Fair enough, although I presume you were using film originally? If that's the case, you actually need a 135mm macro lens now to give the same field of view that you used to have. The 100mm macro comes close, giving an equivalent to 150mm on film.

However, I find that the 55-300mm lens actually covers flower portraits very well. Stopped down to f/11 or f/16 it's ideal and I've never felt the need for it to be a macro lens. If it were, going closer would only mean parts of a flower were shot, whereas for a portrait the minimum focus of the 55-300mm is more than close enough.

I'm not sure that a 200mm macro is a very likely thing in the foreseeable future and it would indeed be very expensive if it did arrive. Perhaps a second hand 200mm macro or a 180mm from some other maker might be close enough?

Printers can to tricky things, but it may just need patience. What I would do is reboot everything from cold and replace the ink you know is empty. If it's still playing up, then reboot again.

After that, we think again, but likely the problem will have been cured.

You want a shorter flash duration, not a faster shutter speed. The exposure is dependent on the flash output. Studio flash tends to have relatively long bursts of light, maybe 1/1000s, but a small off camera flash might deliver 1/10,000s.

It's faster in low light Mike, indeed it will work where the K-5 won't.

It will depend on the lens itself as well as the body. For example, the 40mm Limited is lightning fast, but it doesn't give the camera body much work to do because the focusing travel is so small.

I've modified your e-mail address to prevent spamming.

Please restrict this to the buying/selling process. Were you making an offer Vic?

Probably a bright overcast day would have been kindest! Even rain would have added something to the shot without compounding the difficulties.

I quite like shooting in the rain.

A browse on eBay will reveal a mass of choice. You could also consider a screw thread lens with a K adapter. Then the wonderful Super or SMC Takumar 105mm f/2.8 could also be considered.

Personally, I find 135mm too long for portraits. It's starting to stray too far from the classic 85mm effect for me.

It is, however, sometimes fine to use almost any lens for creative portraiture. A 500mm mirror lens can give some interesting results, but not all the time, just to explore new territory.

Polarisers don't help with reflections from metal.