[UncleVanya]

Is a 24mm too normal? There are a lot of manual focus 24’s that are reasonably fast and sharp and rationally priced.

[bertwert]

@ChristianRock have you been to a doctor recently, as this sounds like an illness considering the 18-50 over the 21 Ltd!

The 21 Ltd is THE walkabout lens. In fact, my last time I went to Scotland, it was the only lens I brought with me (well, not strictly true, I threw the 40 XS in the little sleeve for batteries in my camera case because it's so small and why not, but I didn't actually use it). There's only one complaint I have with the 21, and that's the lack of WR, if it had WR, I most likely wouldn't even have the 18-135, it's that versatile. My version is the HD one, but from what I've seen online there's not a huge difference and I'd be just as happy with the SMC one.

So what can it do? Everything from sports to animals to snowscapes.

[ChristianRock]

Is a 24mm too normal? There are a lot of manual focus 24’s that are reasonably fast and sharp and rationally priced.

I know, I went through a good number of them

I've had the SMC-K 24 2.8, SMC-A 24 2.8 and Vivitar (Cosina) 24 2.8 - all great lenses but got sold.
I also had a lens branded Rokinon MC 24 2.8, which looks identical to the earlier Tokina RMC 24 2.8. Mine was so bad wide open I think there must have been an inverted element in it...
In the end, I chose to keep a later-model Tokina 24mm f/2.8 lens that I accidentally de-clicked the aperture ring, while removing the Ricoh pin. This lens is fantastic at both close-ups and infinity, and is very sharp in the center from f/2.8 (sharper even than my DA*16-50mm at that setting). The only issue is that contrast is a bit low wide open at infinity so sometimes it's not as easy to focus as I'd like (close-ups at f/2.8 remain very nicely colorful and contrasty). It's definitely a keeper.

So I technically don't need the 21 (or similar). But such is LBA isn't it
I do find that as a walkaround I'd probably like an AF lens, and something that could go slightly wider than the 24. But I'm not in a hurry, until then, the 24 will do.

[UncleVanya]

I know, I went through a good number of them

I do find that as a walkaround I'd probably like an AF lens, and something that could go slightly wider than the 24. But I'm not in a hurry, until then, the 24 will do.

Gotcha. I’d honestly think the 18-50 with a 24 in your pocket might be the best compromise. You only need the 24 if the light faded later in the day. But the 21 seems to be a great lens. The angle of view mimics the perspective the 31 gives on full frame. That perspective is wide but not so wide you feel lost for everyday shots.

[ChristianRock]

@ChristianRock have you been to a doctor recently, as this sounds like an illness considering the 18-50 over the 21 Ltd!

The 21 Ltd is THE walkabout lens.

Entirely possible

Ok, so here's why I might not need to be committed just yet.

Part of using a walkaround lens is scenery and landscapes.

With the SMC 21mm, I often see color bleeds against the sky, that even at normal viewing distances, give the impression that the image isn't all that sharp. So I cut some 100% samples from flickr.

This one's a bad case, and it's on a 10MP K10D. Might be a bad sample? Image is otherwise in focus. f/6.3, top edge of the frame.

Original image: _IGP2121 RIVER CETINA | Carlo Berlingieri | Flickr

This one's on a K-5. f11. Edge of the frame.

Original image: Overlooking King's Canyon | Niki Gunn | Flickr

This is on a K-3 at f5.6, left edge of the frame.

Original image: Autumn Park | Pentax K-3 DA 21mm 3.2 Limited Out of camera j? | Lepidoptorologic beauty* | Flickr

I could go on, this is something I'm seeing in most pictures in these kind of circumstances.

Now there isn't a lot of pictures of the HD 18-50mm to look at (there's more of the SMC 18-50 - and that one's got issues as well...)
But from a few that I've been able to look at, the center sharpness is pretty impressive (consistently sharper than the SMC 21mm at the same aperture), and the edge performances aren't half bad, except at the extreme corners in some focal lengths.

Here's a 100% crop from the HD 18-50 on a K-70 (24mp) left edge of the frame (which was taken at portrait mode). 18mm, f5.6.

Original image: IMGP2943 | daduda Wien | Flickr

I know it's pixel peeping... and that's bad... but in this case, it helps explain, I think, why I'm not seeing the same image quality in both of these lenses. In the Ricoh page for the HD 18-50mm they took a paragraph just to explain that the use of glass (which is identical to the SMC 18-50, and the SMC 18-55) plus the HD coatings were tuned to minimize color bleeds.
Now the HD 21mm also has this kind of thing fixed, for the most part, from what I can tell, though it still loses a bit on micro-contrast at most of the frame, compared to the HD 18-50. But the overall look of the HD 21mm Limited is gorgeous, I'll agree with that...

[Robot camera]

There was the Zeiss Distagon 18 f3.5 in Nikon F mount. More obtainable and useful to a Pentax owner would probably be the FA 20 f2.8 which is pretty close to your ask of an 18 f2.4. Another option would be the not at all small Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX DG.

If you really want a good fast 18mm on a crop body (understandable ask, honestly) the Fuji 18mm f2 WR and one of their bodies to match might be right up your street. But obviously that's a bunch of money.

The other option, obviously, is a Ricoh GR III.

Almost all of my shooting in bars was with 28's and 50's where you'd have many more options to pick from but if those aren't focal lengths you want, they're not what you want.

Pres589, you make some good points. I thought about the FA 20 2.8, but it's a little too long for me, and that 20mm Sigma is pretty much the same size as my 16-50!

[UncleVanya]

The HD 21 also may have reduced fringing.

Remember also that the 18-50 is slower. If you stop down to the same aperture does the problem persist?

