[ramseybuckeye]

I just repurchased a 21..... best everyday apsc limited I reckon.

I find the 21 a everyday lens and the 15 a specialty lens.... as the focal lengths (FF equiv) have always been.

I have the 15, but not the 21, I have a 20-40 zoom. I would totally agree that the 15 is a specialty lens, and it is special. The 21 area or the 20-40 is very useful, I use it a lot.

I am thinking of getting a 70 too. I just let my 100wr go and want to replace it with DA70 because of its size and weight. I hope I make the right decision. [fingers crossed]

21 or 70 for street?
I mostly do night urban street photography and 21 is one of my most used lenses.. As for you it very much depends on where you shoot and your shooting style. I used to have FA35, F28 and still have K28 f3.5. I hardly use them for what I like to do. I am on K3, by the way.
In an Urban setting on my street: 28, 35 mm are not long enough when I want to stay in a distance. 50-55 is perfect for that.

So if your street is similar to my street, and your style is similar to my style, I would go with 21 then 70 later.
If I have 16-45, 24, 30, 35 like your, I would only keep the 35 and/or whatever have an aperture ring for time-lap photography, then get either 20-40 wr + 70 or 21 + 70.
My 0.2$

These posts had some interesting ideas, which I think brings some great insight. I have read many times over the years that 21 is the perfect street length. Pak has enough experience that he knows his favorite for his own style, but also wants to try something new. I think that is the case with a lot of us, we may be pretty content with what we have, but wonder what this other lens can do for us. Right now I'm pretty happy with the gear I have, but still would like more. And as you have said you had the 21 before, but maybe it was not the right time. Several years ago I bought the macro 100 WR, it was a fantastic lens, but I never used it enough and therefore sold it. A few years later I ended up with an old manual focus Sigma 50 macro and used it a lot more. I still have the Sigma, but ended up with a Tamron 90 macro I could not pass up. Anyway, I'm more ready for the macro now than I was back then. Maybe that's a similar thing with you and the 21.

I lusted after a 21 for a long time, and the a trip to London in October came up, looking at London weather , I decided to instead get the 20-40 Ltd since it is weather sealed. I don't lust after the 21 anymore, I love the 20-40. I still may get a 21 sometime when the right deal comes up at the right time. Anyway, I guess a first question is always, what do you want to do with the lens? To me the 70 looks like a great lens, but I don't really know what I would do with it, so maybe you have some ideas. Only you know that. I have bought a few lens that I didn't know what I would use them for, and generally don't use them often.

The great thing is that are choices, each lens is a tool, you don't have to use the tool for the same thing as others do, and there is not a subject out there that there is only one way to shoot it. Think of some of the famous photo spots that everyone shoots, 90% of people take the same shot, I would call it a record shot, part of the other 10% usually are the ones that are interesting.

Now that I've bored you and offered up no help whatsover, good luck with your choice.

Note: I've also been involved in a Coronavirus busted deal. The seller doesn't want to leave his house to ship. (I understand too, but I know I can buy the postage online, the Postal Carrier will pick it up on the porch, a postal scale was a great investment)

[northcoastgreg]

Pepperberry is right. A20 over DA21 every time (IMHO)

If you own a K-1, yes — and for obvious reasons. But on APS-C you're not going to see much difference, and the DA 21 has to be significantly less expensive. What are A 20's going for? $500?

If choosing between the DA 21 and DA 70, I'd take the DA 21 every time. I just find it a lot easier to shoot at the focal range. My basic rule for shooting primes: take focal lengths that you're comfortable shooting with, that you can spend a lot of time at. 70mm is a nice place to visit, but do you want to spend quality time there?

And don't sell the DA 21 short when it comes to image quality. What it gives up with so-called distortion (easily fixed in a good raw converter) it more than makes with contrast, color, and rendering of detail:

[Just1MoreDave]

I really like the DA70 for portraits because it's so sneaky. I also bought it to complement the other DA Limiteds, so I can carry just those 3 at times. I definitely use the DA 21 more. I like to use the DA 21 and hand strap like an old point and shoot. I'd vote for the DA21 first.

The other reason to hold off on a DA70 is if you always intended to get the FA77.

Edit: I also like the DA 16-45 but it doesn't do sunstars. The SMC DA 21 does. You have to accept the "green blob" as a tradeoff.

[caliscouser]

My immediate thought was replacing these:

DA 16-45
Tokina 24 2.8 (which I do like but the DA 21 would definitely be an improvement)
M 28 3.5
DA 35 Limited and 35 2.4

....with the DA 20-40.


IMHO the 20-40 at 21 is better than the DA 21 in pretty much every way except form factor.
I do like the DA 21, it is a killer walk around package with the KP or with a K-S1.
I think I prefer the DA 70 over the DA 21 if push came to shove. But unless you do a fair amount of portrait work the DA21 is probably going to get more use.


