Surely something is wrong - definitely from a technical standpoint, valid points can be made. But it's not bad: given the low light and strong wind it's fairly sharp.
Really though - what is wrong? Let me put it another way - this shot used an 18-200 Sigma zoom lens. Ah, now we know what's wrong: not only is it an oft-reviled "superzoom", it's an 18-200. For reasons that elude me the 18-200 is less liked than the 18-125 that it replaced - and prices reflect that. It's also downgraded by its new cousins, the larger, creepier & expensive 18-250 and 18-270 models. Sure this one has no HSM and no IS, but Pentax has focus and stabilizers enough for my satisfaction.
This is the third time I've owned the Sigma 18-200. The first time was on my A200, and among other things it beat out the 17-70 Sigma as my backpacking lens on our 2009 Sierra hike. An even greater heresy is that it outdueled a Tamron 18-250 - they were to my eye a draw on IQ, and the 18-200 was lighter and did not creep. (Another factor was the resale value on the far-less-reviled 18-250 - in fact the 18-250 sale paid for the 18-200 and most of the 17-70!)
Last year I got a very good deal on a Pentax-mount copy, but like much of my gear it was sent to new owners during a budget crunch. I didn't expect to pick up another, but my recent life has been unexpected in more ways than I can count. Because this is the 18-200 its former owner was forced to cut prices to make a sale, at which point it reached my point of no return. The previous copy was a very good price, but this one was $60 less! With a few more good tests it could put the DA50-200 on the block, at which point this lens could cost me under $40 net.
Especially with that in mind, I see nothing wrong with this picture! :^)