Originally posted by Des That's sound reasoning, if I may say so, but there seems to me a world of difference between a lens that covers 20-40mm and weighs 283g and a lens that covers 16-85mm and weighs 488g. Like the OP, the potential attraction of the 20-40 for me would be as a prime-substitute, not as a walkaround-zoom substitute.
Exactly how I feel about comparing the Limited zoom to the DA 16-85. As a walk around zoom my choice is the 16-85 especially for its range. for compactness. I have the SMC limited primes and I would not give them up for another zoom, especially considering the starbursts I get with the 15 and 21 versions.