Very imaginative!

It's an impressive collection of shots.

Hi Stan

The 18-250 and 18-270 are sharp enough at all lengths, although admittedly on paper the longer we go the weaker the performance is. That's pretty normal with this type of lens. In practice the full focal range is usable.

I suspect the problem is that at longer lengths the aperture is quite small, so camera shake is more likely unless we keep a very sharp eye on shutter speed. Also at small apertures the AF may not be as happy when the light levels fall.

Sue uses the 18-250mm and gets stunning results from it. I tried out the 18-270mm and wouldn't hesitate to use it if I had one. Of the two, the longer lens has to be marginally more useful.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the actual original question Algi.

The Ricoh article is very clear. You could have different light sources on subject and background and the WB would be corrected individually for the different areas.

They show an example using flash on the foreground subject.

I don't feel anything about it in particular really, but it's giving me an idea of a consensus of how people view it. That's actually very helpful.

Randomly, you mean Nigel?

That wasn't really what I was referring to Algi, I was thinking about the point at which lenses move into the vintage/collectible arena rather than the commonly usable arena.

Pentax remain compatible for so long, actually for always as I think about it, that it's a bit of a random point to select in many ways.

I have a feeling we're looking at the hood in place.

Interesting replies, many thanks. Any more comments are welcome as well.