Originally posted by Lowell Goudge If you want to simply look at flaws, lets go to every other long lens posting and look at ALL the flaws.
Is it perfect, heck no, but the next step for me is either a 300 F2.8 ($2500) a 500 F4.5 ($4500) or a 600 F4 (more than $6000). the 300 F4 goes for about $350. lets talk about something in that price range that performs as well.
I rather meant that I would not spend this amount of money for a lens which gives results which are in most cases unsatisfactory.
One of the reasons why it is still so expensive is probably that Pentax had a lack of lenses in the longer and long tele area.
Anyway it is interesting to think about alternatives. Looking for something in the same price-class: I got a manual Tokina 80-200/2.8 as replacement with a 1.5x converter which was OK but I replaced it with a manual Tamron SP 80-200/2.8. There is also a Tokina 100-300/4 which is considered to be good (but I never had it)- I am not sure if there is a manual version of the sigma 100-300/4. For a little more money you can get a Tamron SP 300/2.8 or I got a Tamron SP 400/4 since 300mm was never long enough for me anyways.
Finally the new 50-300mm is about that price but of course not as bright.
For a modern new lens you will have to spend about 3 times as much. I think the DA* 300mm/4 is a reasonable alternative considering all the convenience you get with it (AF, great performance, automatic aperture, small size). And there is the Sigma 50-500, unfortunately Sigma chickened out and will probably not offer the other new long teles in Pentax mount.
Finally the last resort is to switch brands for long teles: since there is a much bigger market for Canon and Nikon the used lenses are quite a bit cheaper, and you can get a long tele together with a used body for less than a good long Pentax lens.
... and why would you want to stick a cable into your ear???? What you suggested there is called memory, I believe.