21mm vs. 20-40mm...

**DRabbit** · 03-18-2014, 08:03 PM

I've had a ton of issues with the DA* 55mm f/1.4, so Pentax is sending me a new one. I'm pretty sure I'll end up selling it. Which leads me to try to figure out what to replace it with.

I mostly shoot on the wider side of things. I have a 21mm Limited. I also have a Sigma 10-20mm. I was considering selling the 21mm limited (along with the DA* 55) to fund the purchase of the new 20-40mm WR. I could use a good weather-sealed lens, and other than the size difference, there seems to be no downside in going this way vs. keeping the 21mm f/3.2.

I do like the 21mm a lot, but if the quality is still there and it's slightly faster... not sure I can come up with a reason not to do it...

Thoughts?

DSims · 03-18-2014, 08:51 PM

I'm sorry to hear about the DA*55 problems. It's one of the very best lenses Pentax makes if it works right for you.

Based on the photos I've seen so far from the DA20-40 Ltd, I'm not convinced I like the images from it as much as from the DA21 Ltd. But some of the new DA20-40 owners on the forum already love it. Personally I think I'd rather have only my FA*24/2 than the DA20-40/2.8-4 or DA21/3.2.

I'm not sure where you really want to go from here (zooms vs. primes, lens speed, how high your standards are for IQ), so I don't know what to recommend other than that. I do think the DA35/2.4 is a really good use of money. I'm also not so fond of the IQ of the Sigma 10-20 lenses (either one), so I personally got a DA15, then a DA10-17, and eventually a Sigma 8-16.

AquaDome · 03-18-2014, 08:51 PM

Would that make the 20-40mm your widest lens? I can see getting the 20-40 and not needing the 21 anymore, but you might just miss that wider end at 10mm with the Sigma.

**DRabbit** · 03-18-2014, 09:41 PM

I'll be keeping the Sigma 10-20mm. It's my work-horse lens for a lot of the professional shooting I do.

I also already have the 35mm f/2.8 Macro for close up work as needed.

I'm mostly a prime shooter in general. However, for some of the professional work I do, the versatility of zooms is nice to have. And the 20-40mm as a weather-sealed solution seems like a good choice as someone who prefers to shoot on the wider side of life.

So it's really just a matter of will I be happy with the 20-40mm over the 21mm f/3.2.

DogLover · 03-18-2014, 09:44 PM

Personally, I think preferring the 20-40 to the 21 is a no-brainer. Grappling with it replacing the FA31, FA43, DA35 or DA40 is a much tougher decision, and one I haven't been able to make yet (I only have the FA's, though). Obviously, the FA's are singular lenses and I'm not suggesting that the 20-40 is an on-par replacement for either, but it IS good enough to make you think twice about bringing either of those lenses along.

DSims · 03-18-2014, 10:35 PM

For me, I think the DA*16-50/2.8 is a better choice, but I'm not sure it's what you're looking for. They're both WR. But the 16-50 is much bigger.

When I go with a zoom I like to have the range of the 16-50. But it still has a fast, constant aperture (which matters to me) and good IQ. Zooms with a longer range (like 17-70) have to make sacrifices in one or more of these areas.

I was really hoping the DA20-40 would have a constant aperture - even if it was f/3.5. But that didn't happen.

**DRabbit** · 03-18-2014, 11:35 PM

DogLover... biggest mistake I ever made was sell a FA43 I had. Should never have done it!

I agree DSims... my only complaint about the 20-40mm is the variable aperture... I much would have preferred, like you, a constant 3.5.

I'm leary of the 16-50 because of it's known focus/motor problems. I risked it with the 55 and got bit. And with all the problems I've had with Pentax recently, I'd really like a smooth ride. LOL. It's also a bit more expensive than the 20-40mm.
But size is really the biggest factor for me. As you can imagine, as a prime shooter primarily, I like to keep lenses as small and light as possible. Hence why I'm hesitant to give up the 21mm at all.

Apapukas · 03-19-2014, 03:52 AM

I have this exact question.

I believe everything will come down to the price. For the price of a new 20-40Ltd (very hard to find used), I could get 15mm + 43mm (used, but in excellent condition) and have more versatility, speed, faster AF.
Even though, for 700-750$ I would probably grab the 20-40Ltd.

lytrytyr · 03-19-2014, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by DRabbit

As you can imagine, as a prime shooter primarily, I like to keep lenses as small and light as possible. Hence why I'm hesitant to give up the 21mm at all.

I'm basically a prime shooter, using the DA 15/DA 35/DA 70 Limiteds.

Since I had a trusty old M20/4, I never bothered considering the DA 21.

However, I'm really pleased with the way the DA 20-40 Ltd is working out.
It's about the size of the DA 18-55 or FA 31, but is very light.
With the WR and zoom versatility, it's the ideal lens for carrying around.

