[Grokh]

Artur, What is 20-40 on FF 24x36 (on MZ-S) ?

Answer - no.

[megapiksel]

я тоже буду ждать результата тестов...
Вас вспоминают и ждут на Российском пентаксфоруме...

[Grokh]

Спасибо, что помните меня, это приятно.

[Grokh]

dear colleagues, I am very sorry, too busy these days. But please have a look on the two partitions from one picture, which have been captured one time by DA* 16-50 and second time - by Lim 20-40.
The test image was the screen of my notebook. Both lenses were on F=20 mm and wide open. You can look on the center of the frame and on the upper right corner, please.

DA* 16-50 @20 mm wide open


Lim 20-40 @20 mm wide open


Da* 16-50 @20 mm wide open


Lim 20-40 @20 mm wide open

[Grokh]

I hope this small and unprofessional test can also give you any opinions about the quality of Lim 20-40.
I will try this week to do more comparable pictures.

[Driline]

Исньт google транслятор греат!

[Grokh]

And two full-sizes pictures. The same settings - 20 mm wide open both. In-camera JPEG, no any kind of developing etc.
HD Lim 20-40



Here is full-size: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11393367613_98d67bd3db_o.jpg

DA* 16-50



Full-size: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3742/11393236475_d9cc6f9059_o.jpg

[Driline]

The DA 20-40 is overall sharper in both the middle and edge to edge and less "muddy" compared to the DA 16-50. The only thing its missing is the nice starburst that the 16-50 has to offer buts that's probably due to that HD starburst "killer".

[Na Horuk]

Hm, monitor photo does not look good for the Limited, but I hope it was camera shake or misfocus. The second example, I find that I prefer the limited - except for starbursts (limited has HD coating and rounded aperture blades). Thanks for sharing

[TedH42]

Thanks for the test images. They clearly show that, within its range, a DA 20-40 ltd can give a clearer and more pleasing image than at least one DA* 16-50. Yes, the monitor test images seemed to be a win for the DA* 16-50, but that's a harder shot to get perfect focus on, so I am not dissuaded from continuing to track the quality of the DA 20-40 ltd.

These images keep me in the hunt for the DA 20-40 ltd, pending a shootout with the FA 20-35, which it would have to displace in my lens stable.

[Adam]

Artur, What is 20-40 on FF 24x36 (on MZ-S) ?

roughly 30-60mm = a wide to long normal lens

[Grokh]

Hm, monitor photo does not look good for the Limited, but I hope it was camera shake or misfocus.

First, no shake, of course, because 1/320 s.
Second, no misfocus also. I shoot several pictures with both AF and MF and published the most sharper from them.
My opinion about both lenses at least at f=20 mm and wide open is the following:
1. Lim outperforms the DA* in the corner sharpness, overall contrast (look on the sky!) and some color saturation (look on the railcars).
2. DA* outperforms Lim in the center sharpness, but not in the corner because great CA.
I will resume testing the lenses this week also. Is the "test image" with night railroad station enough good?

[repaap]

What I can say, is that your test did put 20-40 limited back at good hopes list. These differences that you mentioned are really well visible.
I do like absence of CA and better contrast.

[CtrlAltDel_ru]

100% correct conclusions.
Could you compare the lenses at 40mm?

[ogl]

The DA 20-40 is overall sharper in both the middle and edge to edge and less "muddy" compared to the DA 16-50. The only thing its missing is the nice starburst that the 16-50 has to offer buts that's probably due to that HD starburst "killer".

DA20-40 is not sharp at the center, but sharp at corners - it means that this lens has decentering.