battle of the lightweights

Conqueror · 07-03-2015, 12:13 PM

I'm going over old ground to some extent, but still considering a small lens capable of street and hikes/mountains

These have come into thoughts:

18-50mm RE HD
20-40mm DA HD
21mm DA HD

If only the 21mm was WR... perhaps it'd be easy an decision

The 18-50mm RE HD might be quite handy on street and in mountains...

JinDesu · 07-03-2015, 12:25 PM - **1 Like**

The 18-50 HD and the 20-40 HD are both quite a lot larger than the 21, but I find my 20-40 very manageable (I can easily turn the zoom with just one hand, holding the grip and using my pinky).

I have been very pleased with my 20-40.

fredralphfred · 07-03-2015, 12:44 PM

Also, the 20-40 takes no prisoners in terms of image quality. It's been favorably compared (not equal, mind you) to the 21 and the 40.

bdery · 07-03-2015, 01:03 PM

You can read the 18-50 review here:

Pentax 18-50mm and 18-55mm Kit Lens Comparison - Hands-on Reviews | PentaxForums.com

The 18-50, when retracted, is as small as the 21. The HD version is also very sharp. Its build is so-so. It is less versatile, being a prime.

The 21 is a true Limited, much less expensive than the 20-40 and, if you find the DA version used, produces wonderful starbursts.

The 20-40 is a fine lens, well built, quick to AF, beautiful optically. It's expensive though.

For a one-lens-fits-all, if your budget allows it, I'd say the 20-40 is probably the best choice. Otherwise, it depends on your style.

Conqueror · 07-03-2015, 01:35 PM

The 20-40mm is great but my concern is its perhaps not discrete enough for street. Its also twice as heavy as the other two. Granted that's only 150g more approx though. Would only be a big deal in the mountains. Even then it may not be.

The 18-50mm seems interesting, because it is very small and WR. For mountains/landscape it should be possible to stop down. For street its IQ lagging behind the other two, may not matter if its good enough.

jimr-pdx · 07-03-2015, 03:33 PM

Thing is the 18-50 is only small when retracted; when out to shoot it's a lot like the 18-55. For size the DA21 (or a 24/28 manual lens preset to focus beyond 15' or so) would be the most discreet choice.

hcc · 07-03-2015, 06:22 PM

Like all DA Ltd (but not XS), the DA21mm is a very solid, metallic build, True it is not WR, but this is a very sturdy lens body. With some TLC, it will work fine in all weather.

More generally, many PF members use solid, sturdy lenses in all weather conditions. Remember that WR is a relatively recent marketing concept. Older Pentax lenses were not designated WR, but their built quality was legendary.

My 5 cents.

wed7 · 07-03-2015, 07:23 PM

smc 21 is very affordable compared to 20-40 too.

Stavri · 07-03-2015, 07:23 PM

The 18-50 is in a somewhat different categoriy, the DA 20-40 competes with the 16-85 in price (and Da 21/3.2 for performance). My vote would be for the DA 20-40 for pure IQ, and the 16-85 in second place for flexibility

starbase218 · 07-04-2015, 02:40 AM

Some other thoughts:
- A used 16-45 f/4. Goes all the way to 16mm (useful for hiking imho) and is still relatively light.
- The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Not exactly a lightweight, but not so big either. And f/2.8 across the range.

But I think the first question you need to answer is, do I want a zoom or a prime? I don't know if you have any other lenses that cover adjacent ranges or what your thoughts are. I mean, you can rave about the build quality of the 20-40, or drool about the size of the 21, or marvel about the new kit lens. But maybe it's more wise to first determine what KIND of lens you want, and then see which option fits your requirements best. The fact that you are considering the 21mm prime as well as the 18-50 zoom makes me think that maybe you haven't done that yet.

Conqueror · 07-04-2015, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by starbase218

Some other thoughts:
- A used 16-45 f/4. Goes all the way to 16mm (useful for hiking imho) and is still relatively light.
- The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Not exactly a lightweight, but not so big either. And f/2.8 across the range.

But I think the first question you need to answer is, do I want a zoom or a prime? I don't know if you have any other lenses that cover adjacent ranges or what your thoughts are. I mean, you can rave about the build quality of the 20-40, or drool about the size of the 21, or marvel about the new kit lens. But maybe it's more wise to first determine what KIND of lens you want, and then see which option fits your requirements best. The fact that you are considering the 21mm prime as well as the 18-50 zoom makes me think that maybe you haven't done that yet.

Currently got

15mm DA
16 SAMYANG
31 FA

50-135mm DA*
55 DA*
100 DFA

last time I went up a mountain I took FA 31 and DA* 50-135... noticed the bulk and weight

The FA 31mm is the lens I used most of the time due to focal length and secondly amazing qualities

If the FA 31mm had WR and was marginally smaller itd be problem solved

I think I'm probably asking for too much from one lens... and it boils down to do I need the WR in this range wide/normal or do I need something tiny (da 21mm)

starbase218 · 07-04-2015, 03:13 AM

So you are looking for a lens to combine with the 50-135 to take with you?

