[Parallax]

I have a K-5IIs and a K20D.
My lenses are:
DA 15 Ltd, DA 21 Ltd, 31 Ltd, DA 40 Ltd, and a Sigma 18-250 HSM OS.
I want a new lens. The Sigma 17-50 would be, for me, the most practical. For the pictures I take I am rarely in a situation where I can't get close enough so tele is not an issue and my 18-250 has it covered for the rare occasions that I need one and my 15 Ltd is wide enough for anything I need. So here's my dilemma:
The Sigma 17-50 and the Pentax 16-85 seem to me, for my purposes, ideal but I WANT the Pentax 20-40. The problem is that I have that entire range covered with my 21, 31, and 40.
Besides that, I'm afraid that if I get any of those three the 21,31,40 will never again see the light of day.

[pepperberry farm]

I've never bought a zoom with the idea that it would replace any of my primes; I buy a zoom for convenience....

mainly if I'm on holiday, on a day-trip, etc....

but my serious shots will always be with primes....

buy the 20-40mm Limited - if you don't like it, you'll be able to sell it on....

[luftfluss]

I had the 20-40 for a couple days; unfortunately I had to return it because of AF issues.

However, I found the rendering to be absolutely fantastic. Deep, saturated colors, transitions were smooth yet well-defined... pedestrian test images simply looked great. I have the DA 12-24, 17-70, all the HD DA Limiteds (except my 40, which is SMC) and I like all of 'em a bunch, but I'd put the 20-40 at the head of the class when it comes to the overall "look" it gives photos.

[Parallax]

The 20-40 is becoming more and more attractive.

I have a K-5IIs and a K20D.
My lenses are:
DA 15 Ltd, DA 21 Ltd, 31 Ltd, DA 40 Ltd, and a Sigma 18-250 HSM OS.
I want a new lens. The Sigma 17-50 would be, for me, the most practical. For the pictures I take I am rarely in a situation where I can't get close enough so tele is not an issue and my 18-250 has it covered for the rare occasions that I need one and my 15 Ltd is wide enough for anything I need. So here's my dilemma:
The Sigma 17-50 and the Pentax 16-85 seem to me, for my purposes, ideal but I WANT the Pentax 20-40. The problem is that I have that entire range covered with my 21, 31, and 40.
Besides that, I'm afraid that if I get any of those three the 21,31,40 will never again see the light of day.

Well, it should be either the 16-85 or the 20-40. The reason therefor is obvious: they are both WR. They will go well with your K-5IIs, because of the image quality. Both deliver better quality than the Sigma 17-50. I own those three lenses and the 17-50 mainly lives in its box. Because both Ricoh's are better. The 20-40 covers more than the range of your limiteds. It covers every mm between 20 and 40. So you have a 24, a 28 and a 35mm as well. Both 16-85 and 20-40 have another advantage: they have HD coating instead of SMC. It makes a small difference, but it might be visible. On the other hand, if you buy the 16-85 and you come to the conclusion that you really want to keep taking pictures with your ltd's than you did not spend whole lot of money on a lens you will not use. And of course there are the 20-40's looks. And it is a unique Limited too! If you can afford it, go for the 20-40. My second choice would be the 16-85, which is more affordable now the price has dropped somewhat.

[MJKoski]

35mm macro ltd it is. By far one of the sharpest crop lenses there is and it is a macro. It will not fail you when upgrading to next APS-C Pentax later. And on top of that, it looks good. Keep 15mm and 21mm while selling the rest.

But be aware that HD version of the limited lens has rounded aperture blades which produce dull sunstars compared to the real deal - non-HD 35mm macro ltd.

[carlb]

The 20-40 is becoming more and more attractive.

I've lusted after the 20-40 since forever but have never been able to justify it to myself. It's a daily battle of yes / no, will I / won't I.

[c.a.m]

I WANT the Pentax 20-40. The problem is that I have that entire range covered with my 21, 31, and 40.Besides that, I'm afraid that if I get any of those three the 21,31,40 will never again see the light of day.

