[Des]

I hesitated to say clinical but yes that was my thought also about the DA 35 f/2.4 - interestingly I don't feel that way about the FA 35 f/2. I fully admit it could be ME - or something specific to the lens. I don't always find images others make with that lens clinical but I often do. Double blind comparisons would help.

Yes when I got the 35 I thought, 'wow it's so sharp'. But now I want more than just sharpness. And I hate the fact that it has no hood - can't bother with screwing one in - and the tinny sound it makes. My second-least-used lens is the FA 50 f2.8 macro which is even sharper, but it's rather heavy. Probably a prejudice in each case. ;-)

EDIT: BTW - you seem to have missed focus on the shot with the bear toys... LOL.

Ha! Of course I was trying to show the bokeh, but it's interesting because I think it also shows the field curvature. I was trying to focus on the eye of the koala on the left (I missed the focus slightly - my mistake), but the paw of the koala on the right is also in focus and it's not on the same plane but a bit closer. Come to think of it, field curvature might also explain why I missed the focus on the koala on the left - I used centre spot focus and recomposed.

---

Last edited by Des; 02-28-2019 at 04:11 PM.

[3by2]

I've also got the 20-40 and the DA 35 f2.4. I've got the FA 43 Ltd too, plus two zooms that cover that focal range (DA 12-24, DA 18-135). When I first got the 20-40 I did a side-by-side comparison with the 35. (I haven't kept the test shots.) The 35 had a little more centre sharpness and a good deal more corner sharpness than the 20-40. Some of the difference was probably due to field curvature in the 20-40, which is quite marked. And the 35 is very very sharp - it even compares with my FA 50 f2.8 macro and DFA 100 f2.8 macro. The 35 has much more edge and corner resolution than the 18-135 - visible without pixel peeping.

But numbers aren't everything. Like UV I don't really warm to the 35. It's partly the focal length (I use the 20-40 most often at the ends rather than the middle and it is good at both ends) and partly the 35 just seems a little ... clinical (?). That's just purely a matter of taste. The charm of the 20-40 is similar to the charm of the DA 15 Ltd which I got recently: very good contrast and punchy colours give images a lot of vitality. The bokeh is very pleasant too. The question is whether you accept the compromises.

DA 20-40 Ltd
20mm f2.8


20mm f8






23mm


34mm f7.1


40mm f4


40mm f8



If you are interested in the natural world, I'd strongly recommend something wide and something long for visiting Australia. Much as I love it, the 100 is not long enough to be your only telephoto. You might have to overcome your aversion to zooms and at least get the 55-300 PLM. 15, 20-40 (or 35 if you prefer it) and 55-300 would be a good compact kit, although you would have to accept that even 15 might not be wide enough on occasions. An alternative would be 16-85, 55-300 and a normal-ish prime of your choice (a 40 or nifty fifity maybe?) for low light, portraits and images for stitching - but if you found the 18-135 too bulky the 16-85 would be more so. Dust and sand are often an issue in Australia so don't bank on making constant lens changes.

Again that's very useful and seems to confirm what I was thinking looked like the difference between what each lens was capable of. I do agree that, contrast and colour are just as important and can see exactly what people mean about the 35 being clinical. I think I am coming around to thinking that any compromise would be small and well worth it for the gains in flexibility, wr, overall quality and little things like the quick focus correction, noise and the lens keeping it's focus through the zoom.

Interesting what you say about Australia. Long and wide. I've never been much of a landscape photographer though, in fact it's up for debate whether I'm much of a photographer but it keeps me happy, so....

[Des]

Interesting what you say about Australia. Long and wide. I've never been much of a landscape photographer though

There are times when you can get close enough to wildlife with the 100:




But you'd definitely miss a lot of potential wildlife shots without the reach. ("Are you sure these are from Australia - where are the kangaroos?").

As for the wide lens, well I suppose it depends on your style of photography, but wide shots (especially with a strong foreground subject and a large background) do give a sense of the space and grandeur











(These are with the DA 12-24 at wider than 20.)

