Well, leaving aside the flash and the music, which I've commented on before, I had a look all the way through the Wedding 1 slideshow. (Then I had to have a bit of a rest.)

There are plenty of individual shots that capture the people quite nicely, and of course there's lots of critique that could be offered on many of them. But I don't think it would be fruitful here - you do what you do, and your style is at least consistent.

My overriding impression is of oversaturated colours (especially in the B&W ones where you've picked out a colour), and lots of trendy angles. I've seen all the effects that you use, done much less stridently by other wedding photographers. I do understand that this sort of thing is very much in vogue these days, even though I don't like the effects at all (I think they look tacky, myself).

It wouldn't be the style I'd choose for my wedding, but it wouldn't surprise me if you find a market for it.

My preferences aside, my view FWIW, is that, even within the genre you've chosen, a bit less in the way of angles and effects would be better.

Indeed. On this basis, mine would be the SMC-A 400mm F5.6. It's not all that rare in absolute terms, but it's the rarest (and for that matter, the most expensive) one I've got.

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

If you mean, you have to choose one lens, and only ever have that, then it would be the new Pentax 18-250, without a doubt. To sacrifice (forever) the flexibility of a good focal length range to get the undoubted optical qualities of something less flexible is something I could never do.

If on the other hand, you mean 'which one out of your lenses will you always keep and never sell', then for me it'll be my trusty, and still almost mint condition, manual focus Sigma A 28-200. It was with me and my ME Super for 20 years, wherever I took photos. I don't use it much these days, since the FA 28-200 is much better in almost every way. But I get it out every so often for old times sake.

The ePhotozine shop must think it's good.

They seem to think they can get away with selling it for £179.

http://www.ephotozineshop.com/?/photo/lenses/Pentax.html#1855f3556

I think it's very hard to tell from that photo. The part of the subject in the bottom of the frame is much closer to the camera than the part at the top, so I'm not convinced it would be possible to distinguish between actual corner sharpness and simple depth of field issues. At least not without a lot more information.

Personally I can't see the softness at the bottom you're referring to though. As it gets closer towards the bottom, the image is going to be more magnified, so any line of a given thickness is going to look thinner (sharper) at the top, and thicker (less sharp) at the bottom.

It's just not a good subject to use for proper sharpness testing.

PS Gartmore, any chance you could convert that inline picture into a link? If we carry on talking about this it would be very nice not to have to keep scrolling it... ta...

Well, it's hard to tell much about either the vignetting (since the corners are so dark anyway) or the corner sharpness (since the corners are so featureless).

But I do wonder nevertheless if NiBlue's is a duff example, given how scathing he is of it.

For posting massive images like this, by the way, a link would be much nicer than inline.

I think it's quite a bit better than "reasonably capable", but it depends what you want it for. It vignettes a bit at 18mm, which is annoying occasionally, but so do the much more expensive Pentax zooms covering that range.

It's light, and you don't have to switch it to manual focus to focus it manually if you want. Which means it's extremely easy to part focus manually, and then press the button, which makes the AF almost instantaneous and very quiet.

If the corners are relatively soft I haven't noticed it particularly. I expect I'm not as discerning as some, but for the money (if it's in good condition) I'd say go for it.

Sadly, I fear you don't mean this literally enough.

Still, I would like one. I'd also like a 16-50, though

So even more then

280 x 1.07 = 300.

+ 17 for the eBay shipping fee = 317

x 1.175 = 372.

+ 17 for Parcelforce = 389.

That's got to be at least as much as buying it from SRS.

Remind me again how it's possible to get it cheaper from overseas?

One went as a Buy It Now for £50 in October. But that's extraordinary, I think - the seller couldn't have known its value.

Another one went for £110 a week or two back. I paid a little bit more than that - probably a bit over the odds. Hopefully it's a good one.