[hjoseph7]

Why doesn't Pentax keep building lenses like these instead of these humongous monstrosities ?

[BullsOnParade81]

Which monstrosities are you referring to?

[Outis]

Why doesn't Pentax keep building lenses like these instead of these humongous monstrosities ?

Yes! I love that lens-- it's sharp, I love the styling, I love the small size and shape, and I almost never miss having a larger maximum aperture. It and the 15mm Limited are the main things that are keeping me from wanting a K-1. I wish they'd make more lenses like this for full-frame.

[jatrax]

Why doesn't Pentax keep building lenses like these instead of these humongous monstrosities ?

It is humongous monstrosities turn. I think small Limiteds will get a chance again but not until Ricoh has filled out the catalog with the big guns.

What lens are you looking for? Seems they have a good selection in the style if include all the DA Limiteds.

[lytrytyr]

Why doesn't Pentax keep building lenses like these instead of these humongous monstrosities ?

Just look back at the comments on the Limited Zoom when it first came out,
at the same time as the Sigma 18-35/1.8.

The gearheads were all over the Sigma,
and complained about the Limited's variable aperture, restricted range, and supposed lack of resolution.

I guess Pentax now feels it has to match the expectations of the "professional" wannabes with Canikon clones,
neglecting its USPs like the Limited lenses, 645, and the Q system.

FWIW, my travel/walkaround kit is now the 20-40 on a KS-2,
bracketed by two Q-7s, one with the 08 wide zoom, and one with the 06 telephoto zoom.

[seventhdr]

Yeah, but remember the DA 20-40 lens is only equivalent to a 30-60mm lens. Not that difficult to design. The 15-30 is a MUCH wider lens and constant f2.8 aperture.

Look at the size of the Sigma and recent Sony pro lenses. They are all big. People these days are expecting exceptional optical quality from newly designed lenses. That is why the mockup of the D FA 50 lens is so much larger that the previous FA 50 f1.4 lens.

If Pentax wants their pro full frame K-1 to be taken seriously they need pro optical quality lenses.

Regards

Chris

[Sandy Hancock]

By monstrosities do you mean the new full frame zooms? I beg to differ they are all fantastic lenses and essential for the K-1 gaining a foothold in the full frame landscape. The same applies to the up-coming 50/1.4 and 85/1.4

The DA20-40 is a little beauty to be sure. Other limiteds might come, but they are clearly not a priority at moment. There are plenty of other compact lenses around if you want other options.

[BigMackCam]

Why doesn't Pentax keep building lenses like these instead of these humongous monstrosities ?

The 20-40 is a variable aperture, limited zoom range lens for APS-C. That's why it can be so compact.

The Pentax APS-C lens line-up is already pretty extensive - hence they've been focusing on full-frame glass of late. The monstrosities I assume you're referring to - the 15-30 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 - are the Holy Trinity expected for every full-frame DSLR.

No manufacturer, Ricoh / Pentax included, makes lenses big and / or heavy for the sake of it. A fast, constant aperture zoom lens is always going to be bigger and heavier. You really can't get around that. And if Pentax didn't make such lenses, they wouldn't sell many K-1s.

[kh1234567890]

Why doesn't Pentax keep building lenses like these instead of these humongous monstrosities ?

Because all those full frame users would feel inadequate if they had something like the DA40 Ltd mounted on their K-1's ?

[acoufap]

The 20-40 is a variable aperture, limited zoom range lens for APS-C. That's why it can be so compact.

Such a compact FF lens would be possible - not f2.8 but f4. The only a bit slower SMC Pentax-FA 20-35mm F4 AL (245g, Filter Size 58mm) proves it. With DC or PLM motor and a slightly wider image circle and filter thread of ~62-67mm to get less vignetting and improve other IQ attributes it would surely be heavier. But even with 450g it would be a really great offer with less than half weight of the 15-30 and I guess a lot of people would be interested. I hope for a FF compatible 20-40 Ltd. (mkII) - but fear I'll wait forever. ;-) ... if we don't get this I hope for a DFA20.

[BigMackCam]

Such a compact FF lens would be possible - not f2.8 but f4. The only a bit slower SMC Pentax-FA 20-35mm F4 AL (245g, Filter Size 58mm) proves it. With DC or PLM motor and a slightly wider image circle and filter thread of ~62-67mm to get less vignetting it would surely be heavier. But even with 450g it would be a really great offer with less than half weight of the 15-30 and I guess a lot of people would be interested.

I agree, it's possible, but f/4 is f/4... not f/2.8 It may only be one stop slower, but that can matter a great deal depending on available light and creative control requirements. If we accept the compromise on any or all of (a) focal length range, (b) maximum aperture, (c) variable vs constant aperture, and (d) size of image circle (and, hence, sensor format coverage and/or edge vs centre performance), then it's certainly possible to design and build more compact lenses like the 20-40.

I get your point, though, and I'm sure you're right... there probably is a market for full-frame constant aperture f/4 zooms

[MadMathMind]

Just look back at the comments on the Limited Zoom when it first came out,
at the same time as the Sigma 18-35/1.8.

The gearheads were all over the Sigma,
and complained about the Limited's variable aperture, restricted range, and supposed lack of resolution.

I guess Pentax now feels it has to match the expectations of the "professional" wannabes with Canikon clones,
neglecting its USPs like the Limited lenses, 645, and the Q system.

It was also a matter of price. The Limited launched at a $1000 price point, $200 more than the Sigma. Given that the Limited is inferior in all other technical aspects aside from size, that seems like a bad deal to charge more for less. If the Limited had launched at $750, then it would have been a better discussion. Now, the Limited is available much more reasonably and it's a much more attractive lens as a result.

[lytrytyr]

Given that the Limited is inferior in all other technical aspects aside from size

Wow, that's a big and dubious "given," especially if you rate issues like flare as technical aspects,
and even more if you weight the technical aspects by the impact they have on actual photography.
But it does reinforce my point about the gearhead's reaction to the Limiteds,
which I suspect is part of what's driving the current Pentax philosophy.

[mikesbike]

These lenses having a FL of 20-35mm or 18-35mm are not equivalent for comparison. I know, I have a very fine old FF Tokina lens of such FL. On APS-C they are essentially still wide angle zooms, only getting to a normal FOV. The Pentax Limited zoom lens, though not having a very extensive zoom range, is still more versatile than these above mentioned, as it provides a wide angle to short tele range. I think it was a wise choice to go with the f/2.8-4 variable aperture rather than f/4 constant aperture, which may not have been any more compact. In having f/2.8 available at least at the wide end, there is a better option provided for low light conditions when needed. I have been enjoying the fine results I get with mine.

A less expensive alternative would be the very good-performing newer Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 having the letter "c" at the end of its name. It tested quite well, and has much more zoom range at less cost. Yet it is still not quite up to the optical performance of the Pentax Limited, is a larger, heavier lens, does not feature WR, and build quality is in another world with the Limited. For those not able to afford the Limited, and/or not needing WR, but still wanting the faster aperture and extended zoom range, this Sigma is worth a look.

[clackers]

Ah, Limiteds vs Star lenses. Pentax has big pro zooms covered at the moment, now the primes are needed.

We already have the Limiteds, and in this downsized market it does appear that resources can only get behind one at a time.

645 and Q owners also suffer from this prioritization.