Hi (first post here, I believe): I am looking for a Pentax ultra-wide angle single focal length lens (to photograph people in environments, objects, etc.) in the 20-24mm range to supplement my Pentax/camera lens system. I am leaning more towards the 20mm end as a "standard ultra-wide angle lens" but any _superb_ ultra wide in the 20-24mm range would do me provided its superb and not just optically excellent. I would like to blow up to at least 13x19" (on 16x20" paper) and in the past have printed up to 30x40" using Ektar 25 and Kodachrome 25 using Schneider Companaon Ss or better enlarging lenses so my standards are high (which is why just "good" or even what _some_ might consider "excellent" optical quality may not be good enough for me). Yes, before anyone says it, I am aware that medium format or even large format might/would solve my image quality needs but they don't fit my style of portable shooting on the go, my back nor do they have large enough depth of field when stopped down (I have no intention of saying "hold it" to my subject" as I attempt to Scheimpflug both them and the foreground and/or background). Rangefinders are not an option as I like to see exactly what I get - both bokeh effects and subject overlap without parallax induced problems. I have tried some third party lenses and would prefer not to buy Tamron or Sigma lenses no matter how good they are (unless, of course, they rival the Leica/ Zeiss/Schneider level of sharpness, saturation,and micro-contrast which is highly doubtful ;-(). I would also prefer not to buy a screw mount lens (with adapter) since I prefer wide open to stopped down metering. My level of photography is advanced and I have been a 35mm (SLR and rangefinder) photographer for about a quarter of a century (yikes! ), if that helps, I have also used multiple systems in the past (Leica, Contax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon FD and EOS, Minolta MD, Minolta Maxxum, Konica, Rollei and "yadda yadda yadda" (back in the 80s I _was_ the camera store - "yadda yadda yadda" were the hardest to find filters for, LOL ;-)) so for me, it truly is the subtleties of the equipment I am concerned with since I am good enough to get the best out of whichever equipment I choose to use. Currently I have a Pentax 35mm film SLR system that I am thinking of/ looking into expanding in the ultra-wide angle department _without_ breaking my bank (preferably under $500 US price tag used or new). I own a 20-35/4 Fa and 50mm/1.4 SMC M lens (among other lenses). The zoom is wonderfully sharp at the 35mm end and I'd rate (personally) the ultra wide 20/24 end at good to very good, but after using my 50mm Pentax (stopped down to about f/8 or so) I am spoiled for its contrast/ resolution (yes, I know it is please don't squeeze the Charmin soft wide open but as you stop it down it not only gets sharper around f/ 2.8-4 but at about f/8 with flash or direct sunlight people/objects not only seem regularly super sharp like most 50mm lenses stopped down but etched like a Leica, and it is this "etched" quality (resolution, contrast, edge acutance, color rendition/saturation) beyond the norm of just excellent sharpness that I am looking for and so I would like to supplement my system with another fixed focal length Pentax ultra wide in the 20-24mm range for that extra mile (or 20-24 miles) of _superb_ etched sharpness quality, _beyond_ the average good to excellent sharpness of some zooms and many xed focl length lenses. Functionality (I would prefer at least a K mount up to the FA mount, no screw mounts with adapters since I prefer wide open not stopped- down meter/viewing) is less important to me than superb optical quality, and although it would be nice for super resolution/contrast form wide open to stopped down I would not mind if sharpness kicks in a stop or two down from maximum aperture. The 31mm Limited, though an excellent lens, is not wide enough for me and the 21mm/3.2 DA lens though it sounds perfect is a digital lens and will not cover the entire image field for the 35mm SLRs I own. I tested, briefly, the 24mm f/2 wide open (not too sharp) about 15 years ago but have no idea if I'd get equivlent sharpness to my 50mm/1.4 lens stopped down in the middleish apertures, I have heard some less than stellar comments about its color separation/subtleties (photo.net? elsewhere?. I'm not interested inthe 15mm/3.5 (too wide) or any of the Pentax full frame fisheyes (too wide and of course barrel distortion). A consideration might be the 25mm? Zeiss lens but I think this might be a screw mount, not a K mount lens, and if it follows the design of the Contax 25mm lens then it is no great shakes optically (at least wide open) from the results I've seen from this Contax lens vs. the Contax 28mm Zeiss which I already own. A 28mm Zeiss, even if I didn't own one for the Contax, is not a choice for me, I prefer 24/25mm and wider for my photography. To give you an idea of the "look"/shooting style I am going for I'll mention the films I am using to get a sharp punchy/saturated effect. My (about to be, just ordered bunch that I am trying out) current main film(s) are the new versions Gold 200 v. 7 (quite sharp (at least the previous version was), though grainy (though version 7 is supposedly less so at a PGI of 44 vs. the older version 6's 47), over exposed for extra saturation and possibly less grain) and some 160 VC (VC-2) which I will be trying out shortly. I prefer the Kodak (print film) color pallette both for the overall rendition as well as for pleasing skin tones. I have looked at some of Bill Tutthill's film tables and compared these two films to current and old films and for saturation, resolution and low grain v. price I think these two would meet my needs best (I already have extensive experience shooting the previous version 6 of Gold 200 which had everything I wanted except fine grain in blue skies) along with possibly UC400. Kodak UC 100 or Agfa Ultra Color 100 are other possiblities but I'd prefer not to go below a 200 box speed (160 in the case of VC) in print film to have flexibility in lower light, if need be, so I can stop down if need be without a tripod and get a decent shutter speed and better optical sharpness than being forced to use a lens wide open. (P.S. - If anybody knows where I can get some Konica Minolta VX 200 Super (Konica Centuria Super 200) which was superb both for color rendition, high saturation, high sharpness, low graininess and pleasing skin tones) please let me know as Konica/Minolta are know longer in the film biz and eBay is devoid of the stuff). The other film I shoot (very occaisionally) is Fuji Velvia 100F which has plasing enough skin tones, super fine grain and lusciously saturated colors, I also shoot some 100VS on occaision but it is hardly a film for good skin tones unless they are a very small part of the frame ;-)). In the past I have seen both the Stan Halpin (and Dmitrov, spelling?) and the pdml websites and will also check out photo.net and google other rec.photo groups for more insight into this choice (and I really don't want to have to join a mailing list/group just to ask this question on another forum) so any helpful/relevant suggestions/answers would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help to this "dilmna" .