they screwed up the processing of some important film and screwed the exposure up, and then blamed me!
In all honesty I don't trust most high street processors, and I will go to more specialist places. The exception at the moment is Jacobs.

Get them to upload to places like Peak, or D&P etc and they will get better results.

Ignore Jessops and Max, they do my head in!

Not that I have found - yet

When it comes to lenses so wide, a lot depends on curvelinear distortion, ie, the bending of straight lines in the image.

Now I have only owned or played with a couple of the lenses in question, and I can say thus:-

Sigma 10-20mm - Bad distortion, certainly until 15mm, but can be used to effect.
Pentax 16-45mm - Rather good. There is some, but not that you would really notice.
Pentax 18-55mm (kit) - bad wide, but zoom in, its good.
Pentax - 21mm Ltd - Exceptional, hardly saw any at all.

I don't know about the 12-24 nor the 15mm Ltd or indeed the 14mm, perhaps others can advise.

But I have voted for the 21mm as I think it will be more useful as a lens, even if it does not have that superwide ability of the 15mm.

Me? I still want both!

Did anyone see the Gadget show last Friday?

I only ask as they did a group test of three waterproof compact cameras.
One was a Sony, one was an Olympus and the other was the Pentax WG-1.

The winner? - Yes the Pentax!

Good to see that happening.

Still some thing concerned me (not with the camera, but the test)
Pollyanna (she who did the test) said because of the Sony had 16MP it had great image quality. When will the learn! MP in a compact does not equal IQ.

Still, a good win for Pentax, due to its big buttons, ruggedness and the LED's for underwater illumination.

Pentaxphile is right, the display does go off on the K200D, as it does with my K10D/K20D. But the K-5 stays on ala Canon.
Personally I prefer the old way of the display going off, rather than the new way with the k-5, as I find it distracting when I hold the camera to the eye. At least I can still get the info through the viewfinder or top LCD screen, which is what I prefer.

This is purely a wish list on what we would like to have in a Pentax FF camera. We know nothing is going to happen (yet?), as Pentax are dedicated to APS-C. But, we still hope.
At the moment, there are three makes of FF DSLR's (ignoring Leica, which is a rangefinder), but each does have their compromises, which we could think Pentax could address.

So, before, my Pentax FF wishlist, lets look at what I think is the shortcomings of the others.

Nikon D700 - It's "only" 12MP. No body SR and Low Light performance is last generation.
Nikon D3s - Again "only" 12MP, no body SR and for some people a bit big!
Nikon D3x - Low Light Performance, no body SR fairly slow FPS. And again a bit big!
Canon 5D mk2 - Appalling sealing, poor AF, no body SR, very low FPS.
Canon 1Ds mk3 - Poor low light performance, no body SR, big.
Sony A850/A900 - Poor performance, low light performance, handling very low FPS.

So, what would I want from a Pentax FF
Here we go

Full sealing
Decent FPS
Fast more than 11 AF points
Dual card slots - either SD or CF (both have their advantages)
big big big buffer
Excellent ISO performance
in-body SR
The unique Pentax controls of TAv and Sv.
Better flash sync of 1/250
Around 25MP sensor.
Smallest body practical. So must take into consideration FF sensor, Large buffer, SR and dual slots. So we are talking of something bigger than the K10D/K20D and certainly the K-5.

Oh, and yes reintroduction of all the FA* lenses, modified for SDM and optimised for digital but thats another thread.

Could it happen? Well yes, the tech is there.
Will it happen? Don't know. Pentax are currently optimised for APS-C, and current performance show that they out-perform FF cameras in certain circumstances. Plus, Pentax want to grow their existing system at the moment, and a high performing FF camera might step on the toes of the 645D - certainly in IQ.

This is a bit of fun. What would you want.