Originally posted by AfterPentax 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.
In a less charitable moment, I might have thought this was trolling
At the very least, it's markedly different from the view most owners have - and when there's an outlying opinion such as this, so far outside that of the majority, we have to question why.
Originally posted by AfterPentax 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.
Interestingly, the DA35 f/2.4 has an almost equal number of fans and detractors here on the forums. I really like it - it used to be one of my favourites, in fact. I'm not sure I'd call it one of the best lenses there is, though. But, then, these things are highly subjective, aren't they?
Originally posted by AfterPentax 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".
And here we get into the real "meat and potatoes" of the matter. I own the HD DA40 Limited, and whilst it's not my favourite of the DA Limiteds, I consider it to be a very good pancake lens - and I have some pretty nice glass across two different platforms. Mine is sharp at all apertures, but especially good from f/4. Look at the rest of the reviews, and you'll see most folks think it's great. So I have to wonder why yours isn't. Do you have an example photo or two that you could post, complete with EXIF data?
Originally posted by AfterPentax 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.
You clearly had a bad copy of the DA21, pure and simple - especially if your 18-55 MkII gives better results. I sold my 18-55 MkII some time ago - it's a decent-enough kit lens, for sure, but doesn't come close to any of the DA Limiteds at the same focal lengths, assuming the lenses tested are performing correctly. The only time my DA21 does not "give a good picture" is if I screw up as the photographer. Seriously, it's one of my favourite lenses.
To demonstrate what I mean, as well as providing a quick example of rendering for the OP, how about a photo of a cat?
I took this just now with my K-3, because I had to convince myself I wasn't imagining how nicely the DA21 renders. We all know that a good cat photo proves whether a lens is decent or not
Well, this photo isn't very good, but it has a cat in it, and it serves a purpose
The second image is a 100% crop from the original. A few things I'd draw attention to that I find pleasing... Firstly, sharpness - look at the definition of the eye's iris slit, and the small hairs directly below the eye that are on the focal plane. This was shot wide open. It gets sharper between f/4 - 5.6. Secondly, note the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus on the fur - whilst not buttery smooth as with some lenses, the transition is never busy. Lastly, out of focus rendering - the leaves outside the window.
Again, I have to wonder, since the DA40 and 21 Limited are so popular amongst most of us (some of whom - unlike me - are very accomplished and demanding photographers), why you're not getting the results you should be from yours. Or is it simply a personal taste thing?