[Nicolas06]

Their reviews are good from the optical engineer's point of view,
and the DA 20-40 actually fares very well there,
even discounting the fact that it's a zoom.

That said, the Lenstip/Optyczne reviews do not address photographer's issues like rendering,
where the Limited Zoom really excels (IMHO, based on intensive use of the lens over the past year).

Moreover, Lenstip/Optyczne is notorious for being "cheap".
Disregarding photographic qualities, and being overly sensitive about the prices of lenses,
that site lays a lot of negative criticism on the Pentax Limiteds (FA, Zoom, etc.).

I would add that kind of stupid to think that a small lense like the DA20-40 can get the same optical parameters and performance in all aspects as bigger lenses like 18-35 f/1.8 or alike.

Objectively, the 20-40 offer great performance and great rendering. It is very small, very well built and the focal range is really a great compromize. To get more sharpness you need to use this 18-35 from sigma that is 800g and 13cm long or 2 primes like DA21 & DA35.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-21-2015 at 01:18 AM.

[starbase218]

Their reviews are good from the optical engineer's point of view,
and the DA 20-40 actually fares very well there,
even discounting the fact that it's a zoom.

That said, the Lenstip/Optyczne reviews do not address photographer's issues like rendering,
where the Limited Zoom really excels (IMHO, based on intensive use of the lens over the past year).

Moreover, Lenstip/Optyczne is notorious for being "cheap".
Disregarding photographic qualities, and being overly sensitive about the prices of lenses,
that site lays a lot of negative criticism on the Pentax Limiteds (FA, Zoom, etc.).

What I don't get is how you can say it fares very well in the test, while the people who conducted the test in the first place, say it does not.

Anyway, if they are cheap, I guess I am too. Which means the 20-40 still isn't for me. If it performed really really well - that is, super sharp across the frame straight from wide-open (or maybe a hint of softness in the corners wide-open that goes away when you stop it down by 1 stop), it would be a different story. But it doesn't do that. Even the PentaxForums review - a review done by Pentax enthusiasts - says this: "it is a bit disheartening to see a $999 lens only perform well at such a small number of apertures, especially when you consider the fact that it is already somewhat slow to begin with".

Roughly translated: this lens is too expensive for what it is.

I'm not saying that beautiful rendering is not important. It is, and maybe it's more important than super-sharpness. But for this kind of money, I would expect both.

But throwing all of these arguments here may be a futile effort. Which is why I'm just saying, "I don't get this lens, it's not for me". I say that after looking up reviews, thought about my expectations, heard opinions from people who actually have it, etc etc. If that means I'm cheap, so be it.

---------- Post added 01-21-2015 at 08:29 PM ----------

Btw, I really hoped that the 20-40 would be better, or cheaper. And I might even have bought it if it was. Because in the limited range, it does make sense; I can see that. But here in The Netherlands it's 900 euros... then the reviews... Yeah, no, sorry Pentax, you'll have to come up with a better offer.

[Trudger1272]

Roughly translated: this lens is too expensive for what it is. I'm not saying that beautiful rendering is not important. It is, and maybe it's more important than super-sharpness. But for this kind of money, I would expect both. But throwing all of these arguments here may be a futile effort. Which is why I'm just saying, "I don't get this lens, it's not for me". I say that after looking up reviews, thought about my expectations, heard opinions from people who actually have it, etc etc. If that means I'm cheap, so be it.

I wouldn't say cheap, I'd say smart. If you see a substantial amount of negative feedback, it would be wiser not to spend a whopping sum of money just to find out what you've already been told. That's why I ask so many questions myself. I want the best I can get for the money I'm spending and I've been pleased so far.

[starbase218]

Btw, I do agree that you should not compare this lens to the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Maybe it's better to compare it to the Fujifilm 18-55mm/2.8-4. Ok, it's for a different system, but in order to compare the value of a lens, it doesn't have to be for the same system. And I believe the lenses are actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. Both are name-brand lenses, both are f/2.8-4, both are about the same size. The Fuji is said to have very good optics (for the sake of this comparison, I'll leave final judgement on the Pentax optics out; let's say they are equal). The Pentax is weather-sealed, but the Fuji has stabilization (I know you don't need stabilization with Pentax, but this is for the purpose of comparing value). Both have metal/plastic construction.

But the Fuji costs 2/3 of the Pentax. And it has a wider zoom range

The thing is, the Pentax 20-40mm is unique. There is no other lens like it for the Pentax system. And I can't help thinking that that's the reason they can ask this amount of money for it. And that's what I don't like.

[Nicolas06]

Btw, I do agree that you should not compare this lens to the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Maybe it's better to compare it to the Fujifilm 18-55mm/2.8-4. Ok, it's for a different system, but in order to compare the value of a lens, it doesn't have to be for the same system. And I believe the lenses are actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. Both are name-brand lenses, both are f/2.8-4, both are about the same size. The Fuji is said to have very good optics (for the sake of this comparison, I'll leave final judgement on the Pentax optics out; let's say they are equal). The Pentax is weather-sealed, but the Fuji has stabilization (I know you don't need stabilization with Pentax, but this is for the purpose of comparing value). Both have metal/plastic construction.

