It's gotta be the 14mm for its flare resistance & close focus abilities. I miss it !

Camilla... She's a horsey type so they should have shot her.

80Gb of post process will keep you busy for a while, I'll be keeping an eye on flickr, welcome back.

The 15mm is the smallest of the 3 Mike I believe, similar in size to the 21mm you have isn't it ?

I sold my 12-24mm to get a Da 14mm. It has a much closer minimum focus distance which is an excellent compositional tool when using wide angle. (There is an example of mine in the weekly comp as it happens, but please don't discuss the actual photograph here as Womble is judging)

I found the IQ of the 14mm to be a little better than the 12-24mm, which is contrary to many reports. I never actually did any side by side comparisons however as I sold one to fund the other. I never regretted the decision for one moment though & the 14mm always performed above my expectations & if I returned to using Pentax I'd buy another in a heartbeat.

They are a very similar size & weight so don't let that sway you, as a primarily landscape shooter though you be better served by the zoom to aid composition. Having said that, I found the Da 14mm to be far more resistant to flare, so if you like to shoot when the sun is low or in frame then this could be an issue to consider.

If you want lots of barrel distortion, you could try the Zenitar 16mm, it's a fisheye but designed for full-frame, so with the aps-c sensor in your k-7 you'll get the barrel distortion of the centre but not the extreme distortion of the edges.
You won't get a 180 degree view as you would on full-frame either, you should get around 105 degrees which is just slightly wider than the example you posted.

It's manual focus, but obviously you're ok with that having the Voigtlander. Of course you'll get lots more depth of field with the wider lens anyway.

It won't be as versatile as the Sigma/Tamron zooms of course but is probably the cheapest route to get near the example you posted.

Yes, you're looking at 11-12mm taking the crop factor into account.
Not the 10-17mm fisheye though, the focal length is misleading on a fisheye, the actual angle of view will be much wider than the equivalent "normal" lens.

If I remember correctly, 17mm on the fisheye has roughly the same angle of view as the 12-24mm at 12mm. I'm sure I tested it once.
Of course the fisheye will still have a great deal of distortion at 17mm, whereas the 12-24mm will have very little even at its widest.

The 10-17mm is a fantastic lens, but for the image you referenced you have 3 options; Pentax 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm (there are 2 versions of this lens) or Tamron 10-24mm. Actually there is a 4th option, which is buy a 5d & 16-35mm lens a tad expensive though.

Tim, they are definately not grey-imports. Walters have a few branches all in my area & are a Pentax Pro dealer (which means 24 month warrantee I believe). As for stock/price errors, I cannot comment.

Well poor old Kris was just trying to help ! I'm sure some people will find this of great benefit. Not everyone is au fait with forum useage.

I upload at 1024 pixels to flickr to give a better viewing size for people visiting my photostream.
If I want to display something on a forum I generally upload to photobucket at 800 pixels wide.

Nice shots Tim. I like "blown out" I'm not bothered that it's blown, all the leading lines take you into the void caused by the blown portion. Great diagonals, nice & sharp, plus a good mono conversion to boot.

I think I could also grow to like "Blue Square" but at the moment the bright spots are very distracting.

I might agree with that analogy, there are many forums for performance cars & bikes where such a decision is equally agonised over.

The tyres on a car are probably the most important part as they do all the work (exactly the same as a lens on a camera) - You can sacrifice performance for economy, but you can rarely get both.