[Sir Nameless]

especially the SMC version.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the green one is better? That’s the version I have, and I’m quite happy with it.

[monochrome]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the green one is better? That’s the version I have, and I’m quite happy with it.

I have both versions. When I changed to the HD versions (I buy used lenses so there wasn’t a great deal of cost) I kept the SMC35/2.8. The SMC version appears cleaner to me and IMO while the HD coating does a creditable job reducing flare, it also somewhat mutes the colors and makes them ‘cooler’ by comparison to the SMC version.

[Sir Nameless]

Oh OK, that’s good to know. Thanks. I hadn’t heard about the muted colored thing before. Is that a trait shared by the HD versions in general?

[pres589]

If close focusing is really a requirement, and the DA 70 just has to be the lens to use, why not grab a good macro filter and keep it in your bag? I get liking not having to go for that kind of solution, but they're not a big deal to use, I think.

For me a lens in the 20mm to 30mm range, on a crop body, is so great for general carry. Not having a faster aperture makes it more challenging to obtain subject separation from the background. The Canon 24mm f2.8 pancake seems about perfect for this kind of thing. I'm not going to say it renders as nicely as the DA 21 but that's really more like what I'd want. It does have good flare resistance as shown in the shots shared previously in this thread.

This is all just my own opinion anyway. Lately I've been interested in getting an FA*24 so obviously I'm okay with giving up small & light for other features.

[monochrome]

Oh OK, that’s good to know. Thanks. I hadn’t heard about the muted colored thing before. Is that a trait shared by the HD versions in general?

It is my opinion. IIWY I’d spend some time in the lens clubs to decide what you think cover vs. taking one member’s word

[Rondec]

I would love to see them release all weather versions of the DA limiteds. I would also like to see them tweak the DA 40 and 70 to make them full frame compatible. I know there are folks who say they are already, but they have really weak corners on a K-1, even stopped down a bit. Otherwise, I think they are good the way they are. The point of them is ultimate sharpness, it is real world performance in small packages with excellent build quality.

[jddwoods]

Tweak the design to prevent wobble over time. All my limited wobble a fair bit and could be a bit more robust.

I wouldn't change any of them optically. For the size they are well judged. I'm annoyed with my da 15 but I realise I should just get another, non limited, lens. But there isn't a wide angle prime for pentax FF or apsc. I would consider FF if there was a good AF wide/uw prime.

After reading all of these posts and considering my own experiences with my limiteds ( 15, 21, 35, 70 SMC primes & HD 40 prime) I will add my thoughts:
1. I agree completely these lenses have a tendency to develop inner barrel wobble over time. This, even if they are handled carefully. On my limiteds it varies from slight on the 15 and 35 to significant on the 70. If Pentax/Ricoh can engineer lenses such as the DA 16-85 and 55-300 PLM with no inner barrel wobble, they should also be able to do this with the limiteds with their more robust metal construction and short extension metal inner barrels.
2. I would love to see these lenses made weather resistant. This could also help with the inner barrel wobble issues I and others have noted.
3. Finally, I agree that the 70 should have a closer focus ability, if it can be done without increasing the inner barrel wobble that seems to be an issue with this particular lens.
Aside from these, I very much like these lenses just the way they are right now. They could use some minor upgrades for sure but no significant overhaul of them.

[DeadJohn]

DA 15mm - Sharper in the corners at larger apertures.

As others have said, that's likely a major change and could result in a larger lens. The DA 15 is one of my favorite Pentax lenses.

[house]

The DA 21 never made a lot of sense to me; it's like a 35mm lens on full frame but it's not fast and the magic happens when it's stopped down a bit from an already relatively slow max aperture.

It's probably my most used lens*. The fov is great, feels very natural to me! The barrel distortion is probably the worst part of the da21 for my use. I use it primarily as a f8 and be there kind of lens.

*until I got the GRII

[clickclick]

All of the above within the current size, but none if they get bigger. A mm here or there is OK to get WR, but they are at a size/performance sweet spot. Wouldn't want to loose that.

