DA 20-40mm Limited review posted

GoremanX · 01-07-2014, 05:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by krebsy75

Zooms are about practicality and getting the job done. This is where the 20-40 is puzzling and not convincing so far for $1,000.

Oh weird, that generalized statement made no sense at all. "zooms are about getting the job done"? Then primes and small, light lenses must be about dicking around, wasting time.

You may be puzzled, I am not. Of course, if all I had to go on was this "in-depth review", I'd be puzzled and unconvinced too... it's really a disappointing read. I'm so glad I didn't wait on the review before buying the lens, otherwise I would've missed out on something great.

Aux · 01-07-2014, 06:25 AM

I had big expectations for this lens. But sample images from it versus my 50mm F1.4... No way I'm spending my money on this zoom!

krebsy75 · 01-07-2014, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by GoremanX

Oh weird, that generalized statement made no sense at all. "zooms are about getting the job done"?

It makes perfect sense. Why do you think so many Pentaxians' sport the 16-50 and 50-135? The combination of lenses cover a wide focal range with image quality that rivals some primes. A wide focal range can result in more photo opportunities.

Originally posted by GoremanX

Then primes and small, light lenses must be about dicking around, wasting time.

You're making this generalization, not me. Primes, in my mind, are (generally) more application specific.

Ishpuini · 01-07-2014, 07:02 AM

This may sound strange, but the review (and the other feedback I got here concerning this lens) is actually convincing me to get the lens. I like things best at the wide end of a zoom. At the long end DOF is much shorter and as such the increased bokeh helps the perception of sharpness of the in-focus area.

The range is close to perfect for me. Flexibility without too much flexibility as to not make me lazy and not move enough to find my angle. Actually it more or less covers the FOV of my most used primes: 21, 31 and 43, which I shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 for 99% of the time. As such it will be the perfect stand-in for these when the weather turns foul. My DA*16-50/2.8 is too big in that role. In my current kit it's either primes (my normal preference) *or* DA* glass (necessity for travel because of WR). But the DA20-40 *is* small and light enough to carry along as WR back-up to the primes, so it would enable a primes *and* WR zoom scenario for me, which was impossible until now. BTW, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 cannot be carried along a set of primes either (bigger and heavier than the DA*), and it wouldn't make sense anyway because it's simply not WR...

Price *is* pretty steep, but I've abandoned hope to get anything cheap anymore that lives up to my expectations.

I'm getting this lens as soon as the situation in Belgium unblocks and Pentax gear is available again...

As the review states, I suppose "this lens is not for everyone", but it seems to be made for me...

Wim

Last edited by Ishpuini; 01-07-2014 at 07:57 AM.

krebsy75 · 01-07-2014, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

The range is close to perfect for me.

Everyone's photo needs are different. It just may be the ticket for you.

**Dice** · 01-07-2014, 08:56 AM - **1 Like**

I don't have any problem with the review with the exception of the impression that it uncovered some sort of optical weakness at the long end of the focal range. There are already plenty of users (including myself) and a less than detailed reviewPentax HD DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR Review & Rating | PCMag.com that would offer a different opinion with photos to boot. The piece of the review that really resonated with me is how fun the lens is to use. I have yet to find a situation where I was fighting with it. Unlike my DA 21 and like my DA40 (which I no longer have) I open it up (stop it down whatever) and shoot away. So I would caution those who read the review and take it as gospel. If you are interested in the focal range, and love the Ltd. colors, contrast, clarity, gather more information and try it on your camera then make your decision.

Fototim · 01-07-2014, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Paul MaudDib

Haha, this lens. Let me rephrase that review for you:

No thank you. I can read. I'm tempted to ask if you can see.

But that would be impolite, so I will not do that ;-)
-------

To me it seem that the majority of user reports suggests otherwise. I also think the pictures samples in the review does.
Maybe we should try to read behind the formal findings.
Perhaps the test has errors? I see a tendency towards weak results from wide angle lenses. One possible explanation is that the test methodic does not take into consideration that the lens has field curvature.

fuent104 · 01-07-2014, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Fototim

No thank you. I can read. I'm tempted to ask if you can see.

But that would be impolite, so I will not do that ;-)
-------

To me it seem that the majority of user reports suggests otherwise. I also think the pictures samples in the review does.
Maybe we should try to read behind the formal findings.
Perhaps the test has errors? I see a tendency towards weak results from wide angle lenses. One possible explanation is that the test methodic does not take into consideration that the lens has field curvature.

