I bought the DA* 16-50 used a while ago and I have not taken it out for shooting until recent weekends. At first I find it average to good but the wide pictures at 16mm doesn't impress me. The weight and size is well balanced but I prefer something lighter and smaller. My opinion changes towards the positive side once I engage it in wet and cold weather in Yosemite over the Martin Luther King holiday as the weather protection ease my mind in shooting and my confidence with the zoom helps me in the shooting. All the following are shot with my long lost buddy in K-5 and DA* 16-50 and I have a few with WR DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro to share later on. I am surprised to see other talking about the negative on the flare handling of DA* 16-50 and I am bit bumped when I see the distracting flare on the back of my newly found friend Daniel P. who shot 8x10 with an Ebony. We had a short chat on his camera and the film he was using with x-ray type of 8x10 film sheet and he does his own film development. He told me the process in developing bigger film is way easier than those with the 135 or 645 films. We exchanged contact information and I tag the photo for him in Flickr and he asks about my Pentax and I did praise my Pentax and humbly admit some needed improvement over its AF especially in tracking and indoor. K-5 II(s) and K-3 after are perhaps better and much improved with AF. My K-5 is great in most cases but I struggle indoor quite often not able to obtain AF lock in dimly lit scenes while my other cameras have less a problem in AF-S in the dark or AF-C with tracking. What do you all think? I love the DA* 16-50 performance in the shoot. The gripes are on its 16mm performance along with flare handling. I think I can get used to its heavier weight. I am also thinking of adding one lighter zoom with choices in Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0, DA 16-85 or DA 18-135 as a compliment to the DA* zoom, or perhaps the DA 20-40. Any critiques to pictures and gear thoughts are very welcome.