Never regarded it as particularly fast but not pedestrian, like to 50-135 can sometimes be, will be trying mine out a bit tomorrow, third times the charm eh?
Does this lens still have the double stutter when locking focus in AFS? I remember that they used to do that, more of a little judder as it locked but it always seemed to work, just trying to remember what to expect...

Sorry John, I should have been more specific, I never use UV/Haze cut or clear protection filters on my lenses, the only ones I do use are ND/Grads and polarizers. I agree with you there 100%, I've had problems with AF etc in the past due to UV's, I'll not get into the lens safety debate save to say, I've never had a problem that the "Super Protect" and the lens hood couldn't handle...

Well I hope not LennyBloke!
We have both invested in this haven't we...

I'll get mine today and I'll be out trying it tomorrow, I haven't had a 16-50 since the days of my K5IIs, so I'm eager to know what the stopped down edge performance is like on 24Mp, if it doesn't work out, Like I said above I have a get out, which will allow me to get the 16-85 if needs be. I do like the idea of a 77mm thread for my circular filters and my square filter holder and I do love the way the 16-50 handles the same as my 60-250, in regards to handling/feeling and general cosmetics, plus the quality oozing build, like I also said above, I really want this to work...

"Sorry Jules, I can't agree that "the 16-50, just isn't that good" - some of us have had bad experiences with particular lenses, and I suspect you've been particularly unlucky with your 16-50's.
I've had 2 17-70's - the first had an inability to lock focus in many situation (so was returned), the second was okay - but IMO not a patch on the DA*16-50! Yes, at f2.8 it isn't totally sharp, but I've seen much softer lenses. I don't think the advances in lens design over the last 10 years has been so significant that we need to trade up - I suspect there are many happy 16-50 users out there "

I can't disagree now as I've just done a deal with Doug at SrS to try out another one, I sincerely hope I am not dissapointed this time, the two I've had have been outshone by my two 17-70's, and I'd all but given up on the lens, third time lucky maybe?
I was not trying to wrankle 16-50 users either but I suppose my usage is quite specific, well I'm hoping I'll not be unlucky three times!
I would be interested in any comments from anyone using the lens with a K3, I have a fairly long return period agreed so if I'm not happy I can return it for another or for the 16-85, can't beat SrS, and I got a years guarantee on the lens I just bought, terrific really!

The decider for me was the return deal and the fact that this lens takes all my 77mm filters direct, which will mean less faffing about in the field, I really do want to like this lens, so lennybloke and gwing it's all on you... No pressure.

The 16-50, just isn't that good, I've had two and the 17-70 is better optically or at least for my needs, it is sharper across the frame than the 16-50, from the smalll sample I have (Two of each), or to put it in context has a more even distribution of sharpness. To me as a landscape shooter, this matters more than anything. Ok I'll concede I should be using primes but to be honest, when it's raining cats and dogs or I'm on a summit in a force nine, I'm not changing lenses, the two copies I've had of the 16-50 are not sharp anywhere until F4, and then thats only in the centre, the edges never really catch up, sorry but I just don't rate it anymore, The distortion at 16mm on the F2.8 zoom is almost like a fisheye! (Exaggeration) Anecdotally it would seem the new 16-85mm is very sharp across the frame, and has less distortion, I look forward to reading a more complete test but as far as the 16-50 is concerned, it's nicely packaged but thats it really. The original design for this lens must date back ten years and it's eight or so since it's release, time is catching it now...

To the OP is there something your camera does not do adequately?
The Kr is a grand camera and could serve you well for many years to come.
Image quality wise there's not much difference between say a K50 and your camera but it is a far more refined user experience. Contrary wise, a K3 may be a bit of a quantum leap, You'll have to re learn/upgrade your shooting skills to tame that beast. A used K5 series may be right up your street, if you really feel you must upgrade but why not keep the Kr too?

For anyone out there who has preordered K-S2s (You know who you are! :wink Apparantly they will ship on the 15th of March.

Can't recall seeing this one before, good read, distortion at 16mm
http://aflenses.net/reviews/a-subjective-look-at-smc-pentax-da-16-50mm-f2-8-ed-a...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOAeozE5MHQ

Long version of K-S2 Promo...

I think they are trying to say, if you want the 135mm focal length buy the lens that gets there, in that context the 18-135mm is better but if you need 16mm or any of the directly comparable focal lengths, then it would appear that the newbie is better and it should be...
Agree though it's a bit of a cack handed way to go about finding a reason to want the 18-135 over this lens, as apart from aperture they really are not the same thing. This one is designed to be a cut above the two it was compared to, as John says, they were comparing to the two current "Kit" lenses but a more appropriate test would be against the 17-70, which I'm sure it replaces, and I would also like to see it tested against the 16-50mm F2.8, apart from the 2.8 bit I'll warrant the new lens walks all over it.