DA 21 and LBA

Conqueror · 06-06-2015, 06:43 AM

I do like the look of the 20-40mm... probably the zoom I covet the most... in general I prefer to avoid zooms though, in favour of primes for outright IQ and size

This image shows some of the differences in size, the 20-40 is perhaps bigger than the 31... I dont deem the 31 to be discrete, its not that heavy though

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hisway306/11251474064/

A stopped down 21 might perform better than the 20-40 ?

Unfortunately the fa 43mm is not in that pic

chrisfer · 06-06-2015, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Conqueror

Unfortunately the fa 43mm is not in that pic

The 43mm is very close to the 70 in size.

normhead · 06-06-2015, 10:15 AM

The reason for buying a 21 ltd is, it has excellent control of CA for a lens that wide. And in my experience better control of CA leads to better micro-contrast. That is the one place where it clearly outperforms the zooms that cover it's focal length. 21mm is tough on a zoom. The resolution is less that top notch, but it's within 100 lw/ph of top notch, so it's no slouch either.

I really like the lens. For what ever zoom I have on the camera (18-55, 18-135, 18-250) I'll immediately take them off the camera if I'm shooting in the 20-2-22 mm range.

longbow · 06-06-2015, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Conqueror

This image shows some of the differences in size, the 20-40 is perhaps bigger than the 31... I dont deem the 31 to be discrete, its not that heavy though https://www.flickr.com/photos/hisway306/11251474064/
A stopped down 21 might perform better than the 20-40 ?

The 20-40 & 31 are real close in size, but according to my scale, the 31 is 3oz heavier.

The 21 does seem to give a little better image, I like my 21 when it's needed, but I see them as different tools. If you're fine at 21mm, don't need to zoom up to 40mm without changing lens or need WR, then the 21 should be fine. It's what your needs are.

Conqueror · 06-06-2015, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by longbow

The 20-40 & 31 are real close in size, but according to my scale, the 31 is 3oz heavier.

The 21 does seem to give a little better image, I like my 21 when it's needed, but I see them as different tools. If you're fine at 21mm, don't need to zoom up to 40mm without changing lens or need WR, then the 21 should be fine. It's what your needs are.

The 20-40mm ticks all the boxes... only hesitant about its size.

The 21mm is perhaps discrete enough for street.

I wonder if the 21 would perform better for astro too.

GeneV · 06-07-2015, 05:39 AM

No knock on the 20-40, but the main reason it hasn't interested me is the small size and high quality of the two primes. It is a fairly unique Pentax offering. People used to mistake my Kx with one of these lenses for a P&S.

---------- Post added 06-07-15 at 06:42 AM ----------

Originally posted by longbow

Ya, but a 20-40 is cheaper (new) than the other two combined, about the same weight and you don't have to carry the second lens in your pocket, plus you get WR with 20-40

True, but with the primes, the camera will fit in a coat pocket or waist pack. It depends upon which is more important to you.

normhead · 06-07-2015, 05:46 AM - **1 Like**

MY favourite "just in case I need them" combo is the 21 and 40XS, to go with my walk around zoom. They both fit easily in my pockets or packs. Now if someone could just make a macro like that.

GeneV · 06-07-2015, 06:00 AM

The DA21/40 Ltd were the first digital primes I bought 8 years ago, so I do have an attachment to them. They are even cooler on the newer, compact bodies than on the K10d.

Conqueror · 06-07-2015, 11:31 AM

The dilemma is outright IQ and small size 21 and/or 40
vs
Flexibility and WR 20-40

-----------

Maybe the K-5iis + 21 is still a bit big for street work... need to have a think

normhead · 06-07-2015, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Conqueror

The dilemma is outright IQ and small size 21 and/or 40
vs
Flexibility and WR 20-40

-----------

Maybe the K-5iis + 21 is still a bit big for street work... need to have a think

If you don't have an 18-135, 16-85, 17-70 type lens to cover the range, I'd say go for the zoom. It might be all you need in that range.

Conqueror · 06-07-2015, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by normhead

If you don't have an 18-135, 16-85, 17-70 type lens to cover the range, I'd say go for the zoom. It might be all you need in that range.

