[tsangpo]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I recently got the 21 to go with my 40 and while I can't compare them to the 16-45 in comparison to the 18-55 kit lens I feel the improvement at the respective focal lengths with the primes over the zoom has the 21 quite a bit ahead (mostly because the kit lens is fairly decent at 30-40 range).

In comparison to images from the 21 to 40, I feel that the 21 is almost as good. Con: not as sharp all the way across the frame from base aperture, still getting used to the focal length, a bit of distortion. Pro: 7 instead of 9 aperture blades which gives nicer starbursts, nicer package with a slightly larger lens to adjust the focus and a much better lens hood/cap set-up (even after having it a month or so I still enjoy unclicking and clicking the lens hood in).

If you have lightroom 3 though the lens correction supplied for the DA21 works really well.

[selar]

Voightlaender Color Skopar gets lots of praise, and my experience with the 40 leads me to believe it is merited.

The single review of this lens on the forum is not that good. Perhaps you can add a review of it with your observations.

[bdery]

I was hoping to keep this thread strictly on "optical quality".

That's looking only at part of the issue. You WILL have to handle the lens, you know

I was hoping for people to respond who either have had access to most of these lenses

Or seen multiple samples? It's going to be rare for someone to have owned the DA21, FA20, DA16-45, maybe the 17-70 also?

[Zav]

The single review of this lens on the forum is not that good. Perhaps you can add a review of it with your observations.

It is a good lens. Just not a marvel (i am not giving 9 out of 10 to a good lens). I am just not sure that it makes a lot of sense to own it in a Pentax system if you don't shoot film.
Another sample:

[normhead]

IN it's approximate range, I have the DA10-17, two DA 18-55, the DA 18-135, it is far better than any of those. But, I guy can only own so many lenses. My other "hot" lenses are the Tamron 90 macro, and the DA*60-250. The DA 21 is right up there with them in IQ and intangibles.

[selar]

It is a good lens.

Thanks for posting.

[ewig]

or ..if you live around europe..you can bid one of this... its a very very good lens ..

smc FA* 24/f2

[Blue]

That's looking only at part of the issue. You WILL have to handle the lens, you know



Or seen multiple samples? It's going to be rare for someone to have owned the DA21, FA20, DA16-45, maybe the 17-70 also?

I liked using the DA 17-70 at 17mm. However, there is no way it was in the same league as the DA 21 ltd at 21mm. It was a good zoom as far as zooms go, but I recently traded my 17-70/4 for a DA 40 ltd. Currently, the only af zoom I have is on my E-P1 because I just don't use zooms enough. If one wants to beat the DA 21 ltd with a current production lens in the 20 to 21mm range, it will require either a Zeiss or the Voightlander. However, you will be giving up af. The other possibility is the Sigma 20mm/1.8 which is relatively fast but also very large.

[gnaztee]

I currently own the DA 21, DA 12-24 and DA 17-70. I've previously owned the DA 16-45. I have never owned the FA 20. On the first four lenses, I would rank image quality (based scientifically on image output that I find most pleasing) in this order:

1. DA 21
1a. DA 12-24
3. DA 17-70
4. DA 16-45

[Zav]

Thanks for posting.

And as I said before, the outstanding option is, I believe, called Zeiss here.

[freewheeler]

When I don't know what to expect I like my zooms, but mostly prefer shooting with primes.
That prime should be better than my DA16-45 wich is my reference lens.
I considered my Sigma 24/2.8 and FA 28/2.8 not better than my DA16-45.
As a consequence they had to leave the team.
My Voigtlander 20mm produce more vivid, contrasty images and my VL 40mm too, and
is two stops faster also. The m 28/3.5 is about on par with the DA16-45 at 28mm I think,
and too cute and compact and cheap to let go.

[GeneV]

The single review of this lens on the forum is not that good. Perhaps you can add a review of it with your observations.

I don't know about this forum, but here are some others that praise the performance,

Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 SL-II

Voigtländer 20/3.5 impressions - Photo.net Nikon Forum

I don't have time to search for it, but there was a comparison with the Zeiss that involved a good number of photos of a building. The Zeiss was better, but it was questionable whether it was 3x better to justify the price.

[NaClH2O]

I like WA, so I own several lenses that are either 20mm or contain 20mm in their zoom range. in no particular order:
FA 20-35 f/3.5
DA L 18-55
FA 20 f/2.8
DA 12-24 f/4.0
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

I'd rate them: (all ratings at 20mm)

FA 20mm f/2.8 Excellent lens, contrasty, sharp corner to corner at all apertures, brutally sharp stopped down a bit, not particularily prone to flare, and a good close focuser, and easy to manually focus. Color rendition is excellent. If it was f/2.0 I'd rate it 10+. As it is it rates a 9.5.

FA 20-35mm f/3.5
I think the color rendition is slightly better than the FA 20mm but a mouse could starve on the difference. In all other aspects it's almost as good as the FA 20mm, but only just slightly less. The mouse isn't going to get any fatter. I'd rate it about 9.3 or so. The zoom is a plus.

DA 12-24 f4.0
Good lens excells at 12-18mm. Is very good above 18mm but not in the class of the two above. I'd rate it about 9.0 at 20mm
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Good lens, great as a walkabout lens. 20mm is very good but again not in the class of the first two. Same rating as the 12-24mm.

DA L 18-55. I've had several of these kit lenses and I've found a large degree of variance. This one (which came with my K-x) I'd rate no higher than 8.0 and that's stretching it. I've have had kit lenses that rated as high as 8.5.

