That's the strange thing about your story, why that and not the others?
Surely the face or body of the model is in a way also the "brand"/selling point of him/her and modeling surely also is an art?

I hope it stays that way.
Many compacts now a days have the correction standard i wonder if some "laziness" have slip in there. Maybe it's not really laziness but more a money question.

But there is no other way, how else can you compare what the differnce in quality is with digital distortions correction?

I said it a bit wrong at first but there is no lost in quality by the correction because it spread the pixel/quality out to correct the distortion.
What i mean is that if you compare the corrected part of "optical" corrected lens (so to say) and compare the same with but then digital corrected there will be a differnce in the smaller details captured.
Digital correction lowers the amount of pixels in the corrected part.
Of course the lens must be good enough to use the pixel effectively to begin with.

I know i make it sound very confusing

Lets make it simpler.
If you stretch a 10mp photo 2 times as wide, it will result in a 20mp photo but it will have the details of a 10mp image since that's the original and you can't add details in post processing since you've no information about the details but because the 20mp holds the same information as the 10mp there is no actual lost of quality.
This basically what happen with digital correction but it's stretch differently.

If you can make the same panorama with out the need to stretch you will only gain in quality right? This what on lens would be that is distortion free.

I hope that makes the point clearer that i'm trying to make.

Depends, if they are modeling for you than they have some rights i believe.
Also you can't use photos without consent of the "model" for commercial use connected with a product, company or brand ect. For streetphotography the artist can sell it as art though as far as i know so long it doesn't harm the image of the subject.

This at least how the law work in the Netherlands by my knowledge, no idea how it is in the UK.

Max sync speed so X isn't connected to the flash but with the speed the shutter moves, the faster it moves the faster the max sync speed can be.

That's what I meant Alan.

Copyright is a strange thing.
If i go to England and take photos then the photos are protected under Dutch copyright law because the artist (me) is Dutch but the people in the photos would have English copyright law. It can get really confusing fast.

Minimum focus distance is measured from the sensor and Working distance from the front element i believe or maybe from the front part of the lens?

I use a polarising filter, certainly with plants you make the colours look more brilliant.
Not so sure about flower and insect, never compared.

About focusspeed is something know about the focus throw of the MF ring?

I haven't said everything digital is cheating but they are basically covering up a defect off a lens. It's useful though the correction but I rather have it that they make a good lens without the distortion then use software to correct it.
In such a way i find it cheating, i hope it doesn't make the lens designers lazy.

The quality lost is with the stretching of the pixels.
Without correction they are nicely square so to say but because of the correction the pixels get stretch out so there surely is some quality lost in there. It's a bit like upscaling a photo the effect.
The best way to see the differnce is to shoot one with a lens that doesn't need correction and compare it with a lens that does need correction.
You will see the in the distorted part will be a less detial in the corrected shot.
There is no real lost in quality because the quality stays the same of the photo, it's that one pixel on the sensor is now displayed on two pixels on the screen so it can not capture the details of an lens that doesn't need correction.
Basically you are lowering the amount of pixels with the correction.

Does that make sense?

No i haven't because i already have a good macro around that range.
The 125mm is more interesting because it has a longer reach and is f/2.5 so that means shallower DOF and good bokeh.

So you're suggestion the law is there because people can or are afraid to come up for themselves?