I've just been out today and gave the 31mm a go too!

link

Finally had a chance to go out for a bit of snapping around, all done with the 31mm, it seems to make me think a lot before I shoot, and looks like it is doing the job!
Still need to get to grips with it though, C&C welcome!

I think the album's set to public so here's the link but also a few that I think I quite like.

That could possibly do, I'm going to experiment more with the 31mm to decide if I am going to keep it, as good as a lens it is, if I don't get along with it it'll end up being a waste of good mechanics and workmanship!
Although I'm coming along the lines of cashing in on the superzoom at the moment, and getting a 50-135/50-150 plus a 18-55 WR which'll cover up what I've lost, when I REALLY want to make use of that range! Affordable, and weather resistant too!

that is true sterretje, the 21mm does sit in a slightly better place and i think it is roughly equivalent to what the 31mm does on a film camera.
I don't think I'll go for a 3 prime set up, I'll still need a zoom as I find it quite handy.
Unfortunately my financial situation only allows me to own both the 21mm/15mm and 50-150mm or a DA* 50-135mm if I sell my 31mm and the superzoom! So anything hapenning will require a lot of thoughts, or I might have to cash in on the superzoom and add cash for a 50-150/50-135mm, stick with the 31mm on the "wide" end and utilise the fisheye a bit more and try defishing until I can afford one of the primes!

Probably going to get told off again but this has always been on my mind and I couldn't come to a conclusion.
My camera set tends to get used most when I'm travelling/backpacking and climbing/outdoors, and I have the habit of travelling cheap and blending in with locals. (that'll probably give you a scope of what pictures I'd be taking) I'll also try to fit in some hiking/climbing on a trip if possible.

Now I have the 10-17mm fisheye, 18-250mm and 31mm f1.8, but I've always been thinking about a 15mm f4 pancake + sigma 50-150 f2.8 plus the fisheye or 31mm (or just 2 lenses) instead of taking the superzoom.

It seems like the latter combo will give better IQ, but I really wonder how practical is it and what would you pick there if you were me? I can't decide if I want to lose the 100mm between the superzoom and the 50-150 and of course also the versatility between 18-50mm.

Thanks again!!

Have to say John's words does put everything into very understandable context but everyone's opinions have been very useful! Think the 31Ltd will live on the camera for a while now so I will get a chance to really use it! I have done that with the 10-17mm fisheye and the 18-250 zoom (voluntarily or involuntarily) so guess it's the 31Ltd's turn!
Thanks again guys, hopefully I'll come back with some results this weekend if I head for a walk around the shropshire way!

I have managed to keep my collection of lenses to just what I need, namingly the 18-250mm, 10-17mm fisheye and 31mm f1.8.
While I'm pretty happy using the first two, the 31mm is definitely one that I have never managed to get the hang of using, to a point that I even considered selling it because I would like to fund a fuji x10 (leave that alone here).
But after lots of thinking I've decided that I probably haven't used it enough to say it doesn't suit me, and to be fair it's focal length does fit my bill, just not so with it's size! So I've decided to give it a try and it'll live on the camera permanently for the next few outings that I'll call upon it. So I'm wondering, would anyone have some handy tips on how to handle this lens and work its wonders? I do tend to spend most of my shooting time in the outdoors, doing landscapes though it sometimes does involve taking pictures of fellow hikers/climbers.

Or would anyone simply suggest that the 31mm isn't the lens I should be using and should opt for something that'll suit my size requirements like the 15mm or even the 35mm f2.8 macro or 35mm f2.4?!

I have the 18-250mm and certainly have used it in anger when I take it out with me climbing and have also used it when I was travelling rough.
If you have super high hopes for it then you'd probably be disappointed, but for a superzoom it is very good, does better than the block standard kit, there is a bit of distortion but it's correctable and acceptable. Occasionally some vignetting at the wide end, but all in all I think if you want an all-in-one lens then you can't really beat it, with the high iso on the k5 I'd also worry less about not having a huge aperture.
Saying that, I know I'm not using mine to the full potential due to my still, rather poor technique, but if you know how to use it, it does work wonders.

ah sorry bit late i've sold it a while back but forgot to update. sorry. If you want one perhaps try ebay.

everyone else seem to have pointed out the pros and cons!
I have travelled on long trips with both the 17-70 f4 and pentax 18-250 on seperate occassions.

I found the 17-70 great on the wide end, but a bit too short if you want to take any tele shots. F4 is a great aperture, and the IQ of the lens is absolutely stunning.

the 18-250, is heavy, has zoom creep and suffers a bit from distortion. also at f6.3 it's a slight drawback, but if you have a k5 or kr/x you can certainly take advantage of the high iso performance and I've got away with it most of the time.

If you're more concerned about not having to bring extra lenses to cover different focal lengths, the 18-250 will be the obvious choice. If you want something in between maybe the 18-135 as that'll also be prepared for the weather when it takes a turn.

Personally if I only had to take one lens, it'd be the 18-250.