Depth of focus (sortof the inverse) of depth of field is more shallow with wide lenses, which means a more perfect distance between the lens and the sensor is needed. This is on of the factors that is monitored in cinema cameras when doing maintenance because even the nicest wide lens can look soft if that distance is not correct.

ogl · 01-07-2014, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Adam

While the new HD 20-40mm Limited zoom probably won't ever get as much praise as the Limited primes, PentaxForums.com[/url]

I think that no RAW tests are the biggest mistake.
The tests in default JPEG of K-3 say not too much about resolution and sharpness.

I've converted some RAWs from DA20-40 in DXO and I'would say that DA20-40 is not worse DA40 or DA21.
DA40 has soft corners till f6.3-8 at K-5IIs. DA21 is the same.

mrNewt · 01-07-2014, 10:36 AM

Seems to be a decent lens... but not $1000 decent though... maybe $400... maybe...

GoremanX · 01-07-2014, 12:01 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by krebsy75

Why do you think so many Pentaxians' sport the 16-50 and 50-135?

Because they look at the focal length numbers and think "ooohhh, a 9x setup with just 2 lenses, how convenient!" Then, as they gain more experience and skill, they start to realize that most of their pictures are taken at 3 or 4 specific focal lengths, and those big, heavy lenses are just an unnecessary burden. So they sell them and buy the prime or short-zoom lenses that better suit their own photography style.

I just described my own evolution as a photographer over the past many years. Except I initially got rid of my DA* lenses because of repeated SDM failures.

billy moon · 01-07-2014, 02:29 PM

I have mentioned I think this lens is worth it. Because of the review I checked it out on a still life, an ornate demi coffee cup and saucer using my K5 ll and Gitzo tripod. At 40mm it is very sharp wide open, f4, at least in the middle subject area but I must say heavy vignetting which just about goes away at f11. This plays havoc with exposure set on A, at f5.6 it seems to almost go away because now the image has gone into over exposure for some reason then it returns at f8 with an exposure looking normal.....very very strange. It did this over and over again. On M exposure setting the vignetting is there of course, exposure is constant and the vignetting decreases as it is stopped down. My FA43mm did not do this exposure shift at all on both the A or M setting. Other than this the lens performs very very well. I will stay away from f5.6 at 40mm though, again that is really weird.

repaap · 01-07-2014, 02:33 PM

It is quite interesting, how much bashing this lens gets. Nothin new thou. Almost every gear that ricoh/pentax has launched and has been reviwed at here has had pretty much same treatment. If I would have looked just reviews I would have given up on most of pentax stuff available, which I own now and am happy with.

I really want to see also this Sigma after all experts gets their hands on it. After a while, that size must have some impact on how much that sharpnes is being appriciated.

And about that thing of waiting this DA 20-40 to win and or be better that all limiteds is quite bold, in my eyes. Examples that I have seen this far, it looks good. Some bad ones too, but more good ones.

I hope that I will have enough money by summer for this lens. I don't like big lenses. I like good handling, good bokeh, nice rendering and beautiful colors. Oh, and WR. And the fact that this lens seems to be almost like prime lens, with just little more to play with, is a good news for me.

lytrytyr · 01-07-2014, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Aux

I had big expectations for this lens. But sample images from it versus my 50mm F1.4... No way I'm spending my money on this zoom!

Right, you really have to crop the DA 20-40 to get the reach of that 50.

calsan · 01-07-2014, 09:32 PM

Below are a couple of lenses, that I own and love that weren't reviewed 100% enthusiastically:

DA 15 Limited
LensTip: "what’s the point of existence of such a lens on the market?"
Pentax smc DA 15 mm f/4 ED AL Limited review - Summary - Lenstip.com

DA 35 Limited
Photozone: "The Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro is a undoubtedly a high quality lens but it does not excel."
Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Something I have learnt over the years is that whatever the pundits may say is wrong with a lens, is often what is right with the lens in different hands. Oh, and when Pentax design something, they are usually right.

01-07-2014, 06:52 AM	#33
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804	Originally posted by GoremanX Oh weird, that generalized statement made no sense at all. "zooms are about getting the job done"? It makes perfect sense. Why do you think so many Pentaxians' sport the 16-50 and 50-135? The combination of lenses cover a wide focal range with image quality that rivals some primes. A wide focal range can result in more photo opportunities. Originally posted by GoremanX Then primes and small, light lenses must be about dicking around, wasting time. You're making this generalization, not me. Primes, in my mind, are (generally) more application specific. Last edited by krebsy75; 01-07-2014 at 09:33 AM.