Hard to go wrong with any of the limited's.
If I had to go minimalist on APS-C it would be KP + 15, 20-40, 70 just because I enjoy shooting with these more than any other lenses.

[cooks333]

I had both the 21 and 70 paired w/ a K3 for several years before I took the plunge on my K1 last year. They're both fantastic and I don't think you'd regret going with either one. I found more uses for the 21, but the 70 is the lens I got most excited about using and produced a lot of my favorite shots. Hard to put my finger on it, but the texture/sharpness/contrast/tone combination it produces would sometimes just blow me away.

[Arjay Bee]

Interesting thought experiment, so I offer up my thoughts here as I followed a similar journey.
I had the 16-45 as my walk around since 2007 which while not very practical due to size and not particularly fast was nice and wide and very sharp and had a useful close focus range.

Over a few months in 2016 I purchased the DAs 40 and 70 SMC second hand and the 21 HD new. Also re purposed a cute little purse for them and made them my walk around set of three lenses, particularly when travelling. But not having the correct focal length at the correct occasion called for frequent lens changes so became tired of that over the next year or two.



While I agree with you about the sharpness of the 16-45 I eventually tired of the slightly too short tele range and of the CA and the odd distortion so started selling stuff off to obtain the 16-85 which I purchased used. And sold the 16-45. Also managed to get a Tamron 90 used so still have good medium distance macro when required. Takes up more space but i have a leather messenger bag and for the things i do the zooms just seem to work better.

So the three limiteds get little use due to the ease of use and quality of the 16-85. I also have the Sigma 8-16 and the 55-300 HD so these get a lot of use so it seems FOR MY USE the limiteds which are excellent lenses - just aren't a match. And as they don't have an aperture ring I cant use them on my MX. I have even started to ponder selling them on. They go everywhere with me cos in their little case they take up about the same space as a 85mm prime lens.

And what is odd is that when I bought them I could not understand why people I bought them from were selling them. Now I can understand a bit.

[bassek]

I have both the DA16-45 and the HD DA21. They are really different and both have their own justification.
Go for the non-HD DA21 if you want the starburst feature in night shots.
Bottom line: if you want affordable wide AF, the 21 is your choice.

Seb

[aslyfox]

HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes
Introduction

HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[3by2]

Well of course you want both. What I notice you're lacking is the smallest pancacke lens, the 40 Ltd, which really makes your camera almost pocketable and minimalist. Failing that, the 21mm is almost like that and is a fabulous walkaround lens as well.

[aslyfox]

. . . What I notice you're lacking is the smallest pancacke lens, the 40 Ltd, which really makes your camera almost pocketable and minimalist. . . . .

hmm.

II think you mean the 40mm F2.8 XS

Diam x Length 62.9 x 9.2 mm (2.5 x 0.36 in.)
Weight 52 g (1.8 oz.)
Production Years
2012 to present (in production)

Read more at: SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 XS Reviews - DA XS Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

rather than its " big brother "

Diam x Length 63 x 15 mm (2.5 x 0.6 in.)
Weight 89 g (3.2 oz.)
Production Years
2013 to present (in production)

Read more at: HD Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Jonathan Mac]

I've had both of those lenses for roughly the same amount of time and have 206 photos in my 21mm Flickr album and 170 photos in my 70mm album. I think I did get the 70mm first because I wanted a fast portrait lens more than I wanted a high quality wide angle prime - 21mm f/3.2 is far more closely covered by cheap zooms than 70mm f/2.4. I do remember though how nice it was to finally get a small, sharp wide angle prime and be able to leave the zooms at home. The DA 70mm though, as well as portraits, excels at everything else I've tried it at, especially landscapes.

The 21mm is overall a more useful lens because of it's field of view and the times when I've gone on holidays using primes rather than a zoom it gets far more use than the 70mm, but I wouldn't have wanted to be without either.

I'd say they both have equal amounts of Limited pixie dust and I really don't know which one you'd get the most use or enjoyment from. I'm sure you end up getting both so it's a question of when. Logically, you have the 21mm better covered by your existing lenses than the 70mm, same as me.

[pepperberry farm]

If you own a K-1, yes — and for obvious reasons. But on APS-C you're not going to see much difference, and the DA 21 has to be significantly less expensive. What are A 20's going for? $500?

If choosing between the DA 21 and DA 70, I'd take the DA 21 every time. I just find it a lot easier to shoot at the focal range. My basic rule for shooting primes: take focal lengths that you're comfortable shooting with, that you can spend a lot of time at. 70mm is a nice place to visit, but do you want to spend quality time there?

And don't sell the DA 21 short when it comes to image quality. What it gives up with so-called distortion (easily fixed in a good raw converter) it more than makes with contrast, color, and rendering of detail:

if you watch/have patience, you can find A20/2.8's for considerably less - but I understand the point...

we have huge, open skies and complementary fields for sunrises and sunsets here and the A20/2.8 kills the DA21 in color saturation and clarity...... but I have to submit, the DA21 is considerably cheaper and and a tidier package to carry around....

