[lytrytyr]

I have to agree with ogl on this one.

Actually, even ogl doesn't agree with ogl on this one!

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/280680-wort...ml#post3052045

[jeverettfine]

Thanks - hadn't seen these yet (at least not since the first page or so was posted).

Looks like a $300 lens. Even less if it were a prime.



[BTW, please edit the link so it works directly.]

You may think it "looks" inexpensive, but you will change your mind when you pick one up. Reminds me of the fabulous build of the old Pentax screw mount lenses with the focus ring design etc...very retro. I found it impressive right away. It is certainly on my list of possible acquisitions.

---------- Post added 01-30-15 at 09:37 AM ----------

Me for example I'am very impressed by this page:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247859-da-limited-zoom-club-15.html#214

The one with the tea pot on fire and a sausage and the one with a fish. i really like this rendering.

These images show me what I need to know. It is almost as if the sausage, and the fish, etc have a very thin outline. The lens really does have a 3D kind of effect that you don't see with the old FA lenses such as the 20-35. Is this the rendering I am looking for? Perhaps at times. It can certainly be very dramatic. Certainly has gotten me thinking.

[northcoastgreg]

I acknowledge I generally like FA (and especially F and A) color rendering. And I'm not convinced I like the HD rendering as much - in any of the newer lenses.

When it comes to color rendering, my personal favorites are the ghostless coated FA lenses and the wide angle DAs using ED glass (like the DA 10-17 and the DA 15). I have yet to make up my mind about the HD rendering. I'd really like to use an HD coated lens and see how the images respond to simple adjustments in Lightroom before making a decision on that one.

But most importantly I believe the HD DA20-40 images I've seen appear flat - not 3D-like, and not with much "life." So I'll be looking out for these characteristics. Since I haven't seen any new images from this lens recently, I'd really like to see some more.

The easiest way to achieve that 3D effect is to isolate a subject against the background. The DA 20-40, with its slower aperture matched with an APS-C sensor, will of course struggle to achieve this when compared to faster lenses/larger sensors. Now if you're talking about achieving a 3D effect without blurring out the background, that seems to me something very subtle, requiring a sharp eye to appreciate (and the same could be said about that very hard to define optical quality "life"). While lack of this subtle 3D effect (and "life") may be a legitimate defect in the DA 20-40, it's far too subtle of a characteristic for me to give it much notice. I don't, in any case, expect zooms to exhibit any sort of special rendering --- I look to primes for that. What I want in a zoom is outstanding color and contrast, and a reasonable level of sharpness. I produce images to be displayed in galleries and other public places, and to be sold online; and very few, if any, of the individuals who view my images in public or consider buying them online are going to notice the 3D rendering, or the lack thereof, in any of my landscape images, although they will certainly notice the colors and the contrast (which are primarily what gives a landscape image "pop," clarity, and "bite").

I see the DA 20-40 as being primarily a "field" lens designed for photographing landscapes, architecture, travel, etc, where, I would suggest, color and contrast will provide greater IQ dividends than 3D rendering and "life" (at least in terms of showing images in public, especially to non-photographers who can't be expected to even notice the 3D rendering or the "life"). Also keep in mind that sacrifices have been made with the aperture on the limited zoom to keep the size down, so that it is easier to carry "in the field," on trips or hikes. Given the general raison d'etre of the lens, it would be a false demand to expect the DA 20-40 to excel as a "subject" (i.e., portraits, still life, flowers, etc.) lens, particularly when compared to faster, special rendering lenses like the FA 43, the FA 31 and the FA* 24.

[ogl]

I will put FA20-35/4 photos here with good light as soon as possible.

[hoopsontoast]

Some recent shots with the FA20-35:













And one of my favs on 35mm:

[JinDesu]

Let me jump in with some of my 20-40s then...

[Nicolas06]

For FA20-35: From 5 photos, I would say one can't draw conclusions. We need to look for hundred shoots for many shoot to see a tendancy. So one should not draw conclusion on the lense or photographer from small sample (and maybe it is not relevant anyway to show hundred of sample on this thread anyway...).

For now the FA20-35 examples
- do not look at all sharper than the 20-40.
- do not show same clarity/contrast levels as some 20-40 shoots.
- do not show neither any special character or rendering that can be seen on some 20-40 or FA ltd shoots.

If the choice is to be between 20-40 and say FA31, DA35 ltd or FA43, for sure the DA20-40 may have a tough job to make better picture overall... Even through the fish and saussage picture are rather unique in their rendering for example.

Compared to FA20-35, one need to look at more shoots. For now it look like a decent lens but not better than 20-40.

[Nicolas06]

Let me jump in with some of my 20-40s then...

Impressive to see that even the 3200 iso shoots look quite good.

[JinDesu]

Impressive to see that even the 3200 iso shoots look quite good.

I love my k-3. I have a album for the DA 20-40 on my flickr including sharpness tests. The lens isn't soft in the corners, it's just hard to get the corners in focus with the center also in focus, lol. And center sharpness is pretty good on the lens. For any pixel peepers, my test albums provide full size images and I didn't add any sharpening to my test images.

