What he ^ said
I've never used elements. Sounds ideal.

Essentially, if you don't need to edit multiple photos at once, then PS is the way to go, as it can do quite a few things that LR can't. Like content aware cloning and patching, 3D cloning, liquify, video editing, 3D editing. Vector support for text and graphics - Christmas cards anyone?
It comes with Adobe Camera RAW anyway, which can work on multiple images.
Incidentally, LR's new panorama tool is really good and fast. But again Photoshop makes a good enough job of that still.
I use LR almost elusively now, but I need to work really fast on hundreds of images at once.

It's definitely a quirky little lens. I think as a professional, I'll have to keep the 12-24, but I really prefer the 15 Ltd. The 15 produces beautiful rich, warm images and I think the softness (which is indeed a trait) adds to this 'film like' quality. So I will keep both, but if someone's paying, I'll lug the 12-24 to the shoot
I hoped it would make a good star lens, but it's way to soft for such exacting work.
If I get a chance I will compare it to the 17-50 Tamron and the DA12-24 wide open, and stopped down to around f11.

Arrived safe and sound; perfect nick.
The young lady who bought my K5 to start her photography course is going to love this little gem
Thanks.

I'm on select focus exclusively.
Sometimes, where it's not critical, I leave it in the middle, but mostly I make the effort to select the correct point. It really is important for macro or very shallow DOF.
My K-x always frustrates me with it's lack of any indication.

Yes I've set my Zed up to have various goto 'User' modes for different situations.
It's definitely the way to go, if you're disciplined enough (I still manage to forget )

No, you step outside the church where you've been on f3.5 and 1/60th TAV and bam! everything is massively over-exposed. Even on an overcast day that would be 2 stops over. Fatal with a wedding dress.
So you're back to hurriedly twiddling dials, whilst running backwards and composing shots, because the couple forgot everything you told them about slowing down

Tav is dangerous in a fast moving situation, if it suddenly becomes too bright you may have a lot of ruined shots (RAW or not) before you remember to check, as the camera can't shut down.
You're probably right about Green. it can be a bit dumb, but if you're in a tizz due to the pressure, it could be better than going to pieces with the compositions etc. A good photo is a good photo whatever the camera

There's a lot to be said for using auto. I've never done it, but sometimes when I see I've made a gaff, I wonder if I should have just used auto and concentrated on the picture

I've gone 15, 35 macro and 77 for my walk-around kit. The 77 is just sublime. Every time I stumble on a picture that just jumps out of the screen, I discover it was taken with the 77. There are still plenty of duff or unimpressive shots; it can't work miracles, but when it works, oh boy
However, if I didn't have a close-up lens, I'd have to take the 100 instead, for its versatility. It will take beautiful portraits, plus tiny stuff, so as a lightweight option for the long end, it's hard to beat.
Having just come back from a week in Morocco with too many lenses (I had to be ready for anything as I was being paid) I've concluded that a 100 macro and a fish eye would be a fabulous lightweight combination. Both capable of jaw-dropping shots with a different 'perspective' to common snaps.