[pathdoc]

one to rule them all 18-135 and take a slight hit in IQ

And speed. 16-50 = f/2.8 all the way; 18-135 starts at 3.5, which IMO is not significantly worse, but it's down to 5.6 at the long end. My only first-hand experience of the UK is in summer, where an f/5.6 lens outdoors in daylight (which in Scotland was something like 4am to a bit after 10pm) would not be too much of a handicap. Ditto in Australia, where I grew up and where even the winter days can be not too dull and not as short as in many parts of the UK.

Right now I'm living in Canada, and when I take the 18-135 out to play it's either in broad daylight or (now) with powerful flash/built in assist-light backup - the latter a forced necessity based on field experience.

Consider your entire SYSTEM and how it might evolve, not just the lenses and camera body.

[skierd]

I started with the 21+40+50-135 combo, then I tried to shoot a wedding with it. The 40 is/was on my film body (ZX-7) so I was switching back and forth between the 21 and the 50-135 for the reception. I loved the weight and speed of the 21, but I kept wishing it could turn in to the 40 when I wanted a quick headshot without being completely in my subject's face. I sold the 21 to fund the 20-40 and it worked a lot better at the next wedding reception. The 50-135 is still the workhorse however, and I'll never sell the 40.

It's tough though, I liked what I got from the 21 and some of my all-time favorite shots came from it, but I feel more comfortable with the 20-40 because it allowed me to step back whereas I was forced to confront and combat my subjects at close range with the 21. The 21mm is probably the better lens because it forces that confrontation whereas the 20-40 allows a safe retreat for the photog and subject both, but that's an argument for another day. A comfortable photographer is a lazy photographer after all... A "better" prime solution might have been carrying a pair of bodies, one with the 21 and one with the 40, but that still doesn't solve the WR problem unfortunately. I really really wish it was a constant f2.8, and it might be what bumps it out of my bag in favor of a DA*16-50.

HD20-40, DA*55, and DA*50-135 for an all around all-weather portrait set...? The 60-250 is great too though, but heavy.

I

I might say, too, that now I own both the DA21/3.2 and the DA40/2.8, I finally understand what the designers of the 20-40 Limited Zoom were trying to achieve. But because of that, I also don't need it. My bias is towards primes anyway, and I can't justify a WR zoom with a range already covered (and then some) by another WR zoom. Skierd's combination above is an interesting one, though, and another possibility for the zoom-centred photographer who doesn't mind a few gaps would be the 20-40 plus the HD/WR variant of the 55-300 (or even the 60-250, for those who have the money and/or feel they need the constant f/4 and the extra IQ that comes with the price).



* On the principle/rule of thumb "feet before glass before post-processing", while recognising that this is a sometimes-unachievable ideal.

---------- Post added 28-12-15 at 11:39 ----------



Another possible question, which I've covered and which others might want to, would be "If price was not an issue, what made you select one over another?" However, when considering this question, we have to bear in mind that everyone's reasons are VALID FOR THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, and it shouldn't degenerate into an argument over whose reasons are objectively right.

Also to remember that for some of us, price IS an issue, whether from necessity or choice, and anyone who catches themselves thinking "You should dump that piece of garbage and get a Limited/Star lens" needs to work on their empathy. By all means sing the praises of "top-class" glass, but remember that not all of us can have it.

[pathdoc]

I'm as sure as God made little green apples that Pentax asked themselves what the 20-40 would have looked like at constant f/2.8 at some stage in the design process. It would be interesting to see those studies.

I would like to see what the basic outline of a 15-40mm f/4.0 Limited would look like.

[bertwert]

Do I get a 16-50 to match or a 20-40 because its small/light/discreet

If you have the money, get the 16-50, from reviews/reports it's quite a bit better. But I've never owned either lens.

I would like to see what the basic outline of a 15-40mm f/4.0 Limited would look like.

WR as well?

[savoche]

I would honestly prefer to get an 18-135 instead of both 18-55 and 50-200. Just because. But the 18-135 kit was 100 more than th 18-55 and 50-200 kit. Also somehow I got a DA 18-55 instead DA-L...

I had the 18-55 and 50-200 but got the 18-135 as a replacement. Part of the reason was to get better quality (and I did), but mainly it was to avoid having to change lenses if I actually needed WR.

Wouldn't mind changing my 55-300 for a WR version, but I rarely have need of a tele lens when the weather is bad. After all, bad weather usually means bad visibility.

[BigMackCam]

I'm as sure as God made little green apples that Pentax asked themselves what the 20-40 would have looked like at constant f/2.8 at some stage in the design process. It would be interesting to see those studies.

I would like to see what the basic outline of a 15-40mm f/4.0 Limited would look like.

And I would love that 20-40 WR to become an 18-50 f/2.8 with WR

[skierd]

They made that, effectively and more so, with the DA*16-50.

[pathdoc]

WR as well?

I was mostly talking about size and weight parameters, but why not? At the very least, a gasket seal at the lens-body interface.

I'm strongly in favour of screwdrive for the Limiteds, but given that zooms have to allow a substantial volume for the lens elements to move, that arguably leaves you with room to fit in an internal motor and helicoid links at no extra penalty.

[BigMackCam]

They made that, effectively and more so, with the DA*16-50.

Yes... and no... They went with SDM rather than DC for the AF drive... plus, I personally much prefer the mechanical feel and aesthetic design of the 20-40 (not saying it's better - I just prefer it). I'll be honest, the numerous reports of SDM failure have steered me away from the 16-50, which is a shame. I came close to buying one recently after my second copy of the 16-85 had issues, but ended up going for the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 instead. Time will tell whether that was a wise choice or not, but so far I like it.

[Dice]

probably re-treading lots of old ground here, but what the heck


possible questions include...

do you carry 2 WR/AW zooms? where do you take them? why? which ones? etc


Why ask these Qs?
We seem to have a lot of choice with the 16-50, 16-85, 18-135, 20-40, 24-70, 50-135, 55-300, 60-250 now
as well as the 18-55,18-50RE,50-200

I carry the 20-40 and 50-135...though the 20-40 is mostly glued on the camera. Just took them to Yellowstone in -15F and heavy snow. I love the size, build, and image quality from both. They make a good combo for most everything I tend to shoot. I thought I might miss my DA15 which I sold to partially fund the 20-40 but I don't. If Pentax created a smallish Limited WR/AW wide angle zoom I might be game. I've considered selling the 50-135 and DA*300 to partially fund the WR 150-450 to cover a longer range....but the size and weight are reasons I haven't pulled the trigger.