I'm getting away from your original question, but it is relevant to planning your overall kit I think.

[3by2]

This thread has been really useful and I think if I can find one the right price I'll get it. Equally, if I end up with the current lenses plus a wide then I won't be unhappy, I'll just see what comes up for what price, at least I'll rest easy putting in an offer on a 20-40, which I wasn't sure of before.

I'm getting away from your original question, but it is relevant to planning your overall kit I think

It is but it's an interesting subject, which I've thought about many times. It was mistakenly flogging a FA100mm which focused my mind, turned out to be a boon as D-FA is smaller and lighter but rectifying that mistake cost me. Basically if my kit doesn't fit into one of these two bags which go around my hip on a CCS strap, it's unlikely to come with me.

That grey bag is an old Karrimor RFA and when it dies I'll have no clue what to replace it with, everyone has gone to sling bags or bum packs or rucksacks. Ah well that's for a different thread or time.

---

Last edited by 3by2; 05-01-2019 at 02:26 PM.

[Jonathan Mac]

I was in the market for a better WR lens than the kit 18-55mm and the choice came down to the 20-40mm or the 16-85mm. Both cost about the same used but the 16-85mm is much more common, so I ended up getting that. I suspect that I'd like the limited more because I really like the DA limited primes, plus a huge zoom range isn't the most important thing to me, I'd rather have the very modest increase in max aperture of the limited. Having said that, the 16-85mm has performed very well in the use I've given it so far and I can't fault the optical quality at all. That could be another option for you but I imagine it's bigger and heavier than the limited zoom.

If WR isn't the most important thing for you and you like the DAL 35mm f/2.4 then you'll love the DA 35mm limited - it has better image quality (the best I've seen from any lens, ever), much better build quality, quick shift and macro capability.

[3by2]

I was in the market for a better WR lens than the kit 18-55mm and the choice came down to the 20-40mm or the 16-85mm. Both cost about the same used but the 16-85mm is much more common, so I ended up getting that. I suspect that I'd like the limited more because I really like the DA limited primes, plus a huge zoom range isn't the most important thing to me, I'd rather have the very modest increase in max aperture of the limited. Having said that, the 16-85mm has performed very well in the use I've given it so far and I can't fault the optical quality at all. That could be another option for you but I imagine it's bigger and heavier than the limited zoom.

If WR isn't the most important thing for you and you like the DAL 35mm f/2.4 then you'll love the DA 35mm limited - it has better image quality (the best I've seen from any lens, ever), much better build quality, quick shift and macro capability.

The 16-85 is a bit of a beast for a walkaround lens. I sent the 18-135 back for exactly that reason, well it was one of the reasons, too big and heavy.

I've thought for a while that if I've got a weatherproof camera I might as well get a wr lens too. Yesterday was a case in point, wet and misty, so I slammed the 100 wr on and went out looking for moody crows in the rain with not a care for the weather. The moody crows weren't playing but never mind, I'll get them next time.

[nocturnal]

I'm a DA 20-40 Limited fanatic, a landscape photographer and truly agree with several posters before. It is a true stack of Limited primes, HD coating means colours to die for and even does nice creamy bokeh with 3D pop due to the rounded blades.

I've written a similar post a 100 times and I just need a script to copy and paste it.

The 20-40 exactly matches the colour and rendering of my HD DA15 Limited giving my landscape images a uniformity. I use these two and the DA* 60-250 f4 as my complete goto landscape kit.

[3by2]

I didn't in the end buy the Da 20-40 or the 15 I mentioned in my opening post. It remains a possibility in the future but I picked up a 21mm for a good price and for the moment, that, the 35 and 100 macro will form the basis of a compact travel kit. I like the fact it's the same filter thread throughout, I don't like that only the 100 is a wr lens but I decided this was not such a priority. The 21 does mean I have a relatively slim camera setup if I want to carry the camera with me on light hiking and cycling tours, it will fit easily into a small bag. I may eventually replace the 35 now, I dunno, I'll use this combo for a good while and decide. I've also bought a Lowepro 300 aw photosport and a RAvpower file hub. I don't intend to take a laptop on holiday with me so shooting RAW + and using the file hub allows me to send any pictures via my phone for family and friends when out and about as well as backup sd cards to usb sticks. Thank you all for your input, it was very helpful.