[bertwert]

Entirely possible

Ok, so here's why I might not need to be committed just yet.

Part of using a walkaround lens is scenery and landscapes.

With the SMC 21mm, I often see color bleeds against the sky, that even at normal viewing distances, give the impression that the image isn't all that sharp. So I cut some 100% samples from flickr.

This one's a bad case, and it's on a 10MP K10D. Might be a bad sample? Image is otherwise in focus. f/6.3, top edge of the frame.

Original image: _IGP2121 RIVER CETINA | Carlo Berlingieri | Flickr

This one's on a K-5. f11. Edge of the frame.

Original image: Overlooking King's Canyon | Niki Gunn | Flickr

This is on a K-3 at f5.6, left edge of the frame.

Original image: Autumn Park | Pentax K-3 DA 21mm 3.2 Limited Out of camera j? | Lepidoptorologic beauty* | Flickr

I could go on, this is something I'm seeing in most pictures in these kind of circumstances.

Now there isn't a lot of pictures of the HD 18-50mm to look at (there's more of the SMC 18-50 - and that one's got issues as well...)
But from a few that I've been able to look at, the center sharpness is pretty impressive (consistently sharper than the SMC 21mm at the same aperture), and the edge performances aren't half bad, except at the extreme corners in some focal lengths.

Here's a 100% crop from the HD 18-50 on a K-70 (24mp) left edge of the frame (which was taken at portrait mode). 18mm, f5.6.

Original image: IMGP2943 | daduda Wien | Flickr

I know it's pixel peeping... and that's bad... but in this case, it helps explain, I think, why I'm not seeing the same image quality in both of these lenses. In the Ricoh page for the HD 18-50mm they took a paragraph just to explain that the use of glass (which is identical to the SMC 18-50, and the SMC 18-55) plus the HD coatings were tuned to minimize color bleeds.
Now the HD 21mm also has this kind of thing fixed, for the most part, from what I can tell, though it still loses a bit on micro-contrast at most of the frame, compared to the HD 18-50. But the overall look of the HD 21mm Limited is gorgeous, I'll agree with that...

Alright, I see you have much more interest in pixel peeping than me

If you hold out and save a little longer, you may stumble upon an HD 21 at a great price you can afford. For example, mine was about $250 USD, so not that far out of your $200 price range...

[ChristianRock]

Alright, I see you have much more interest in pixel peeping than me

If you hold out and save a little longer, you may stumble upon an HD 21 at a great price you can afford. For example, mine was about $250 USD, so not that far out of your $200 price range...

That's a fantastic price for that lens! Yeah I might be able to position myself for lightning to hit twice so I can find that lens for that price again
But then I paid less than 180 shipped for both my DA 70 and my DA 35 Limited, so I know good deals come around from time to time.

Regarding pixel peeping - I'm usually not one to do that. But in this case it really puzzled me as to why I consistently seemed to prefer one lens over another (one being a Limiited and the other a "kit lens"*), to the point I was thinking, am I going crazy over here (yea that's where that came from...) - so I ended up doing the unthinkable and started looking at pictures at 100% whenever I could find them.
I hope I'm not ruined for life now... that would be sad if I turned into one of those people who care more about numbers and graphs than actual images.

*ok, technically I think the HD version of the 18-50mm was never a kit lens, it could only be bought separately, at least in the US. It might have been a kit lens in Japan and rest of Asia.

[bdery]

bdery, is the guidance on good light with the 18-50 due to the slow-ish max aperture, a need to stop down for improved performance, both, or something else?

Not sure what you mean by "guidance" .

You can read a detailed evaluation of the 18-50 here:

HD vs. SMC Pentax-DA 18-50mm F4-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

I like the 21 better for its aperture, colours, build quality, starbursts, mirocontrast. That's not to say the 18-50 isn't good, as I wrote, the 21 is simply a better lens in my opinion.

[Ronald Oakes]

I don't think your crazy at all.
It's also one of my favorite lenses.
Guess that makes 2 crazy's here....lol
When I go kayaking I leave the 20-40 Limited at home and just carry the 18-50.
There's no sense in risking an expensive lens when a new little plastic Wonder for $100 fills the bill nicely!

[ChristianRock]

I don't think your crazy at all.
It's also one of my favorite lenses.
Guess that makes 2 crazy's here....lol
When I go kayaking I leave the 20-40 Limited at home and just carry the 18-50.
There's no sense in risking an expensive lens when a new little plastic Wonder for $100 fills the bill nicely!

Hah, thanks. But you do have a 20-40 for when you want better pictures, I guess.

Is your 18-50 the SMC or the HD version, Ronald?

[pres589]

Wait. Have you thought about the Sigma Super-Wide II AF? 24mm and an f2.8 max aperture.

[ChristianRock]

Wait. Have you thought about the Sigma Super-Wide II AF? 24mm and an f2.8 max aperture.

I've always wanted to try one... they're rarer than hen's teeth these days and when they do show up they demand a pretty penny...

I've also read that it's not that great against strong lights.

[ChristianRock]

Not sure what you mean by "guidance" .

You can read a detailed evaluation of the 18-50 here:

HD vs. SMC Pentax-DA 18-50mm F4-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

I like the 21 better for its aperture, colours, build quality, starbursts, mirocontrast. That's not to say the 18-50 isn't good, as I wrote, the 21 is simply a better lens in my opinion.

I'm wondering if some issues I'm seeing with SMC DA 21mm Limited pictures, might be due to copy variation? I see pictures where micro-contrast is good but not great, and I also have seen some fringing and color bleeding in the edges of the frame.
Is the secret, to get a good copy?