[microlight]

The 20-40 is my One Amigo. (Boohoo only one friend... ) 😂😜

[Fenwoodian]

The HD DA 20-40 may qualify here; it’s still pretty new to me but I really like the results so far. Very similar look to the 15 Ltd photos.

.

I did some informal comparisons between the 20-40 and the Pentax 31mm lens a couple of years ago (with the zoom at 31mm of course). I felt that this zoom was "very close" in overall IQ to the prime. However, if you're a pixel peeper you might find the prime to be a tiny bit better.

[Rondec]

I'm not always sure what people mean by "pixie dust." I shoot a lot with zooms and the only zooms that seem to hit close to prime quality in terms of contrast, sharpness, and in focus to out of focus transitions are the DFA *70-200 and the DA *50-135. The rest are decent, but not at that level. Of course, none of the zooms is particularly flare resistant and they are all pretty large, so there is that.

[pentaxus]

When it was new, I made test photos with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 and compared it to the equivalent Nikkor. There was no comparison. The FA*80-200 is an amazing lens.

[BigMackCam]

I'm not always sure what people mean by "pixie dust.".

That's the problem - it means different things to different folks, and even when you find two who agree on the same definition, their preferences and - hence - assessment will likely differ. It's highly subjective.

I tend not to use the term, but if I were pushed to define it, a lens with "pixie dust" for me is one that frequently produces images that make me sit up and take notice in a positive way. In my case, I believe it's often a combination of distinctive rendering with overall and local contrast that results in real clarity of subjects and scenes. But, sometimes, it can be an isolated property, such as out of focus rendering.

The only zoom lens I've used that comes close to qualifying - based on my definition - is the DA*60-250... but, on balance, I'd merely say that its rendering and optical performance are very impressive. I'd stop short of claiming any more than that...

[Rondec]

That's the problem - it means different things to different folks, and even when you find two who agree on the same definition, their preferences and - hence - assessment will likely differ. It's highly subjective.

I tend not to use the term, but if I were pushed to define it, a lens with "pixie dust" for me is one that frequently produces images that make me sit up and take notice in a positive way. In my case, I believe it's often a combination of distinctive rendering with overall and local contrast that results in real clarity of subjects and scenes. But, sometimes, it can be an isolated property, such as out of focus rendering.

The only zoom lens I've used that comes close to qualifying - based on my definition - is the DA*60-250... but, on balance, I'd merely say that its rendering and optical performance are very impressive. I'd stop short of claiming any more than that...

I agree. I think it is about micro contrast and transitions -- in focus to out of focus -- within the image. The FA limiteds shine in this respect, particularly the FA 77. Few zooms I have used are at a similar level, even though they may be very nice. To me, modern zooms are sharp, contrasty and have very even performance, which is probably adequate. I'm just not sure if that is the same thing as pixie dust.

[Gianclaudio]

As many have said before, both 20-40 and 50-135 have abundant pixie dust. They're so good at rendering, I sold my 35 ltd, 70 ltd and nifty fities.
Just when I got some Zeiss lenses I felt the difference was justified enought to warrant using a fixed focal lenght and not just pack my two zooms and call it a day.

[c.a.m]

I truly believe that my DA* 50-135 f/2.8 and HD Pentax-DA 20-40 f/2.8-4 Limited went for a hike together.

As they were strolling along a fragrant country meadow, the skies suddenly opened, beams of light shone down, and mystical voices began to chant. Then, without warning, clouds of tiny particles rained down, shimmering in the golden sunrays and forming magical multi-dimensional reflections.

Being the heavier lens, the 50-135 was not able to move into shelter quickly enough, and was doused fully. The smaller Limited also tried to dodge the shower, but caught some of the mist.

The 50-135 shook itself vigorously to shed the unknown powder, but to no avail. The Limited was spared getting drenched completely, but emerged feeling not quite the same.

From what I can see, my DA* 50-135 still carries that thick pixie dust to this day, while my 20-40 shows hints of that fateful stroll.



- Craig

[Aaron28]

i really enjoy what i am getting out of a new to me Tamron 70-200/f2.8......not sure if it qualifies for this 'pixie dust' but it ain't anything to sneeze at

[FreeSpirit9]

I am very happy with the Sigma 18-35.

[mikesbike]

I'm not sure about defining the terminology used here, but I do know from experience, the results I get from my KP when using the DA 20-40mm LTD and DA* 50-135mm combo have been exceptionally impressive. The DA 15mm LTD is also along to complete a trio of compact excellence.

But if I need more consistent aperture speed, when using my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of the 20-40mm LTD, I have no complaints regarding quality, but the gain in aperture and zoom range is also a gain in weight and bulk.

[Kozlok]

Second the 18-35 Sigma. When it focuses, it's amazing. When it doesn't, it's frustrating

[DWS1]

To me, the D FA 28-105mm on an ASP-C body is just outstanding. The details and colors just really pop out at you.

[Gary H Perth]

My rough definition of a zoom with pixie dust, in relation to my K-70:
1. It must be close in image quality to the DA Limited lenses
2. It must be easy to handle to get great pictures
3. It must be lens that you want to have on your camera or in your bag all the time.

I have a range of zooms that meet the first two criteria, like the DA trio of 10-17mm, 16-85mm and 55-300mm PLM. They are all great at producing high quality images, but only the 10-17mm feels fun to play with.

The three lenses that meet all three criteria are: Pentax F 35-70mm, Sigma EX DC10-20mm (the older one) and the Sigma EX DG 24-60mm f2.8. They miss out on going everywhere only if space and weight are factors in the decision.

I also have one vintage model that just feels magic: the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm. It meets 1 and 3 (especially 1, even in close focus and at infinity), but is very heavy and unbalanced on the K-70.

After further thought, the other vintage lens that feels magic is the Pentax-M 80-200mm with the sliding lens hood, but I tend to leave it behind in favour of the 55-300mm PLM.

[pid]

there are not many zooms with something like pixiedust, but the old SMC Pentax-M 35-70mm F2.8-3.5 has a beutifull and outstanding rendering.