I've an M42 Tokina 21/3.8 that's great as a grab-everything lens at f/5.6-11, but not outstandingly better than the DA18-55 at 21/8. I take it out for a walk every now and then anyway. My fast wide prime until a few months ago was the Zenitar 16/2.8, whose bit of fishiness can be nicely exploited.

Then I got a Tamron 10-24, discounted down to US$375 shipped. The Zen is so lonely now! I was put off by Sigma's build issues, and I could afford the Tamron. I'm quite happy with jumping from ultra to moderately wide as conditions dictate. Faster would be nicer, but I can live with it, just pump the ISO some.

I can't recommend a wide prime. Good luck.

The CaNikon speculation is my own, which is why I separated it within that list. But if other modules, why not those? Or at least a sensor-only module with provision for various mount adapters. Meanwhile the M module has been announced, and Q and K modules are expected.

As long as you have software that can read PEF's, there is no problem. I use only PentaxPhotoLab3 for RAW development. I recall reading of PEF-->DNG translators. Were Ricoh-Pentax to abandon PEF, running conversion warez on one of my several Windoze machines would be no hu-hu. (That's Hawai'ian for NO PROBLEM!)

I've seen (supposedly) informed speculations as to the near-past and -future:

* that Ricoh collaborated in the Q design;
* that GXR will be a transformative mirrorless platform;
* that GXR mount/sensor modules will be released for (at least) K, Q, and Leica M
(which could also mean Nikon/Canon modules, depending on patents/licenses);
* that FF modules are possible.

No, Ricoh won't kill Pentax, but will hybridize. The DNA swap should be interesting.

Ladybird BEETLE, actually. But more of a bug than a bird, hence the label. Nice shot anyway.

I voted no. I can't afford anything new; I wasn't going to buy anything new anyway; the Ricoh deal makes no difference. And if I *could* afford anything, it would likely be a Sony NEX, which can mount many lenses. If Ricoh-Pentax comes up with anything comparable by the time I can afford it, great. If not, no big deal.

My currently most-used prime: Vivitar (Komine) 28/2 MC Close Focus Wide Angle (CFWA) which is fast, sharp, smooth, and small. MF, perfect FL on my K20D, no distortion, excellent for CIF. Mine cost US$18 a few months ago. Don't leave home without it.

My other fave walkaround primes, depending on where I'm walking: Lentar (Tokina) 21/3.8 -- Vivitar (Kiron) 24/2 -- Isco Westron 35/2.8 -- Pentax K50/1.2 or FA50/1.4 -- Enna Tele-Sandmar 100/4.5. That last is great for grabbing faces on small streets, because it's so tiny (half the size of a Tak 55/2) that it doesn't look like a tele.

But that 28/2 CFWA is my single most general-purpose prime.

I understand the hesitation over older zooms. Zoom technology has vastly improved. Many older zooms are just nowhere near the quality of newer ones. Yes, exceptions exist. But even good optics can be bothersome on Pentax SR cameras -- what focal length to tell the SR'bot? Best to use them on a bright day, fast shutter, SR off.

I treasure some old MF primes. Vivitar-Kiron Series 1 70-210/3.5, and 80-200/4.5. Sears-Tokina 55-135/3.5. Sears-Samyang 70-210/4 and 80-200/4 aren't bad (also labeled as Albinar, Lentar, etc); neither is Takumar-A 70-200/4. Those without fixed max apertures are usually not quite so good; they can be VERY cheap, and worth every centavo. Neither my Takumar-A 28-80/3.5-4.5 nor SMC-M 40-80/2.8-4 were acceptable, and my SMC-A 35-80/4-5.6 is a dog unless it is mount-reversed.

Indeed. Basic macro kit: mount-reversal ring (US$5) and cheap PK macro tubes (US$10), applied to a Fifty.

A note on this: Lens-reversal forces a close working distance, about 45mm with Pentax and similar lenses. Magnification results from extension, not simple reversal. If a prime has a deep front inset, that acts as extension when reversed. Without such an inset, or for more magnification, just add some extension (tubes or bellows).

But this is sometimes a problem. Closing the aperture of the PKA lens on the body (the PRIMARY) rather than the stacked/reversed manual-aperture lens (the SECONDARY) can cause vignetting. This depends on the lenses involved. But such stacking can give GREAT magnification, by the ratio of PRIMARY:SECONDARY. If I stack a 25mm onto a 200mm, M= 200:25= 8x! Too hot to handle! Whip out the tripod, eh?

I agree on macro TC's, good for giving more working distance. We can also add extension (tubes and/or bellows) to longer lenses. Back in the day, I had a half-frame SLR (Olympus Pen-FT) and a Spiratone 400/5.6 bazooka. I mounted lens, 2X TC and 400mm of extension onto the Oly, set the whole rig onto a shoulder stock, and shot closeups of live rattlesnakes in the field, from a safe distance (3-4m). On bright days, of course.

Indeed. Add the use of enlarger-copy-projector-xray-other lenses, and just stuffing the bellows with any optical material that will fit, and playtime never ends!

Indeed. This applies to TC's also. I filed off the paint on the bayonet flags of a de-glassed Promaster 2X TC (makeshift macro tube) to complete the circuit. Beware plastic lens mount!