01-07-2014, 07:05 AM	#35
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804	Originally posted by Ishpuini The range is close to perfect for me. Everyone's photo needs are different. It just may be the ticket for you. Last edited by krebsy75; 01-07-2014 at 07:13 AM.

01-07-2014, 10:21 AM	#39
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Adam While the new HD 20-40mm Limited zoom probably won't ever get as much praise as the Limited primes, PentaxForums.com[/url] I think that no RAW tests are the biggest mistake. The tests in default JPEG of K-3 say not too much about resolution and sharpness. I've converted some RAWs from DA20-40 in DXO and I'would say that DA20-40 is not worse DA40 or DA21. DA40 has soft corners till f6.3-8 at K-5IIs. DA21 is the same. Last edited by ogl; 01-08-2014 at 12:37 PM.

01-07-2014, 02:29 PM	#42
billy moon Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 45	DA20-40 at 40 I have mentioned I think this lens is worth it. Because of the review I checked it out on a still life, an ornate demi coffee cup and saucer using my K5 ll and Gitzo tripod. At 40mm it is very sharp wide open, f4, at least in the middle subject area but I must say heavy vignetting which just about goes away at f11. This plays havoc with exposure set on A, at f5.6 it seems to almost go away because now the image has gone into over exposure for some reason then it returns at f8 with an exposure looking normal.....very very strange. It did this over and over again. On M exposure setting the vignetting is there of course, exposure is constant and the vignetting decreases as it is stopped down. My FA43mm did not do this exposure shift at all on both the A or M setting. Other than this the lens performs very very well. I will stay away from f5.6 at 40mm though, again that is really weird.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 18-35 1.8 art vs HD DA 20-40mm F2.8 - 4 Limited DC WR	jrcastillo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	111	09-22-2015 03:02 PM
PENTAX HD DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 LIMITED AU$929	i_trax	Pentax Price Watch	2	12-06-2013 03:33 AM
20-40mm Limited reviewed	David&karen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	52	11-29-2013 12:30 AM
For Sale - Sold: White K-x and 18-55mm, DA 40mm Limited, DA 70mm Limited	Jend	Sold Items	6	03-10-2012 06:23 PM

01-07-2014, 05:55 AM - 1 Like	#31
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by krebsy75 Zooms are about practicality and getting the job done. This is where the 20-40 is puzzling and not convincing so far for $1,000. Oh weird, that generalized statement made no sense at all. "zooms are about getting the job done"? Then primes and small, light lenses must be about dicking around, wasting time. You may be puzzled, I am not. Of course, if all I had to go on was this "in-depth review", I'd be puzzled and unconvinced too... it's really a disappointing read. I'm so glad I didn't wait on the review before buying the lens, otherwise I would've missed out on something great.

01-07-2014, 06:25 AM	#32
Aux Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 35	I had big expectations for this lens. But sample images from it versus my 50mm F1.4... No way I'm spending my money on this zoom!

01-07-2014, 07:02 AM	#34
Ishpuini Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Antwerp, Belgium Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,727	This may sound strange, but the review (and the other feedback I got here concerning this lens) is actually convincing me to get the lens. I like things best at the wide end of a zoom. At the long end DOF is much shorter and as such the increased bokeh helps the perception of sharpness of the in-focus area. The range is close to perfect for me. Flexibility without too much flexibility as to not make me lazy and not move enough to find my angle. Actually it more or less covers the FOV of my most used primes: 21, 31 and 43, which I shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 for 99% of the time. As such it will be the perfect stand-in for these when the weather turns foul. My DA16-50/2.8 is too big in that role. In my current kit it's either primes (my normal preference) or* DA* glass (necessity for travel because of WR). But the DA20-40 is small and light enough to carry along as WR back-up to the primes, so it would enable a primes and WR zoom scenario for me, which was impossible until now. BTW, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 cannot be carried along a set of primes either (bigger and heavier than the DA), and it wouldn't make sense anyway because it's simply not WR... Price is* pretty steep, but I've abandoned hope to get anything cheap anymore that lives up to my expectations. I'm getting this lens as soon as the situation in Belgium unblocks and Pentax gear is available again... As the review states, I suppose "this lens is not for everyone", but it seems to be made for me... Wim Last edited by Ishpuini; 01-07-2014 at 07:57 AM.