[hoopsontoast]

For FA20-35: From 5 photos, I would say one can't draw conclusions. We need to look for hundred shoots for many shoot to see a tendancy. So one should not draw conclusion on the lense or photographer from small sample (and maybe it is not relevant anyway to show hundred of sample on this thread anyway...).

For now the FA20-35 examples
- do not look at all sharper than the 20-40.
- do not show same clarity/contrast levels as some 20-40 shoots.
- do not show neither any special character or rendering that can be seen on some 20-40 or FA ltd shoots.

If the choice is to be between 20-40 and say FA31, DA35 ltd or FA43, for sure the DA20-40 may have a tough job to make better picture overall... Even through the fish and saussage picture are rather unique in their rendering for example.

Compared to FA20-35, one need to look at more shoots. For now it look like a decent lens but not better than 20-40.

From the other way round, as an owner of my second FA20-35, I see no reason to upgrade to the DA20-40, the main advantage of the newer lens seems to be performace with CAs, or lack of compared to the older film lens.

[Nicolas06]

From the other way round, as an owner of my second FA20-35, I see no reason to upgrade to the DA20-40, the main advantage of the newer lens seems to be performace with CAs, or lack of compared to the older film lens.

Depend what you are after. Until I see some image with the clarity/contrast/rendering/colors I have seen with the DA20-40 on the FA20-35 I would think it is worth to upgrade... If you are after that (and well nothing wrong to not be interrested!) Adding to that WR and it is really the perfect lense to get interresting photo in bad weather... Just look at JinDesu shoots. Thoses are impressive ! I also don't like hood of the FA20-35 and prefer the very small unobtrusive hood of the ltd serie. Another reason for me to not be that after the 20-35.

To me, this 20-40 would very well compliment my DA15 & FA77 and replace my DA21. Not sure it could replace DA35 f/2.4 or it could be at same level at a prime in the 30-40 range.

Rendering wise, I have no concern except for subject isolation: f/4 40mm is not exactly that great. Sharpness I'am a bit afraid actually. Don't know if it would work to crop the image and still get sufficiant sharpness. Low light I'am not doing a lot, but that could be a bit of an issue.

So I have mixed feelings in the end, not sure 20-40 is the compromize I need/want. But I would not think one second of the 20-35 because of the build/hood/no WR... And no special rendering (until the contrary is proved).

If the FA31 was to be more affordable, that would simplify the choice for me!

[ogl]

The QC of FA20-35/4 was FAR better than new lenses. That's why it's miracle for me - I've got old lens from ebay, put at K-5IIs and have very accurate AF and even sharpness at all focal length. Maybe DA20-40 is sharper in the center...But FA20-35/4's sharpness is higher than ordinary zoom. Close to fixed lenses.

[Nicolas06]

The QC of FA20-35/4 was FAR better than new lenses. That's why it's miracle for me - I've got old lens from ebay, put at K-5IIs and have very accurate AF and even sharpness at all focal length. Maybe DA20-40 is sharper in the center...But FA20-35/4's sharpness is higher than ordinary zoom. Close to fixed lenses.

For sharpness of that 20-35 (and on most lenses even on common focal length)

You see a miracle, I just see that any lense that is not the most entry level is going to be sharp on the 20-40 range, included 18-135 (maybe more on 22-40 range !), the new 16-85, 17-70 of Pentax or Sigma, the sigma/tamron f/2.8 transtandards variants, the Pentax 16-50 and so own. In particular when we start at f/4. So any lense would do it except maybe the 18-55. Some of theses lenses are quite innexpensive like the old tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or 18-135 WR. My father got that last one in a kit for more or less 150€. Difficult to beat that.

AF? That's should not be a problem for slow lenses. At least my 17-70 was good, 18-135 is good too... And on K3 all lenses are good even the more difficult one like FA50 or 50-135...


If you just need that, any lens can fit on current body and so the selection has to be on other criteria. Max apperture, wide range support, size/weight, WR, silent focussing, build quality, QC, price, rendering...

The FA20-35 would be not bad for price or for size/weight, that's for sure. Maybe QC apparently.
DA20-40 would be not bad for size/weight, build quality, WR, silent focussing, constrast/colors/clarity, flare resistance and rendering (at least to me). And iti is designed for digital. It get a small edge in range and apperture too compared to the 20-35. The price is not the same through.

Both would struggle overall on range or fast apperture/subject isolation toward most other zooms.

So for me between theses 2 lenses, one should choose on what is most important to him if he can afford any of the 2.

[lytrytyr]

Let me jump in with some of my 20-40s then.

Nice shots.

Obviously taken with a K3,
otherwise the third one would have "Pentax" up there in the middle.

[JinDesu]

Nice shots.

Obviously taken with a K3,
otherwise the third one would have "Pentax" up there in the middle.

Thanks. The most contrasting element I'd say between it and the FA is that the subjects are all in bad weather