They are useful reference booklets for lenses, accessories, etc. I tend to read all about the boring details of how many elements in how many groups a lens has and what that might mean in terms of design and performance.

Very sad I know!

My logic would be to keep the original as it is, be it a RAW or JPEG file, and when it has been altered to make an A3 image for printing to save the new version as a TIFF.

Ironically, fotoLibra have now started converting all their TIFFs to JPEGs and are now asking for JPEG submissions as that is what most of their clients want.

In reality, there is not much that a top quality JPEG image is not perfectly good for. Like all of these things, the arguments tend to become over-stated.

That sounds way out, not 5% out. At half the histance to the horizon f22 should give you a sharp distance.

An error in focusing can't get magnified by long distances surely? The longer the distance the more DOF and the less critical focusing gets.

Really critical focusing is needed at close distances and especially at macro distances, where the DOF is virtually nil.

Correct.

The Schneider version is still the MkI as far as I'm aware.

Yes, without doubt. In any event, don't forget that the 50-200mm will be very useful for landscapes too.

I would be very happy with the 16-45mm and 50-200mm as lens companions. There isn't much that can't be done by just those two lenses. There are lots more lenses that you might like to have for all sorts of reasons, but those two will serve very well for starters.

Later on you might add an ultra-wide or a macro, depending on your photographic style.

It was a particular edition I wanted and eBay had the answer!

There are plenty of genuine originals to be had. I kust got two from, Australia for a total of £1.00

There is no reason why shots even at f22 cannot be sharp to the eye. Look therefore at the kit for faults and the photographer for technique!