Yeah I weighed up the 18-135,16-85 and 16-50, 50-135 a while ago. I do crave the IQ of primes though and in general prefer to frame without using a zoom.

I saw a deal and went for the 50-135mm for many reasons:
-many claim it to be the best zoom in the system, and yeah its pretty incredible
-doubles well as an event portrait/people lens
-AW

less than 50 I can currently use the 15/16/31

~35 is my favourite focal length... so the 31 is glued to the camera

the 20-40 + 50-135 combo is appealing... I don't want to sideline the 31 though!

**filoxophy** · 06-07-2015, 12:55 PM

Add a second body and a 21. Done. Now wasn't that easy?

longbow · 06-07-2015, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

True, but with the primes, the camera will fit in a coat pocket or waist pack. It depends upon which is more important to you.

Agreed !!

---------- Post added 06-07-15 at 05:41 PM ----------

Originally posted by Conqueror

the 20-40 + 50-135 combo is appealing...

It is a good combo, wished I'd brought my 50-135 today - wildlife everywhere. Only had the 16-85 instead, needed more reach.....stalking closer don't always work out well

normhead · 06-07-2015, 06:07 PM

Don't post that in the 16-85 vs 18-135 thread. They'll dump doo doo on you. They don't need no stinking 135mm reach.

longbow · 06-07-2015, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Don't post that in the 16-85 vs 18-135 thread. They'll dump doo doo on you. They don't need no stinking 135mm reach.

hey, I like my 16-85, most days it more than enough, definitely a little puny today.....starting to feel I need 60-250

06-06-2015, 10:15 AM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The reason for buying a 21 ltd is, it has excellent control of CA for a lens that wide. And in my experience better control of CA leads to better micro-contrast. That is the one place where it clearly outperforms the zooms that cover it's focal length. 21mm is tough on a zoom. The resolution is less that top notch, but it's within 100 lw/ph of top notch, so it's no slouch either. I really like the lens. For what ever zoom I have on the camera (18-55, 18-135, 18-250) I'll immediately take them off the camera if I'm shooting in the 20-2-22 mm range. Last edited by normhead; 06-07-2015 at 05:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Comparison between DA 21 and the DA 18-135	6BQ5	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	01-17-2015 03:20 PM
DA 21 and Indoor Shoe Mount Flash	Driline	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	11-30-2013 01:01 PM
DA 21 and FA 31 Landscape Preference?	Driline	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	10-20-2013 10:42 PM
New HD DA 15,21,35 and 70	bobmaxja	Pentax News and Rumors	2	10-07-2013 06:28 AM
For Sale - Sold: [Canada] Pentax K-7, DA 15, DA 21, DA 70, Tamron 28-75, Zeiss T*25, and more..	farfisa	Sold Items	30	11-23-2009 11:45 AM

06-06-2015, 06:43 AM	#16
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440 Original Poster	I do like the look of the 20-40mm... probably the zoom I covet the most... in general I prefer to avoid zooms though, in favour of primes for outright IQ and size This image shows some of the differences in size, the 20-40 is perhaps bigger than the 31... I dont deem the 31 to be discrete, its not that heavy though https://www.flickr.com/photos/hisway306/11251474064/ A stopped down 21 might perform better than the 20-40 ? Unfortunately the fa 43mm is not in that pic

06-06-2015, 09:56 AM	#17
chrisfer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Albi, Tarn, France Photos: Albums Posts: 101	Originally posted by Conqueror Unfortunately the fa 43mm is not in that pic The 43mm is very close to the 70 in size.

06-06-2015, 01:00 PM	#19
longbow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NW Oregon Posts: 905	Originally posted by Conqueror This image shows some of the differences in size, the 20-40 is perhaps bigger than the 31... I dont deem the 31 to be discrete, its not that heavy though https://www.flickr.com/photos/hisway306/11251474064/ A stopped down 21 might perform better than the 20-40 ? The 20-40 & 31 are real close in size, but according to my scale, the 31 is 3oz heavier. The 21 does seem to give a little better image, I like my 21 when it's needed, but I see them as different tools. If you're fine at 21mm, don't need to zoom up to 40mm without changing lens or need WR, then the 21 should be fine. It's what your needs are.

