[Gary H Perth]

One thing has not been mentioned...

If there was a FF version of the 20-40 with the same general specs (focal length, aperture, WR) it would probably become many K-1 user's main lens, and be the envy of many users of other systems.

I know it would be MY main lens, for sure.

Did you mean a focal length of 20mm to 40mm on FF (not too far from the Pentax M 24-35 and the FA 20-35mm) or a translated equivalent like 30-60mm. Either way I agree with you, although my style would also require a longer reach in a Limited, say 70-150mm (Ricoh could redesign the DA50-135mm into a Limited package??)

I remember that in my film days I could not afford these wide-to-normal zooms in the top-line brands, but I had a Tokina 25-50mm f4 (could not afford the Tokina 19-35mm) and there was an equivalent Tamron SP 24-48mm. If I could have had this FL range in fastish WR I would have been delighted. I always thought that the 28-80s were not really wide enough, hence I usually carried the 25-50mm Tokina (slower and wider) and a second-hand Tamron SP 35-80mm (faster and longer).

[bdery]

Did you mean a focal length of 20mm to 40mm on FF (not too far from the Pentax M 24-35 and the FA 20-35mm)

Correct.

We have the 15-30 and 24-70 F2.8 lenses on one hand, and also the 28-105 on the other. the latter lacks a compact, reliable wider companion.

I do own the FA 20-35 and it's a fine lens which I like a lot, however a modern, WR option would be wonderful. If it had the starbusts ability of the best wide angle Pentax lenses (DA15/21, FA43, F20-35 being not too shabby) it would be the perfect travel wide lens.

[tibbitts]

My only zoom is the 10-17 fisheye. I have an upcoming trip on a small-ish fishing boat, taking photos for a friend to help his guide service, and I would like a WR lens that will be useful at the close ranges on a boat, or even from a paddle board along side the boat. Camera is a K-3. Clearly the range of the 16-85 is more versatile but honestly good bokeh and rendering and that unquantifiable artistic flare is more important to me. My primes include a 15 HD, 35 2.4, various manual 50s and the fantastic plastic 50, 55 1.8 K, 77, 100 WR macro, and then a jump to the 300*.

To me the WR situation would only matter for either rain, or if you actually get sprayed with water on the boat. On most boats you don't get sprayed, but some you do. WR will survive light spray but my own experience is that it will not survive heavy spray.

The paddleboard is a completely different situation. I would enlist the help of a more stable platform or an actual waterproof camera or housing for the off-boat pictures, unless you are willing to sacrifice the camera and lens.

[Ex Finn.]

the 10-17 will have to suffice for the foreseeable future. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 is probably next.

Coworker had the 10- to something, very nice lens. He liked it a lot.

[Ex Finn.]

Mine is in the mail....

A sweet piece of gear, really good for landscapes and such.

Also works well if you want to make your girlfriends thighs look heavy...

[Perfessor5646]

A sweet piece of gear, really good for landscapes and such.

Also works well if you want to make your girlfriends thighs look heavy...

My silver 20-40 Ltd is on the way. I saw that Adorama had reduced the price of a used silver one from $709 to $459. I thought $709 for a demo lens was still way too high but $459 might be doable. Then I saw Adorama had a new silver one fulfilled by Amazon for $496 with free shipping. I have Visa card through Amazon that gives me 5% back on Amazon purchases and had already accumulated enough Amazon reward points that I could apply toward this purchase to get my final net price for the new one to less than the price of the used one and get 5% of that back, too.

Edit: Mine arrived and I’ve been putting it to significant use documenting indoor events Where the modest zoom range but f2.8-F4 is more useful than outdoors. I really love the way it renders images. I’ll probably still use the 16-85 for outdoor events where the longer reach is handy.