If you can show lost earnings then you could sue. I can see the case now: "Your honour, my client bought this lens in good faith as a 25mm focal length but has since discovered, to his intense dismay, that it is in fact a 25.8mm..."

Like all product release threads this becomes a place for those who want other lenses to gripe in a completely irrelevant fashion.

Until recently Pentax had a long lens on the books that they made on demand. No-one wanted it, so they stopped. And very very few of the people who call for longer glass would shell out the four to five figures it would cost. Pentax are totally right not to bother.

If you want a 600mm buy a system that has one. The price of the body is trivial after purchasing the lens.

I think if there were any more contradictions in a single paragraph your head would explode. The 12-35 is "too slow" but the 12-24 is "more suitable"? Pros won't want the former but are fine with the latter? 16mm is somehow a substitute for 12mm? Though the 12-35 has two distinct advantages in "WR and SDM", no pros would want it?

You have clearly pointed out all of the advantages of the proposed lens. To which I can only add that f/3.5 to f/4.5 is not now, nor has it ever been slow for a wide-angle zoom. For "professional" applications one would invariably stop down and be using a tripod. The lens could be released as an f/8 and still find buyers, if every other characteristic was exemplary. (Wouldn't look good for marketing though.)

But I'm not holding my breath!

Actually, you can just ignore all that and simply look for M42 Jena lenses, that being the location in which they were made. Maybe none for ten quid but inexpensive in any case.

Some of them, yeah. But they are still not as nice to use as a Pentax. The Nikon mode button thing and the rear dial on the Canons are both examples of suboptimal design.

Some of it is definitely marketing-- the FA77 was named because "7" is a lucky number. Really the focal length is a bit longer. But it is a lucky lens.

Ergonomics.

"Pure" image processing with little magic, though this is only compelling on the K20D and prior. The newer CMOS seem to be doing more pre-processing for us.

The FA Limited lenses.

I specifically referred to all wavelengths. CRTs run distinctly hotter than LCDs and thus waste energy in that part of the spectrum. Also, as CRTs get older their radiation properties become a lot more uncertain, at least according to someone I once knew who ran around with gear testing the things.

My cheap Dell runs barely warm and makes no noise I can hear. I would pay how much exactly to get the same performance in a CRT?

Don't get me wrong, I spent over a grand on a multisync CRT "back in the day". But I don't think that is the optimal solution now for the vast majority of people.

CRT is not the best if space is a limiting factor! Not to mention they use more energy, give off more radiation (as heat and other wavelengths) and are (at this point) a lot more expensive since they are speciality items. Their main advantage is colour reproduction, but at what cost?

That does not use IPS technology but instead TN and so will have poorer colour reproduction (6-bit as compared with the 8-bit) and viewing angles. Without knowing anything else about it, I wouldn't recommend it on that basis.