Lots of good discussion here. Sailor is right about everyone having their own opinions. Had I only been interested in ultimate image quality I'm sure a good copy of this lens would make much more sense to me like jonny1986 suggests. In fact, nearly every review I read said as much. However, as a hobbyist, I have a very limited budget for camera equipment. Each purchase has to add significantly to my photographic experience. For me, the 16-50 does not result in
significantly better pictures than the kit lens and it is harder to live with on a daily basis. Therefore, I had to conclude there were better ways for me to spend my money. I trust everyone here can make their own decisions about what works for them.
I'm a huge an of Pentax. I think their products represent value. I hope that just because this is a Pentax forum that a little negativity towards one of their products doesn't get me ostracized ;-) Hopefully my
photos and opinions will be judged at face value.
BTW, if money were no object I'd certainly have a 16-50 for those times when it makes sense. Until then, if I
had $700 to spend I maintain that there are better Pentax lenses I would spend my money on first: 77mm f/1.8, 12-24mm f/4, 50-135mm f/2.8, 43mm f/1.9, 14mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 35mm f/2.8 MACRO, the new 15mm f/4, save up a bit more for the awesome 31mm f/1.8. (Can you tell I like primes?) Compare the size, cost and performance of Pentax's primes with the Canikon counterparts and you'll see what I mean about
value.