If not, maybe the 16-85 is an option as well. Said to be very sharp, it has a nice range, DC focusing and WR. If you wanted, you could add a prime like the 21 or 31 and still have a lighter set. But if it rains, I'd think you wouldn't want to switch lenses at all, in which case extra lenses are just dead weight. So a big range like that 16-85 may be quite good. You have WR at all times and a flexible zoom range to work with.

fredralphfred · 07-05-2015, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Conqueror

Currently got

15mm DA
16 SAMYANG
31 FA

50-135mm DA*
55 DA*
100 DFA

last time I went up a mountain I took FA 31 and DA* 50-135... noticed the bulk and weight

The FA 31mm is the lens I used most of the time due to focal length and secondly amazing qualities

If the FA 31mm had WR and was marginally smaller itd be problem solved

I think I'm probably asking for too much from one lens... and it boils down to do I need the WR in this range wide/normal or do I need something tiny (da 21mm)

I think WR is great, and it's a really good differentiator for Pentax. However, with a bit of care (and a few fold-over or tie-type sandwich bags in your pack) I think you can eliminate the need for WR. That would really point you (or me) toward the DA Limited series, which is the reason I bought Pentax in the first place. However, they only go from 15-70 and I've noticed I change lenses a LOT. For that reason, I've settled on the 18-135 as the "perfect good enough" for that sort of application. Unless you just need barrels of bokeh, it should do the job.

Driline · 07-05-2015, 10:53 AM

I don't think you need anything else with what you've got. But if I had to, I'd buy the DA 21 used for $300. Get the NON HD version. Better starbursts

This lens is small and compact. Takes great pics outside. Inside not so much since it's only 3.2...at least mine didn't take sharp shots inside. I'm sure others will disagree. But for inside shots you want a fast lens like your FA 31 or 55 DA* anyway.

07-03-2015, 12:13 PM	#1
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	battle of the lightweights I'm going over old ground to some extent, but still considering a small lens capable of street and hikes/mountains These have come into thoughts: 18-50mm RE HD 20-40mm DA HD 21mm DA HD If only the 21mm was WR... perhaps it'd be easy an decision The 18-50mm RE HD might be quite handy on street and in mountains...

07-04-2015, 02:40 AM	#10
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Some other thoughts: - A used 16-45 f/4. Goes all the way to 16mm (useful for hiking imho) and is still relatively light. - The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Not exactly a lightweight, but not so big either. And f/2.8 across the range. But I think the first question you need to answer is, do I want a zoom or a prime? I don't know if you have any other lenses that cover adjacent ranges or what your thoughts are. I mean, you can rave about the build quality of the 20-40, or drool about the size of the 21, or marvel about the new kit lens. But maybe it's more wise to first determine what KIND of lens you want, and then see which option fits your requirements best. The fact that you are considering the 21mm prime as well as the 18-50 zoom makes me think that maybe you haven't done that yet. Last edited by starbase218; 07-04-2015 at 02:46 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Streets Surface of the battle.	pavpen	Photo Critique	14	09-10-2014 09:30 PM
The F1.4 Battle of the Primes (Gearing up for my niece's b-day)	Mirton	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	06-05-2014 03:31 PM
Misc 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House/The Wilderness	gjtoth	Post Your Photos!	5	05-10-2014 05:23 PM
Sports Battle of the Nations 2012	marekd1111	Post Your Photos!	5	05-04-2012 06:49 PM
Battle of the Pentax Macros	malibru	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	04-08-2010 02:16 PM

07-03-2015, 12:25 PM - 1 Like	#2
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	The 18-50 HD and the 20-40 HD are both quite a lot larger than the 21, but I find my 20-40 very manageable (I can easily turn the zoom with just one hand, holding the grip and using my pinky). I have been very pleased with my 20-40.

07-03-2015, 12:44 PM	#3
fredralphfred Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Orting, WA Posts: 252	Also, the 20-40 takes no prisoners in terms of image quality. It's been favorably compared (not equal, mind you) to the 21 and the 40.

07-03-2015, 01:03 PM	#4
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	You can read the 18-50 review here: Pentax 18-50mm and 18-55mm Kit Lens Comparison - Hands-on Reviews \| PentaxForums.com The 18-50, when retracted, is as small as the 21. The HD version is also very sharp. Its build is so-so. It is less versatile, being a prime. The 21 is a true Limited, much less expensive than the 20-40 and, if you find the DA version used, produces wonderful starbursts. The 20-40 is a fine lens, well built, quick to AF, beautiful optically. It's expensive though. For a one-lens-fits-all, if your budget allows it, I'd say the 20-40 is probably the best choice. Otherwise, it depends on your style.