[house]

I compared shots taken with my K-70 + DA15 to those taken with my Fuji X-T20 + 15-45 kit lens. Processed in Capture One, so no corrections apllied.

The Fuji 15-45 was sharper edge-to-edge than the DA15. That little Fuji lens wowed the good folks over at Lenstip with its performance at 15mm. It also offered a bit wider FOV than the DA15. But in every other way lens performance matters to me, the DA15 was better.

While I'm processing photos made with the DA15, I grumble at it's flaws, but when I go and look at the photos at a later date, I don't think about them at all.

That's interesting to hear about the Fuji considering price. To me the da15 is even worse looking back at old photos. The edge mush can be visible at web sizes. Knowing you'll never get to see the scene again and all you have is that flawed...

Love it for people, casual shots though

[BrianR]

I haven't tried the 14mm. No one seems to like its performance. Been wondering if they are wrong and seduced by the da15 looks.

It has some admirers in a dedicated lens club: Pentax DA14mm Club - PentaxForums.com

You mentioned a wobble on your limiteds, my da14 is a solid rock. I have no limiteds to compare it to, but I do know it is considerably larger and heavier.

[tokyoscape]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the green one is better? That’s the version I have, and I’m quite happy with it.

It depends on individual taste.
Another advantage to me as I shoot mostly at night in urban setting: it is the charming starburst of the SMC 15, 21, and 35. (I don't have the 35 yet and its smc version is on my next lense to buy list.)
Beside that the flare and out of focus blur are not bad at all from the 3 smc lenses.

[luftfluss]

That's interesting to hear about the Fuji considering price. To me the da15 is even worse looking back at old photos. The edge mush can be visible at web sizes. Knowing you'll never get to see the scene again and all you have is that flawed...

Love it for people, casual shots though

That Fuji lens is a marvel at the wide end. Here's Lenstip's findings: Fujifilm Fujinon XC 15-45 mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

WRT to the DA15, the copy I'm using is the most evenly sharp of the 3 I've owned, so there's definitely some variability out there. Also, my standards might be lower than yours.

Here's a 100% crop from the extreme lower-left corner:

[clackers]

Apparently weak Google-fu on my part has failed to find a Lensrentals Blog post regarding Fuji lens optical performance (other than general praise) so if you happen to have a link, I'd be appreciative.

Yes, LF, I looked and it turns out his bench can't do Fuji or Pentax. His comments were about Sony:

"We know that Sony ‘cooks the RAW’ at least a bit, doing some in-camera modifications to raw files. I don’t know exactly what or to what degree. They aren’t alone in this, it seems to be the wave of the future to do some in-camera correction for at least distortion. But it appears they are the only full-frame cameras to do in-camera RAW correction at this moment.
What that means, though, is that tests of just the lens without a camera body, like we’re doing here, may be quite a bit different than what comes out of the camera. For example, our tests of the FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA show a LOT more distortion than tests done on a camera body using Imatest or DxO optics; we show 4% distortion where most of the on-camera testing shows 1% or less. This probably means that the camera is processing the distortion out of the image. (It could also mean that the distortion is very different focused up close, where DxO and Imatest work, then at infinity, where the optical bench works.) Depending upon your point of view that may be good, bad, or make no difference to you at all.
The same thing may (or may not) apply to sharpening. If there’s a little sharpening going on in the raw image, then you may think “Roger you said that lens isn’t so sharp, but the RAW images look very sharp, and the report from this other site using Imatest says it’s very sharp, too”. To take it a step further, sharpening may be applied more to the corners and edges, or vignetting correction applied, or other stuff. (Again, I don’t know if it is or not.)
Because so many people struggle with this idea, I’ll repeat what I say over and over: I’m testing the lens alone. (You would not believe how many people ask what camera these tests are done on.) Other sites are testing the image that has been processed by the camera."

Of course, it did take research from Photography Life to discover Fuji do this with ISO:

Does Fuji Cheat with its Sensors?