I went through a similar thought process last year.

You may be interested in some of my comments at this post:Sigma 17-50 vs Pentax 20-40 - PentaxForums.com

I had the 20-40 for a couple days; unfortunately I had to return it because of AF issues.

I also encountered an AF issue, but which is manageable, as described in my review of the lens: HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Since acquiring the 20-40 in 2019, it has become one of my most-used lenses. I find that it pairs very nicely with my DA* 50-135 for a fairly compact weather-resistant kit that I use on trail hikes.

I have the DA 21 and 35mm Limiteds, which have not been banished to the back of the cabinet -- I still use them, especially when I want a lightweight one-lens set-up. I shoot with a K-3 II.

- Craig

[bertwert]

I Need Help

I know.

Oh we're talking about lenses and advice...


A nice bonus about the 20-40 (which I don't have) is the WR - you could think of it as an alternative to those limiteds for a rainy day, if you're trying to justify it

[Parallax]

I Need Help

I know.

Thanks Robert. I deserved that.

if you're trying to justify it

I think that's exactly what I'm trying to do. There's a fine line between rationalization and justification.

[RICHARD L.]

Try a DFA 28-105 mm. Not "fast" but ultimate sharpness ...

[ramseybuckeye]

I had the Sigma 17-50 and used it a lot, one of my favorites. Last summer we planned a trip to London in October, rainy season. So I bought the 20-40 specifically for the trip, I wanted to go light and have the main lens be weather sealed. After a week or two of using the 20-40, I sold the Sigma. It's a little smaller, and the image quality is way better in my opinion, easily better enough to lose the ranges from 17-19 and 41-50. Previous to that the 21 was going to be my next lens, but I need the WR for the trip (I have an 18-135 but I also wanted faster and smaller). I don't lust after the 21 as much, maybe I'll buy one sometime if I get a great deal, but the 20-40 makes me happy.

[clackers]

I've got the DA20-40 and love it. I even use it on my K-1 in the 24mm to 35mm range (it is about the size of the FA31, but lighter it seems).

Mine is a lovely silver example, that beautiful Limited metal construction. Silent, smooth focus, WR for bad weather hiking.

[Sandy Hancock]

Given your current lens collection, I'd say a DA 70 Limited would be the perfect addition.

BUT, the DA 16-85 or DA 20-40 Limited would give you a WR option in that range with silent focus and the versatility of a zoom. One is small and beautiful but with a limited range, while the other is large but gives great range. Your choice

[mikesbike]

Since acquiring the 20-40 in 2019, it has become one of my most-used lenses. I find that it pairs very nicely with my DA* 50-135 for a fairly compact weather-resistant kit that I use on trail hikes.

The is an excellent combo, for compactness with quality, although I also take the Sigma 17-50mm instead when I need the f/2.8 all the way through. That Sigma lens is sharp, and remarkably near-absent field curvature. I love both of these lenses, for different reasons, of course. But either can deliver fine results in their own right.

---------- Post added 05-05-20 at 08:32 PM ----------

The Sigma 17-50 would be, for me, the most practical.

Well, it easily has more usable range, and the f/2.8 aperture all the way through. That in addition to excellent sharpness are the good points. But one glaring thing in your lens lineup is the lack of WR, while you own a very well-built WR body indeed. I also have and like the K-5 IIs, even though my KP is now my more used body.


So what to consider- how important is WR to your needs? How often will you need having f/2.8 available? On the K-5 IIs, the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM balances very well. It provides much wider angle than the DA 20-40mm LTD, and with less field curvature, while at the same time more at the long end. It really boils down to your own priorities as to what is offered by each. I love the DA 20-40mm on my KP for its compact match with that camera, with its fine WR build, and to expand its range, I take along the very small DA 15mm and 70mm LTD. As a KP kit, a delight.

But you are right, my DA 21mm LTD, or my 40mm LTD, see less use.