[RGlasel]

An upcoming trip to Australia is what has focused my mind. My initial thoughts were a wide, a 'normal' and a telephoto. To that end I have the 35 and a d-fa 100mmm macro. I thought a 20 or a 15 would complete it and all be relatively compact, plus they are all the same filter size. Then the 20-40 came to my attention and the only real question left for me is the image quality and if it's good it would mean I would have a good two lens travel and walkabout kit, that would suit how I use a camera.

Forgive my abruptness, but everything before the part I emphasized is irrelevant. Using a zoom lens (even one with such a short focal length range) is completely different from using prime lenses. A prime lens gives the same perspective every time and forces you to look for views that suit the lens. A zoom lens lets you vary perspective to capture different types of images, as you see it in real time, but that extra vector of creativity comes at a cost; for equivalent value, the prime will/should offer a faster aperture and better flare resistance. Those two factors will let you take shots you can't/shouldn't take with a zoom. Even if you see the photograph in your head before you put your camera to your face, using a zoom instead of a prime lens is a different mindset, and the act of swapping lenses or turning the zoom ring will affect how you look for shots to take with your camera. It is permissible to use both zooms and primes, but shifting between them is like changing your clothes. I know this is isn't helpful advice, but there are no right or wrong choices here that suit everyone, regardless of how they use a camera.

[nocturnal]

Forgive my abruptness, but everything before the part I emphasized is irrelevant. Using a zoom lens (even one with such a short focal length range) is completely different from using prime lenses. A prime lens gives the same perspective every time and forces you to look for views that suit the lens. A zoom lens lets you vary perspective to capture different types of images, as you see it in real time, but that extra vector of creativity comes at a cost; for equivalent value, the prime will/should offer a faster aperture and better flare resistance. Those two factors will let you take shots you can't/shouldn't take with a zoom. Even if you see the photograph in your head before you put your camera to your face, using a zoom instead of a prime lens is a different mindset, and the act of swapping lenses or turning the zoom ring will affect how you look for shots to take with your camera. It is permissible to use both zooms and primes, but shifting between them is like changing your clothes. I know this is isn't helpful advice, but there are no right or wrong choices here that suit everyone, regardless of how they use a camera.

The 20-40 Limited has superb flare resistance, probably better than DA21 and faster at f2.8.

I had 7 different 28mm primes, a 24mm, several 35mm and the DA 40 Limited and when I bought the 20-40 I never used them again as it bettered all of them.

The 20mm end is starting to replace my HD DA15mm Limited and I now find myself now only using 2 lenses, the 20-40 and the DA* 60-250 f4. I find it nicer to use less equipment and just concentrate on the photography, took me 6 odd years to whittle it down to this mindset from starting, buying mostly primes, then had too much gear, choosing lenses for a trip stressed me out, changing primes in windy mountains too often caused the sensor to be covered in pollen, too much weight and bulk... never going there again. Modern zooms with HD coatings are superb!

[3by2]

So a year and a half on, after bidding and missing a few and convincing myself I didn't need one and in the meantime acquiring a 21 and a 40, I finally picked one up for a very good price on ebay. I'm about to head out and use it and then decide. It is quite large as the Ltd series go, so there's an argument for keeping the 21 and 40 as well, though I suspect one of them will go, probably the 40, it may turn into a 70 or a 15. Very, very nice lens though and the DC focusing motor is quite lovely.

Does the hood do anything besides hold the lens cap and offer a bit of space to the front element? I'm trying to decide whether to keep it or put it in the cupboard and fit a pinch cap as I've done with the 21 and 40.

