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! :^)
