Lovely set indeed - enjoyed your processing and of course the cats. #1 & #2 are the best for me.

That is how I shoot sports, 50-150 on one camera and DA*300 on the other. You don't need a really quick focusing lens for most sports, and I've no doubt the 60-250 or maybe even the 50-135, would work just fine if it is relatively minor AF adjustments that are required .. most sports don't need the lens to be focusing lock to lock at the speed of light !

The K5 is still a great camera for sports (I've used it for X-Games, Rugby, Tennis and Golf) however if your only priority is the AF then the Nikon D300s wins with 51 to 11 focus points and more cross types (15 to 9).

That said the K5 has much better high ISO, more MP (for cropping), better DR, lower noise, more colour depth, less shutter lag, HD video, it's lighter and smaller and has in-camera image stabilisation.

Gimme a dozen of each !

That's 1:2 Sterretje.

David I can't really agree that the macro in the Sigma (and the very similar Tamron 70-300 macro - an amazingly good value piece of kit for ca. £100) is 'not real macro' or as you term it 'useless'.

A dedicated macro shooter would want nothing less than 1:1 but if you are shooting flowers and butterflies then both of the above do 1:2 (the accepted limit for 'macro', despite the designations of lens manufacturers on some of their lenses that can only manage 1:3 to 1:5 !) and of course you can always add screw-in diopters to get to 1:1 at the loss of a little IQ. Or add a Raynox 150 or 250 to almost any lens for real macro at just £60-70.

Having once owned the Tamron 70-300 I can say it does a great job for a non-dedicated macro shooter for occasional macro shots of butterflies, larger insects and flowers etc. and one bonus is that the 'macro' function only works on longer FLs so you maintain distance from your subject thereby greatly reducing the potential for scaring it away.

These two were taken with my DA*300 (and yes it know it's a much more expensive lens, but it's not designated as a macro anything and yet because of the minimum focus distance can achieve excellent 'macro'), I actually took a lot more butterfly shots (when birds were scarce !) with it this past week that I'll be putting in another thread.

I know I also have some very good butterfly shots taken with the Tamron 70-300, I'll have to put them up on SmugMug so I can link to them for threads like this. So it the OP is looking for this type of shot then the Sigma/Tamron 70-300 options are worthy of consideration (and worse case scenario is you buy it, don't like it and sell it on for a £20 loss) :

I've no doubt there are primadonnas out there as Cabstar said, but I can't agree with either of you that these togs are doing anything wrong (primadonnas aside) in declining a reduced commission.

Because I have an A level in maths does that mean I know better than my accountant ? Or a degree in business studies mean I know the law better than my lawyer ? Most 'non-photographic' people have P&S or maybe a bridge camera experience at best, so does that mean they know better than an experienced wedding shooter how their wedding should be shot ?
It should be a collaborative exercise and if wedding togs feel that the expectations of the couple do not a) meet their business plan or b) will result in an inferior product that they would rather not have portrayed as their work, then they have every right to turn the business away (not least to say that they may well be able to book a full day's work), it is for most a business after all.

I am not referring to Charlotte's son & fiancee in any way here, just posting this to balance the books so to speak. I'm sure Charlotte is very well placed to be able to offer them her advice, and that of the board here, on how best to secure exactly what the couple want.

If it's for insects and people portraits, or even street, then the Tamron 90/2.8 Di is a superb lens at a great price. If it's for general use and macro of flowers or products then the 30mm - 50mm macro range is more useful.

I have and use the Sigma 30/1.4 a lot. There is a huge difference in actual low light use between 1.4 and 2.4/2.8. The Sigma is fast focusing, sharp as a needle and the perfect FL. No contest in my book - even for landscapes you are not going to notice much difference at all unless you pixel peep or make huge prints from it. It's a superb lens.

Carl - isn't there an issue with the Pentax version of the 17-70 at or around 50mm (AF won't focus if I remember correctly) ? I know I've seen a few people who have said their's had it. Maybe someone here knows of the problem but in any case I'd research that first before putting my money down.