I don't see the problem with the variable aperture.
You don't have to shoot fully open at 20mm if you don't want to,
say if you want to mimic the predecessor FA 20-35/4.

Apapukas · 03-19-2014, 04:54 AM

How would you compare AF speed between DA Ltd primes and 20-40?

Compared even to the kit lens it looks quite slow

You Tube

lytrytyr · 03-19-2014, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Apapukas

How would you compare AF speed between DA Ltd primes and 20-40?

Faster than the DA 35 Ltd, slower than the DA 70 Ltd.

bdery · 03-19-2014, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by DRabbit

there seems to be no downside in going this way vs. keeping the 21mm f/3.2. I do like the 21mm a lot, but if the quality is still there and it's slightly faster... not sure I can come up with a reason not to do it

Well, corner sharpness with the 20-40 has never impressed me, and with the 21 you get those great starbursts, among other things. I always want to warm up to the 20-40, but can't manage myself to do so. I could not replace my 18-55, 21 and 40 with it, the slowish AF, soft corners just don't cut it. Maybe if it was cheaper, but even though it's a fine lens, I don't see myself using it all that much.

Sandy Hancock · 03-19-2014, 05:56 AM

I sent my DA20-40 back. It was basically unusable at 20mm until f/5.6, whereas my DA21 is pretty reasonable at f/3.2, and sharp at f/4.0. It's tiny, and renders colours just as nicely while giving the benefits of the starbursts. The zoom was nice at 40mm wide open at f/4.0, but not in the same league as my FA43 or FA31 at considerably wider apertures.

The DA20-40 is considerably bigger than the FA31, but it is impressively light.

**DRabbit** · 03-19-2014, 07:10 AM

Hmmm... sorry to hear about the soft comers and the fact it's unusable at 20mm wide open. Wide is important to me (and my paid work), so I'll have to look more carefully at samples that are out there.

Can I just say I wish Pentax would put out a line of weather-sealed DA primes?

cbope · 03-19-2014, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by DRabbit

Can I just say I wish Pentax would put out a line of weather-sealed DA primes?

I'm not sure that would be very practical. If the weather is bad enough to need WR, you are probably not going to be changing lenses. Looking at it that way, a WR zoom makes much more sense.

I certainly would not object to WR on all lenses including primes, but it does add cost and complexity and you have to look at the cost/benefit.

03-18-2014, 08:03 PM	#1
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	21mm vs. 20-40mm... I've had a ton of issues with the DA* 55mm f/1.4, so Pentax is sending me a new one. I'm pretty sure I'll end up selling it. Which leads me to try to figure out what to replace it with. I mostly shoot on the wider side of things. I have a 21mm Limited. I also have a Sigma 10-20mm. I was considering selling the 21mm limited (along with the DA* 55) to fund the purchase of the new 20-40mm WR. I could use a good weather-sealed lens, and other than the size difference, there seems to be no downside in going this way vs. keeping the 21mm f/3.2. I do like the 21mm a lot, but if the quality is still there and it's slightly faster... not sure I can come up with a reason not to do it... Thoughts?

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
AF Speed of the 18-135mm vs 20-40mm Limited	brosen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	01-14-2014 01:36 AM
Quick and dirty test SMC-M 40mm vs XS 40mm - judge for yourself	manntax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	06-27-2013 10:09 AM
DA 21mm Limites vs. DA 40mm XS	technophile	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-06-2013 05:59 AM
sigma 10-20 vs 15mm lmt and 21mm lmt	dsauna	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	06-21-2010 01:29 PM

03-18-2014, 08:51 PM	#2
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	I'm sorry to hear about the DA55 problems. It's one of the very best lenses Pentax makes if it works right for you. Based on the photos I've seen so far from the DA20-40 Ltd, I'm not convinced I like the images from it as much as from the DA21 Ltd. But some of the new DA20-40 owners on the forum already love it. Personally I think I'd rather have only* my FA*24/2 than the DA20-40/2.8-4 or DA21/3.2. I'm not sure where you really want to go from here (zooms vs. primes, lens speed, how high your standards are for IQ), so I don't know what to recommend other than that. I do think the DA35/2.4 is a really good use of money. I'm also not so fond of the IQ of the Sigma 10-20 lenses (either one), so I personally got a DA15, then a DA10-17, and eventually a Sigma 8-16.

03-18-2014, 08:51 PM	#3
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	Would that make the 20-40mm your widest lens? I can see getting the 20-40 and not needing the 21 anymore, but you might just miss that wider end at 10mm with the Sigma.

03-18-2014, 09:41 PM	#4
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	I'll be keeping the Sigma 10-20mm. It's my work-horse lens for a lot of the professional shooting I do. I also already have the 35mm f/2.8 Macro for close up work as needed. I'm mostly a prime shooter in general. However, for some of the professional work I do, the versatility of zooms is nice to have. And the 20-40mm as a weather-sealed solution seems like a good choice as someone who prefers to shoot on the wider side of life. So it's really just a matter of will I be happy with the 20-40mm over the 21mm f/3.2.