06-06-2015, 01:50 PM	#20
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440 Original Poster	Originally posted by longbow The 20-40 & 31 are real close in size, but according to my scale, the 31 is 3oz heavier. The 21 does seem to give a little better image, I like my 21 when it's needed, but I see them as different tools. If you're fine at 21mm, don't need to zoom up to 40mm without changing lens or need WR, then the 21 should be fine. It's what your needs are. The 20-40mm ticks all the boxes... only hesitant about its size. The 21mm is perhaps discrete enough for street. I wonder if the 21 would perform better for astro too.

06-07-2015, 05:39 AM	#21
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	No knock on the 20-40, but the main reason it hasn't interested me is the small size and high quality of the two primes. It is a fairly unique Pentax offering. People used to mistake my Kx with one of these lenses for a P&S. ---------- Post added 06-07-15 at 06:42 AM ---------- Originally posted by longbow Ya, but a 20-40 is cheaper (new) than the other two combined, about the same weight and you don't have to carry the second lens in your pocket, plus you get WR with 20-40 True, but with the primes, the camera will fit in a coat pocket or waist pack. It depends upon which is more important to you.

06-07-2015, 05:46 AM - 1 Like	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	MY favourite "just in case I need them" combo is the 21 and 40XS, to go with my walk around zoom. They both fit easily in my pockets or packs. Now if someone could just make a macro like that.

06-07-2015, 06:00 AM	#23
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The DA21/40 Ltd were the first digital primes I bought 8 years ago, so I do have an attachment to them. They are even cooler on the newer, compact bodies than on the K10d.

06-07-2015, 11:31 AM	#24
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440 Original Poster	The dilemma is outright IQ and small size 21 and/or 40 vs Flexibility and WR 20-40 ----------- Maybe the K-5iis + 21 is still a bit big for street work... need to have a think

06-07-2015, 11:37 AM	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Conqueror The dilemma is outright IQ and small size 21 and/or 40 vs Flexibility and WR 20-40 ----------- Maybe the K-5iis + 21 is still a bit big for street work... need to have a think If you don't have an 18-135, 16-85, 17-70 type lens to cover the range, I'd say go for the zoom. It might be all you need in that range.

06-07-2015, 11:51 AM	#26
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead If you don't have an 18-135, 16-85, 17-70 type lens to cover the range, I'd say go for the zoom. It might be all you need in that range. Yeah I weighed up the 18-135,16-85 and 16-50, 50-135 a while ago. I do crave the IQ of primes though and in general prefer to frame without using a zoom. I saw a deal and went for the 50-135mm for many reasons: -many claim it to be the best zoom in the system, and yeah its pretty incredible -doubles well as an event portrait/people lens -AW less than 50 I can currently use the 15/16/31 ~35 is my favourite focal length... so the 31 is glued to the camera the 20-40 + 50-135 combo is appealing... I don't want to sideline the 31 though!

06-07-2015, 12:55 PM	#27
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,132	Add a second body and a 21. Done. Now wasn't that easy?

06-07-2015, 05:16 PM	#28
longbow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NW Oregon Posts: 905	Originally posted by GeneV True, but with the primes, the camera will fit in a coat pocket or waist pack. It depends upon which is more important to you. Agreed !! ---------- Post added 06-07-15 at 05:41 PM ---------- Originally posted by Conqueror the 20-40 + 50-135 combo is appealing... It is a good combo, wished I'd brought my 50-135 today - wildlife everywhere. Only had the 16-85 instead, needed more reach.....stalking closer don't always work out well

06-07-2015, 06:07 PM	#29
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Don't post that in the 16-85 vs 18-135 thread. They'll dump doo doo on you. They don't need no stinking 135mm reach.

06-07-2015, 07:19 PM	#30
longbow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NW Oregon Posts: 905	Originally posted by normhead Don't post that in the 16-85 vs 18-135 thread. They'll dump doo doo on you. They don't need no stinking 135mm reach. hey, I like my 16-85, most days it more than enough, definitely a little puny today.....starting to feel I need 60-250