07-03-2015, 01:35 PM	#5
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440 Original Poster	The 20-40mm is great but my concern is its perhaps not discrete enough for street. Its also twice as heavy as the other two. Granted that's only 150g more approx though. Would only be a big deal in the mountains. Even then it may not be. The 18-50mm seems interesting, because it is very small and WR. For mountains/landscape it should be possible to stop down. For street its IQ lagging behind the other two, may not matter if its good enough.

07-03-2015, 03:33 PM	#6
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Thing is the 18-50 is only small when retracted; when out to shoot it's a lot like the 18-55. For size the DA21 (or a 24/28 manual lens preset to focus beyond 15' or so) would be the most discreet choice.

07-03-2015, 06:22 PM	#7
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Like all DA Ltd (but not XS), the DA21mm is a very solid, metallic build, True it is not WR, but this is a very sturdy lens body. With some TLC, it will work fine in all weather. More generally, many PF members use solid, sturdy lenses in all weather conditions. Remember that WR is a relatively recent marketing concept. Older Pentax lenses were not designated WR, but their built quality was legendary. My 5 cents.

07-03-2015, 07:23 PM	#8
wed7 Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Manila, Philippines Posts: 1,421	smc 21 is very affordable compared to 20-40 too.

07-03-2015, 07:23 PM	#9
Stavri Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: at a Bean & Leaf Photos: Albums Posts: 1,832	The 18-50 is in a somewhat different categoriy, the DA 20-40 competes with the 16-85 in price (and Da 21/3.2 for performance). My vote would be for the DA 20-40 for pure IQ, and the 16-85 in second place for flexibility

07-04-2015, 02:58 AM	#11
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440 Original Poster	Originally posted by starbase218 Some other thoughts: - A used 16-45 f/4. Goes all the way to 16mm (useful for hiking imho) and is still relatively light. - The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Not exactly a lightweight, but not so big either. And f/2.8 across the range. But I think the first question you need to answer is, do I want a zoom or a prime? I don't know if you have any other lenses that cover adjacent ranges or what your thoughts are. I mean, you can rave about the build quality of the 20-40, or drool about the size of the 21, or marvel about the new kit lens. But maybe it's more wise to first determine what KIND of lens you want, and then see which option fits your requirements best. The fact that you are considering the 21mm prime as well as the 18-50 zoom makes me think that maybe you haven't done that yet. Currently got 15mm DA 16 SAMYANG 31 FA 50-135mm DA* 55 DA* 100 DFA last time I went up a mountain I took FA 31 and DA* 50-135... noticed the bulk and weight The FA 31mm is the lens I used most of the time due to focal length and secondly amazing qualities If the FA 31mm had WR and was marginally smaller itd be problem solved I think I'm probably asking for too much from one lens... and it boils down to do I need the WR in this range wide/normal or do I need something tiny (da 21mm)

07-04-2015, 03:13 AM	#12
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	So you are looking for a lens to combine with the 50-135 to take with you? If not, maybe the 16-85 is an option as well. Said to be very sharp, it has a nice range, DC focusing and WR. If you wanted, you could add a prime like the 21 or 31 and still have a lighter set. But if it rains, I'd think you wouldn't want to switch lenses at all, in which case extra lenses are just dead weight. So a big range like that 16-85 may be quite good. You have WR at all times and a flexible zoom range to work with.

07-05-2015, 10:40 AM	#13
fredralphfred Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Orting, WA Posts: 252	Originally posted by Conqueror Currently got 15mm DA 16 SAMYANG 31 FA 50-135mm DA* 55 DA* 100 DFA last time I went up a mountain I took FA 31 and DA* 50-135... noticed the bulk and weight The FA 31mm is the lens I used most of the time due to focal length and secondly amazing qualities If the FA 31mm had WR and was marginally smaller itd be problem solved I think I'm probably asking for too much from one lens... and it boils down to do I need the WR in this range wide/normal or do I need something tiny (da 21mm) I think WR is great, and it's a really good differentiator for Pentax. However, with a bit of care (and a few fold-over or tie-type sandwich bags in your pack) I think you can eliminate the need for WR. That would really point you (or me) toward the DA Limited series, which is the reason I bought Pentax in the first place. However, they only go from 15-70 and I've noticed I change lenses a LOT. For that reason, I've settled on the 18-135 as the "perfect good enough" for that sort of application. Unless you just need barrels of bokeh, it should do the job.

07-05-2015, 10:53 AM	#14
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	I don't think you need anything else with what you've got. But if I had to, I'd buy the DA 21 used for $300. Get the NON HD version. Better starbursts This lens is small and compact. Takes great pics outside. Inside not so much since it's only 3.2...at least mine didn't take sharp shots inside. I'm sure others will disagree. But for inside shots you want a fast lens like your FA 31 or 55 DA* anyway.