But the Fuji costs 2/3 of the Pentax. And it has a wider zoom range

The thing is, the Pentax 20-40mm is unique. There is no other lens like it for the Pentax system. And I can't help thinking that that's the reason they can ask this amount of money for it. And that's what I don't like.

Soory to say that the Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4 doesn't match neither it work on different registration distance mount. No lense is going to be very similar to 18-55 f/2.8-4 on Pentax mount. Like no lense will be as small and high quality as FA77 on Fuji system keeping the same focal length.... Just to mount it you need and adapter that add to the registration distance and make it bigger.

Different systems, different compromises.

[Nicolas06]

I wouldn't say cheap, I'd say smart. If you see a substantial amount of negative feedback, it would be wiser not to spend a whopping sum of money just to find out what you've already been told. That's why I ask so many questions myself. I want the best I can get for the money I'm spending and I've been pleased so far.

Smart for him but it doesn't mean that if somebody else buy it he isn't smart. Indeed he might be far less happy buying much more appreciated, higher ranked and popular lenses just because his priorities are different. If one value small and WR for example, there only the kit lense and the 20-40 that are decent solutions...

[lytrytyr]

What I don't get is how you can say it fares very well in the test, while the people who conducted the test in the first place, say it does not.

Disregard their words and look at the actual measurements!

[Conqueror]

The thing is, the Pentax 20-40mm is unique. There is no other lens like it for the Pentax system. And I can't help thinking that that's the reason they can ask this amount of money for it. And that's what I don't like.

To me .. looking at actual user samples it looks a very good lens... Its a lot of kit for the money IMO... latest coating, small, bit of metal, silent, WR ... quite compelling.. I was torn between it and the FA 31mm... but in the end I knew 30ish was my favourite focal length... I'd shot with 35 for ages so could adapt and stay fixed... I had to see what the magic was about - It's every bit as good as they say!

[Nicolas06]

Disregard their words and look at the actual measurements!

+1 many reviewers do not treat all lenses equal. If a manual expensive their prime as some numbers, the comment will say it great. If it is a Pentax at half the price and with AF that get the same numbers, the reviewer just says its crap.

Other than that, ephotoezine seems to have fairly decent numbers. On lenstip the borders are a bit lacking wide open other than that it perform as well as any 17-50 lens for half the weight/size.

But lenstip says: "Still if a producer decides to introduce to the market a 20–40 mm f/2.8–4.0 device, so one with quite average parameters, the only justification of its existence might be the fact that it is also a mechanical and optical pearl, perfectly sharp up from the maximum relative aperture.".

Still I mean the 17-50 f/2.8 are not pearl neither. If you don't understand the goal of the lense, it is simply not made for you.

But overall we spend to much time comparing measurement and not enough time actually at how great the picture look actually.

[starbase218]

Disregard their words and look at the actual measurements!

We could agree to disagree...

[lytrytyr]

The thing is, the Pentax 20-40mm is unique. There is no other lens like it for the Pentax system.

It was preceded by the FA 20-35 and the M 24-35.

[Trudger1272]

Smart for him but it doesn't mean that if somebody else buy it he isn't smart. Indeed he might be far less happy buying much more appreciated, higher ranked and popular lenses just because his priorities are different. If one value small and WR for example, there only the kit lense and the 20-40 that are decent solutions...

I'm not biting! I didn't say anything about anybody else! What I will say is this: people talk about the FA31 Ltd being too expensive all the time, but check out my signature.

[lytrytyr]

We could agree to disagree...

Whatever. 40 lp/mm across the frame two stops down is certainly good enough for me.

[Nicolas06]

For all the guys against the 20-40 because of it performance... Why not just take the time to look at the actual practical performance ?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247859-da-limited-zoom-club.html

The rendering si simply outstanding... Many lenses with better review would not compare that well on actual pictures.

Many now wrongly think that photography is all about sharpness. Photography is all about light. This DA20-40 has some of DA15 in it. It is able to get more contrast, more dymanic range and render the light better. The colors are simply fantastic. It has also a way to make the thing in focus in focus to pop and look good that is impressive. For some photos, the weather is bad everytghing should you dull and the DA20-40 make then render quite nicely.

[starbase218]

For all the guys against the 20-40 because of it performance... Why not just take the time to look at the actual practical performance ?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247859-da-limited-zoom-club.html

The rendering si simply outstanding... Many lenses with better review would not compare that well on actual pictures.

Many now wrongly think that photography is all about sharpness. Photography is all about light. This DA20-40 has some of DA15 in it. It is able to get more contrast, more dymanic range and render the light better. The colors are simply fantastic. It has also a way to make the thing in focus in focus to pop and look good that is impressive. For some photos, the weather is bad everytghing should you dull and the DA20-40 make then render quite nicely.

But am I looking at how the lens renders, or at someones Photoshop/Lightroom skills? And does it matter? If not, how important is i.e. contrast in a lens?

Just wondering.

edit: Bokeh is a different story though.

---------- Post added 01-21-2015 at 10:52 PM ----------

It was preceded by the FA 20-35 and the M 24-35.

The 20-35mm was a fullframe lens. Maybe the 20-40 was developed from that lens, but I can't see it as its successor. If any current lens succeeded the 20-35, it must be the 12-24. That has about the same FOV on APS-C (equivalent to 18-36).

I think you and I have very different perspectives on photographic gear....