01-07-2014, 08:56 AM - 1 Like	#36
Dice Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Emeryville, CA Posts: 1,122	I don't have any problem with the review with the exception of the impression that it uncovered some sort of optical weakness at the long end of the focal range. There are already plenty of users (including myself) and a less than detailed reviewPentax HD DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR Review & Rating \| PCMag.com that would offer a different opinion with photos to boot. The piece of the review that really resonated with me is how fun the lens is to use. I have yet to find a situation where I was fighting with it. Unlike my DA 21 and like my DA40 (which I no longer have) I open it up (stop it down whatever) and shoot away. So I would caution those who read the review and take it as gospel. If you are interested in the focal range, and love the Ltd. colors, contrast, clarity, gather more information and try it on your camera then make your decision.

01-07-2014, 09:57 AM	#37
Fototim Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 268	Originally posted by Paul MaudDib Haha, this lens. Let me rephrase that review for you: No thank you. I can read. I'm tempted to ask if you can see. But that would be impolite, so I will not do that ;-) ------- To me it seem that the majority of user reports suggests otherwise. I also think the pictures samples in the review does. Maybe we should try to read behind the formal findings. Perhaps the test has errors? I see a tendency towards weak results from wide angle lenses. One possible explanation is that the test methodic does not take into consideration that the lens has field curvature.

01-07-2014, 10:09 AM	#38
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by Fototim No thank you. I can read. I'm tempted to ask if you can see. But that would be impolite, so I will not do that ;-) ------- To me it seem that the majority of user reports suggests otherwise. I also think the pictures samples in the review does. Maybe we should try to read behind the formal findings. Perhaps the test has errors? I see a tendency towards weak results from wide angle lenses. One possible explanation is that the test methodic does not take into consideration that the lens has field curvature. Depth of focus (sortof the inverse) of depth of field is more shallow with wide lenses, which means a more perfect distance between the lens and the sensor is needed. This is on of the factors that is monitored in cinema cameras when doing maintenance because even the nicest wide lens can look soft if that distance is not correct.

01-07-2014, 10:36 AM	#40
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Seems to be a decent lens... but not $1000 decent though... maybe $400... maybe...

01-07-2014, 12:01 PM - 1 Like	#41
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by krebsy75 Why do you think so many Pentaxians' sport the 16-50 and 50-135? Because they look at the focal length numbers and think "ooohhh, a 9x setup with just 2 lenses, how convenient!" Then, as they gain more experience and skill, they start to realize that most of their pictures are taken at 3 or 4 specific focal lengths, and those big, heavy lenses are just an unnecessary burden. So they sell them and buy the prime or short-zoom lenses that better suit their own photography style. I just described my own evolution as a photographer over the past many years. Except I initially got rid of my DA* lenses because of repeated SDM failures.

01-07-2014, 02:33 PM	#43
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	It is quite interesting, how much bashing this lens gets. Nothin new thou. Almost every gear that ricoh/pentax has launched and has been reviwed at here has had pretty much same treatment. If I would have looked just reviews I would have given up on most of pentax stuff available, which I own now and am happy with. I really want to see also this Sigma after all experts gets their hands on it. After a while, that size must have some impact on how much that sharpnes is being appriciated. And about that thing of waiting this DA 20-40 to win and or be better that all limiteds is quite bold, in my eyes. Examples that I have seen this far, it looks good. Some bad ones too, but more good ones. I hope that I will have enough money by summer for this lens. I don't like big lenses. I like good handling, good bokeh, nice rendering and beautiful colors. Oh, and WR. And the fact that this lens seems to be almost like prime lens, with just little more to play with, is a good news for me.

01-07-2014, 08:54 PM	#44
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Aux I had big expectations for this lens. But sample images from it versus my 50mm F1.4... No way I'm spending my money on this zoom! Right, you really have to crop the DA 20-40 to get the reach of that 50.

01-07-2014, 09:32 PM	#45
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	Below are a couple of lenses, that I own and love that weren't reviewed 100% enthusiastically: DA 15 Limited LensTip: "what’s the point of existence of such a lens on the market?" Pentax smc DA 15 mm f/4 ED AL Limited review - Summary - Lenstip.com DA 35 Limited Photozone: "The Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro is a undoubtedly a high quality lens but it does not excel." Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro - Review / Test Report - Analysis Something I have learnt over the years is that whatever the pundits may say is wrong with a lens, is often what is right with the lens in different hands. Oh, and when Pentax design something, they are usually right.