03-18-2014, 09:44 PM	#5
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Personally, I think preferring the 20-40 to the 21 is a no-brainer. Grappling with it replacing the FA31, FA43, DA35 or DA40 is a much tougher decision, and one I haven't been able to make yet (I only have the FA's, though). Obviously, the FA's are singular lenses and I'm not suggesting that the 20-40 is an on-par replacement for either, but it IS good enough to make you think twice about bringing either of those lenses along.

03-18-2014, 10:35 PM	#6
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	For me, I think the DA*16-50/2.8 is a better choice, but I'm not sure it's what you're looking for. They're both WR. But the 16-50 is much bigger. When I go with a zoom I like to have the range of the 16-50. But it still has a fast, constant aperture (which matters to me) and good IQ. Zooms with a longer range (like 17-70) have to make sacrifices in one or more of these areas. I was really hoping the DA20-40 would have a constant aperture - even if it was f/3.5. But that didn't happen.

03-18-2014, 11:35 PM	#7
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	DogLover... biggest mistake I ever made was sell a FA43 I had. Should never have done it! I agree DSims... my only complaint about the 20-40mm is the variable aperture... I much would have preferred, like you, a constant 3.5. I'm leary of the 16-50 because of it's known focus/motor problems. I risked it with the 55 and got bit. And with all the problems I've had with Pentax recently, I'd really like a smooth ride. LOL. It's also a bit more expensive than the 20-40mm. But size is really the biggest factor for me. As you can imagine, as a prime shooter primarily, I like to keep lenses as small and light as possible. Hence why I'm hesitant to give up the 21mm at all.

03-19-2014, 03:52 AM	#8
Apapukas Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Lietuva, Vilnius Posts: 627	I have this exact question. I believe everything will come down to the price. For the price of a new 20-40Ltd (very hard to find used), I could get 15mm + 43mm (used, but in excellent condition) and have more versatility, speed, faster AF. Even though, for 700-750$ I would probably grab the 20-40Ltd.

03-19-2014, 04:36 AM	#9
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by DRabbit As you can imagine, as a prime shooter primarily, I like to keep lenses as small and light as possible. Hence why I'm hesitant to give up the 21mm at all. I'm basically a prime shooter, using the DA 15/DA 35/DA 70 Limiteds. Since I had a trusty old M20/4, I never bothered considering the DA 21. However, I'm really pleased with the way the DA 20-40 Ltd is working out. It's about the size of the DA 18-55 or FA 31, but is very light. With the WR and zoom versatility, it's the ideal lens for carrying around. I don't see the problem with the variable aperture. You don't have to shoot fully open at 20mm if you don't want to, say if you want to mimic the predecessor FA 20-35/4.

03-19-2014, 05:07 AM	#11
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Apapukas How would you compare AF speed between DA Ltd primes and 20-40? Faster than the DA 35 Ltd, slower than the DA 70 Ltd.

03-19-2014, 05:35 AM	#12
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by DRabbit there seems to be no downside in going this way vs. keeping the 21mm f/3.2. I do like the 21mm a lot, but if the quality is still there and it's slightly faster... not sure I can come up with a reason not to do it Well, corner sharpness with the 20-40 has never impressed me, and with the 21 you get those great starbursts, among other things. I always want to warm up to the 20-40, but can't manage myself to do so. I could not replace my 18-55, 21 and 40 with it, the slowish AF, soft corners just don't cut it. Maybe if it was cheaper, but even though it's a fine lens, I don't see myself using it all that much.

03-19-2014, 05:56 AM	#13
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I sent my DA20-40 back. It was basically unusable at 20mm until f/5.6, whereas my DA21 is pretty reasonable at f/3.2, and sharp at f/4.0. It's tiny, and renders colours just as nicely while giving the benefits of the starbursts. The zoom was nice at 40mm wide open at f/4.0, but not in the same league as my FA43 or FA31 at considerably wider apertures. The DA20-40 is considerably bigger than the FA31, but it is impressively light.

03-19-2014, 07:10 AM	#14
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Hmmm... sorry to hear about the soft comers and the fact it's unusable at 20mm wide open. Wide is important to me (and my paid work), so I'll have to look more carefully at samples that are out there. Can I just say I wish Pentax would put out a line of weather-sealed DA primes?

03-19-2014, 08:10 AM	#15
cbope Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Helsinki Posts: 664	Originally posted by DRabbit Can I just say I wish Pentax would put out a line of weather-sealed DA primes? I'm not sure that would be very practical. If the weather is bad enough to need WR, you are probably not going to be changing lenses. Looking at it that way, a WR zoom makes much more sense. I certainly would not object to WR on all lenses including primes, but it does add cost and complexity and you have to look at the cost/benefit.