[BigMackCam]

The DA21 and DA70 are fabulous lenses, so whichever one you choose, you're going to have a blast with it.

I find I make much more use of the DA21. After my favourite Sigma 30/1.4 Art (which I know you also like), it's my next favourite prime lens for APS-C. The field of view is versatile (more so than with the 70mm, for my own photography), and the rendering's lovely - it actually bares more than a passing resemblance to the Sigma in the way it performs, how centre performance strongly leads the borders, etc. It demonstrates some optical "limitations" that are forgiveable for a compact pancake lens - and I say "limitations" in quotes, because IMHO they contribute to the pleasing rendering.

[bdery]

DA 21 Limited - it's easy to find it under 200 dollars these days (SMC), or the HD version

I think the 21 is more versatile, the 70 is more of a specialized use. Oortraits and such. I use the 77 myself and love it, but it's not my most-used lens.

That being said, do get the SMC version of the 21. It's one of the two best lenses on the Pentax lineup for creating starbursts. I can dig up examples if you wish help to be convinced. I'm still looking for a FF lens capable of coming close to the 21 for this.

Before I even start - I know the answer to my question is "only you can know the answer"... but I know the fine folks in this forum can think of things from a point of view that I might not be seeing. So I'll explain what I'm trying to decide...

I'm about to ship some lenses once I get out of the house (long story, I'm not sick but was a bit sick last week so I'm basically quarantine-ing myself).

So I am in a position to soon be able to spend a couple hundred dollars and changeon a new lens... and I keep telling myself that my next lens has to be the DA 21 Limited - it's easy to find it under 200 dollars these days (SMC), or the HD version can be sometimes found used in the mid-200 dollars.

That's what I thought a couple of months ago too, when I also sold some things and had some cash... and a DA 35 Limited appeared in great condition for 179 dollars shipped and I jumped on the "best lens ever" instead of the DA 21

I don't know if I'd use the 21 that much. While I think that carrying the small wide pancake on the K-S1 would be the ultimate little street and walkaround setup, the fact is that my DA 16-45mm does such a great job, and f/4 is not that different from f/3.2. The 16-45 certainly does not lack sharpness with my 20MP sensor, even wide open (though contrast, microcontrast and color saturation improve as you stop down - they're not bad to start with).

I think I'll like the DA 21 this time around... I had it for about a couple weeks some 5 years ago but that trade ended up reversed... and I missed the DA 16-45 that I had traded for it (plus cash). This time I'm keeping the 16-45...

...but I just love the pictures of the DA 70. So am I going to end up with that instead? I don't really need the 70 either, my 50/55mm lenses are probably close enough, and my M 100 2.8 takes gorgeous pictures. Either lens would be a treat.

So considering I have...

DA 16-45
Tokina 24 2.8 (which I do like but the DA 21 would definitely be an improvement)
M 28 3.5
Sigma 30 1.4
DA 35 Limited and 35 2.4
several 50s including K 50 1.2 and K 55 f2
M 100 2.8
Takumar Bayonet 135 2.8
M 200 f4
SMC-A 70-210mm f4
Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 LD DI

...among others, what would you do?

As a treat to yourself I would not buy a limited 21 or 70. You only will get disappointed. I do not think that the price of a limited is in accordance with what they deliver. You have a lot of lenses and even some outstanding ones. Although it is not a limited you have the 35mm F2.4. One of the best lenses there is at a reasonable price. Alright, the build quality of the limiteds is very good, the 35mm mentioned is "plastic", but it only shows you that it is not about the build quality, but about the glass used in manufacturing the lens. I own a 40mm SMC limited and it is one of the worst lenses I own (read the Pentaxforum review, it gets a 5 for sharpness and a 10 for buildquality "https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/da-35mm-40mm-limited-xs-shootout/conclusion-da-40mm-f28-li.html" and an overall conclusion of "very good". It looks lovely on my K-01 and better looks than the 40mm XS. I also ordered a 21mm limited and I had it returned to the seller. It is the only lens, no matter what F I used, that did not give a good picture, it is not about sharpness but about an overall view you get. All my other lenses do, even the standard 18-55 Mark II gives better results. The 40mm limited sometimes gives an outstanding picture if the circumstances are perfect. But circumstances are not always perfect. Other lenses are a lot easier to use. To treat my self I bought a little while ago the plastic fantastic combo 35mm and 50mm. My K-01 is now a happy camera. It loves primes and it shows it in its pictures.
But a special treat might be the F 28mm F2.8. Or the 20-40mm Limited, It gives you great results, it looks fabulous on a camera because of the "old fashioned" design (I bought this one quite cheap for a new lens). Or you could fill in the gap between 50mm and 70 mm and buy a fabulous HD 16-85, which fills most gaps between 45 and 100.