NaCl(if you can find either of the first two you won't be disappointed)H2O

[Jewelltrail]

I like WA, so I own several lenses that are either 20mm or contain 20mm in their zoom range. in no particular order:
FA 20-35 f/3.5
DA L 18-55
FA 20 f/2.8
DA 12-24 f/4.0
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

I'd rate them: (all ratings at 20mm)

FA 20mm f/2.8 Excellent lens, contrasty, sharp corner to corner at all apertures, brutally sharp stopped down a bit, not particularily prone to flare, and a good close focuser, and easy to manually focus. Color rendition is excellent. If it was f/2.0 I'd rate it 10+. As it is it rates a 9.5. FA 20-35mm f/3.5
I think the color rendition is slightly better than the FA 20mm but a mouse could starve on the difference. In all other aspects it's almost as good as the FA 20mm, but only just slightly less. The mouse isn't going to get any fatter. I'd rate it about 9.3 or so. The zoom is a plus.

DA 12-24 f4.0
Good lens excells at 12-18mm. Is very good above 18mm but not in the class of the two above. I'd rate it about 9.0 at 20mm
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Good lens, great as a walkabout lens. 20mm is very good but again not in the class of the first two. Same rating as the 12-24mm.

DA L 18-55. I've had several of these kit lenses and I've found a large degree of variance. This one (which came with my K-x) I'd rate no higher than 8.0 and that's stretching it. I've have had kit lenses that rated as high as 8.5.

NaCl(if you can find either of the first two you won't be disappointed)H2O

Hmmmm......Photozone says the Fa 20-35 f4 (there is no Fa 20-35 f3.5) is much sharper than the Fa 20 2.8. Fa zoom is also better with disotortions @ 20mm, than Fa prime. Photozone shows nothing bruttally sharp about the Fa 20mm prime--actually it is consistent as you stop down. Achilles heel of the Fa zoom is Ca, by far. Fa prime is excellent with Ca control.

Photozone shows Tamron 17-50mm. @ 20mm, as sharp or sharper &, in the case of wide open, sharper than the Fa prime--especially at the borders. Tamron zoom better with distortion than Fa prime. Tamron zoom close focuses just as close as Fa prime.

Photozone shows Da 12-24 about as sharp as Fa prime. But Da 12-24 better with distortions than Fa prime.

[treue_photo]

Nearly any of the 50 threads about the 55-300 do say it is great :-)

Seems to me you already have had some good recommendations that you seek.

I have both lenses I referred to, but not the 16-45. Doesn't matter - I can look at images from that lens and other - perhaps you should too.

I believe I said "reviews" as in professional reviews like photozine. Yes I have had some good recommendations, and if I wanted to go out and buy 5 different lenses I would not of bothered of making this thread . If you have not owned or used the 16-45mm I guess this is not your thread to contribute in . I am not sure how you can look at pictures online and be able to tell the "experience level of the photographer" or how much PS work has been done .

I currently own the DA 21, DA 12-24 and DA 17-70. I've previously owned the DA 16-45. I have never owned the FA 20. On the first four lenses, I would rank image quality (based scientifically on image output that I find most pleasing) in this order:

1. DA 21
1a. DA 12-24
3. DA 17-70
4. DA 16-45

Thanks for the reply!! This is what I was looking for

I like WA, so I own several lenses that are either 20mm or contain 20mm in their zoom range. in no particular order:
FA 20-35 f/3.5
DA L 18-55
FA 20 f/2.8
DA 12-24 f/4.0
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

I'd rate them: (all ratings at 20mm)

FA 20mm f/2.8 Excellent lens, contrasty, sharp corner to corner at all apertures, brutally sharp stopped down a bit, not particularily prone to flare, and a good close focuser, and easy to manually focus. Color rendition is excellent. If it was f/2.0 I'd rate it 10+. As it is it rates a 9.5.

FA 20-35mm f/3.5
I think the color rendition is slightly better than the FA 20mm but a mouse could starve on the difference. In all other aspects it's almost as good as the FA 20mm, but only just slightly less. The mouse isn't going to get any fatter. I'd rate it about 9.3 or so. The zoom is a plus.

DA 12-24 f4.0
Good lens excells at 12-18mm. Is very good above 18mm but not in the class of the two above. I'd rate it about 9.0 at 20mm
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Good lens, great as a walkabout lens. 20mm is very good but again not in the class of the first two. Same rating as the 12-24mm.

DA L 18-55. I've had several of these kit lenses and I've found a large degree of variance. This one (which came with my K-x) I'd rate no higher than 8.0 and that's stretching it. I've have had kit lenses that rated as high as 8.5.

NaCl(if you can find either of the first two you won't be disappointed)H2O

Thanks for the reply!! This is what I was looking for

Hmmmm......Photozone says the Fa 20-35 f4 (there is no Fa 20-35 f3.5) is much sharper than the Fa 20 2.8. Fa zoom is also better with disotortions @ 20mm, than Fa prime. Photozone shows nothing bruttally sharp about the Fa 20mm prime--actually it is consistent as you stop down. Achilles heel of the Fa zoom is Ca, by far. Fa prime is excellent with Ca control.

Photozone shows Tamron 17-50mm. @ 20mm, as sharp or sharper &, in the case of wide open, sharper than the Fa prime--especially at the borders. Tamron zoom better with distortion than Fa prime. Tamron zoom close focuses just as close as Fa prime.

Photozone shows Da 12-24 about as sharp as Fa prime. But Da 12-24 better with distortions than Fa prime.

I think your assuming that testing is "cut and dry". There is probably a fair share of parameters they cant test for, let alone understand how to test for. If knowing a good lens was a easy as just putting it on a machine and spitting out numbers I am sure making "unreal lens" would be much easier then the endless hours of physics involved.

The sample size of lenses on some of these websites who do "professional reviews", seems to me very small (which means the data is not that reliable). Hence, one of the reason i was refering to the 55-300mm earlier