D* 16-50 or Limited?

I prefer primes, but a fast zoom is invaluable for travel or events that make changing lenses all the time difficult. I think that laziness is a bad reason to buy a zoom.

If you want a fast standard zoom, there are also alternatives to the 16-50. Sigma and Tamron both make similar lenses, for less money and better reliability.

I dont know what's best for you but I certainly wouldn't carry around 15, 21 and 40mm lenses when my superb 16-50mm DA* 2.8 zoom covers that entire range.
But then I have an aversion to lugging heavy gear around all day on a photo shoot. That's why I dont have a grip attached to my camera bodies or bother with tripods either.
I like the freedomn to move around without hindrance of balancing lots of gear or constantly changing lenses.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

Never liked the 16-50mm 2.8, but i like the 17-70 f4,
go and try either or both see what you like, the 17-70 was on offer for £285 at amzon last year, maybe there going to be some more offers at amazon ..

...whereas I prefer using one of Pentax's small primes because I don't want to lug around a big 2.8 zoom around all day!

But it all depends. I shoot for enjoyment not income, and I enjoy looking for shots that fit the focal length of the day. But were I ever obliged to shoot an event, when I had to get a variety of shots to tell the story of the day, I would favour the zoom. At least that's how I ended up persuading myself I needed both.

Hmmm - 16-50 is a different class. Unfortunately it is hampered with the SDM reputation. However, when mine was at JPS getting fixed I pondered about a 17-70 - about the time there was a deal at Jessops - ordered it and was about to pay when I said can I check it out on a K-5? Guess what? The AF didn't work, the 16-50 came back a much better lens....

Similar thing - 60-250 plays up so I get a 55-300 to cover - didn't like it so the default lenses for me on the K-5 are the DA*

Whatever you do, don't sell the Ltd 70 it's a gem of a lens and almost as good as the 77 Ltd. The DA* 16 - 50 is a useful lens as you have a nice range of focal lengths and all at f/2.8. However you have a really nice selection of primes that cover the DA* 16 - 50. and I think that the quality of the primes outshine the DA* 16 - 50 but others may disagree. But, and its a big but, I would miss the the DA* 16 - 50 if I did not have one and they are not cheap these days.

i found the DA*16-50 to be the equal of the DA21 and DA40 at their focal lengths, the DA70 i found i hardly used but i have kept the DA15 because for me it has "something", when i know what it is i will let you know.

Just a thought: Would you consider an off-brand alternative to the Pentax 16-50?

Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 seems very well regarded but is considerably cheaper. Which would allow you to keep the 15 Ltd.

Whilst the Tamron is good I wouldnt put it in the same league as Pentax primes or comparable to the 16-50mm.

I had the tamron for three or four years and was constantly put off by bad reviews of the pentax. It wasnt until i bought the 16-50mm that I realised what I was missing.

Better build quality
Faster AF
Pentax colours
Weather resistance
Extra 1mm
It is razor sharp on my k-5 mkii at all focal lengths without any focus adjustment.