No, he means taken by a wedding guest, ie to one side of the actual tog - so the couple are looking slightly off to one side.

In fairness, some of the pics aren't dreadful.

Is he called Pete?

Edit: we totally need a tongue-in-cheek smiley.

This will have to do instead:

Edit again:

Ah no, Kim. Cute, if twee, ring/heart shot, though, on the Bubbles and Sparkles gallery.

I have quite a lot at the moment in SW London suburbia.

Robins, sparrows, tits (great, coal, long-tailed, blue), lots of goldfinches (which like Niger seed best), and even a woodpecker which visited the fatcake feeder briefly over the weekend.

Also a squirrel, which leaves the seeds alone provided we keep the peanuts well-stocked.

The only problem is the running battle with the pigeons, which are surprisingly inventive, and some of them are able to cling and hover alarmingly well.

I think the impact of the edit is enormously greater having seen the original.

The former gives the context, the latter gives the ability to really focus on the intricacy of the creation without distraction.

Both are important IMO.

Thanks, Mike - very helpful, as always, and all the more so since I know you're fairly picky, and can tell the difference between technique and kit when it comes to results.

I was indeed referring specifically to the singular with my 'which lens' question. With more than one, it's easy (edit: well, easier, anyway, if you already have a few other lenses!) - and the more money there is available, the more choice there is.

In my case, I'm already happy with, for instance, 18-55 and 55-300, if I want to take two lenses out with me. I'd add the Sigma 10-20 if I don't mind taking the whole bag.

The point here is that if I get a lens with the K-5 body, chances are it's going to be better value for the combo than I could achieve with either in isolation, so I may as well strike while the iron's hot.

Some time back, I was dithering in much the same way between the 10-20 and the 18-250, and opted for the 10-20, which is a choice I've been very happy with.

Now, though, it's the convenience of a one-lens solution I'm after.

It's certainly better than many, I'd agree, but I do think Clarky's effort, for instance, was excellent:

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/moon-shot-da-300mm-1-7-af-adapt-11445

I'd urge Jamie to have a go, even with his 55-300 to start with. It's a bit on the short side, but would cost him nothing to try it, and if he's never tackled something like that, I still think he'd be quite surprised at what can be achieved.

I can see what you mean, but 24mm is nowhere near wide enough, for me anyway, as a walk-around lens that I'd leave on the camera for long periods.

I'm really envisaging a replacement for the 18-55, with either a bit more reach (as in 17-70 - either Pentax or Sigma now), or a lot more reach (as in 18-135).

I guess it boils down to whether the convenience and handling qualities of the 18-135 outweigh the disadvantage of its questionable IQ.

At the moment, I'm inclining towards the 18-135 and seeing how it goes.

I recall many happy years with my ME Super and a Sigma 28-200 (which I've kept just out of nostalgia) which was optically not all that stunning, to say the least. But at least I had the camera with me, which I might not have done with more and better lenses.

Another good thought, thanks.

How is it for purple fringing? Not necessarily a good comparison, but I recall the Tamron 70-300 was pretty sharp for a budget lens, but had shocking PF, which would invariably ruin (or at least make for a lot of faffing on the computer) any trees-against-sky shots. I wouldn't want to go back there.

It's nice, but in all honesty, I'd hope for quite a bit better than this with the magnification available with a telescope.

There have been quite a few shots posted here that are about as good as this, taken with just a 400 or 500mm lens on the camera.

In fact, you ought to have a go with your 55-300. You might be surprised what you can achieve.

Gaaah!

You lot just make trouble... I want both of them now !!