[ThorSanchez]

So a year and a half on, after bidding and missing a few and convincing myself I didn't need one and in the meantime acquiring a 21 and a 40, I finally picked one up for a very good price on ebay. I'm about to head out and use it and then decide. It is quite large as the Ltd series go, so there's an argument for keeping the 21 and 40 as well, though I suspect one of them will go, probably the 40, it may turn into a 70 or a 15. Very, very nice lens though and the DC focusing motor is quite lovely.

Does the hood do anything besides hold the lens cap and offer a bit of space to the front element? I'm trying to decide whether to keep it or put it in the cupboard and fit a pinch cap as I've done with the 21 and 40.

So I did much the same thing. I dithered and thought for a very long time. Didn't know if I wanted the 20-40, the 18-135, the 16-85, or maybe something else. I picked up a 21mm limited early last year to compliment the 15 and 40. But then for my trip to Germany and Austria I rented the 20-40mm, and although I didn't immediately fall in love it produced some very nice pictures and came in very handy on a wet day in Füssen.



When we got home I continued to ponder and think, and then Pentax announced the eventual release of the new 21mm WR FF lens. But it's about as big as the 20-40, is just 21mm, and is built for full frame. At almost the same moment I found a very good deal on a used 20-40mm from the Lens Authority and just jumped. This is in the middle of COVID quarantine, and I haven't had a ton of great subjects to shoot, but I'm happy with the lens. I'll still use the limited primes quite a lot, as they're smaller and I like their rendering. But I do like the 20-40. But in terms of image quality... if I shoot it at 21mm or 40mm I don't know that I can be sure which lens I used.

[3by2]

So I did much the same thing. I dithered and thought for a very long time. Didn't know if I wanted the 20-40, the 18-135, the 16-85, or maybe something else. I picked up a 21mm limited early last year to compliment the 15 and 40. But then for my trip to Germany and Austria I rented the 20-40mm, and although I didn't immediately fall in love it produced some very nice pictures and came in very handy on a wet day in Füssen.



When we got home I continued to ponder and think, and then Pentax announced the eventual release of the new 21mm WR FF lens. But it's about as big as the 20-40, is just 21mm, and is built for full frame. At almost the same moment I found a very good deal on a used 20-40mm from the Lens Authority and just jumped. This is in the middle of COVID quarantine, and I haven't had a ton of great subjects to shoot, but I'm happy with the lens. I'll still use the limited primes quite a lot, as they're smaller and I like their rendering. But I do like the 20-40. But in terms of image quality... if I shoot it at 21mm or 40mm I don't know that I can be sure which lens I used.

I think I'll need to adapt as well. A few test shots I've taken don't show much difference between it and the DA 21 and 40, so I'll use it for a while and then decide what suits me. I don't need three lenses covering the same focal length.

[ThorSanchez]

I think I'll need to adapt as well. A few test shots I've taken don't show much difference between it and the DA 21 and 40, so I'll use it for a while and then decide what suits me. I don't need three lenses covering the same focal length.

They have their own uses. The 21mm and especially 40mm come out when small is nice ad WR isn't necessary. When it might rain the 20-40mm is the tool for the job.

What I really wanted was a WR version of the current 21mm, or even 28mm. Pentax decided to make a new WR 21mm, but it's as big as the 20-40 and will probably cost $1000.

[3by2]

They have their own uses. The 21mm and especially 40mm come out when small is nice ad WR isn't necessary. When it might rain the 20-40mm is the tool for the job.

What I really wanted was a WR version of the current 21mm, or even 28mm. Pentax decided to make a new WR 21mm, but it's as big as the 20-40 and will probably cost $1000.

Yeah you're probably right about them serving a different purpose. After some quick test shots the weaker end of the 20-40 seems to be the 40 end but weak is relative here, so if anything I'd probably keep the 40 but......


The push on cap keeps coming off taking it in and out of my bag so I have ordered a pinch cap for it and the hood will probably live separately in my bag for the moments I need it.