Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Braunschweig
Posts: 87
Advantages of the 20-40 compared to the 16-50 PLM

I own the 16-50 PLM.
I'm quite happy with this lens (except some Issues with outer AF points, that I can't use with the K3II and K3 III.).

It's sharp and fast and the bokeh is good.

BUT I must admit, that I often look at the 20-40.
I know it is a beautiful lens with excellent build quality.

Are there some atvantages in IQ with this lens compared to the PLM in exactly this focal range?

The real atvantage is for sure the size and weight.... but real (in my understanding big) disadvantages are the limeted focal range and the aperture at the "longer" end.

People often tell about the magical rendering of this lens.... I must admit, that I didn't really see it... and in some pictures the bokeh is a liite bit troubled compared to the newer PLM (I know: this is subjective).
... nevertheless... I always look at this beauty... but this (the elegance) is not really enough to spend the money ;-)

4 Days Ago   #2
Pentaxian
jersey's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: 3City agglomeration
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,418
If you print then I think yes. Limiteds are perfectly imperfect, they are not super-corrected like DA* lenses and have quirks that make photos unique, especially on print. But if you do not print then I think 20-40 is kinda "normal" and unless you want smaller lens I would not bother with it. I never saw the "pixie dust" on screen when it comes to Limiteds. They are kinda meh and outside of sharpness etc are on pair (or even worse in my eyes) then consumer zooms/primes. But on print, now, that is something different

I do not have 16-50, but I have DA* lens and prints, while are doing what I want are very clinical, lack character. Ok, that is desired for airplane photography I use DA* for, but for anything else I prefer Limited lenses.
4 Days Ago   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 312
I feel same way as you...about both of them.
My 16-50 is the best optical quality...but I love the compactness and metal construction of the 20-40. I use it when I want a smaller package.
I will keep both of them.
4 Days Ago   #4
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Braunschweig
Posts: 87
Original Poster
@jersey: ah... interesting.... that could be a magic thing of the lens: the difference between print and screen. Thanks!

@Loyd: that doesn't really help to keep my money in my pocket ;-)

I must find some good words, when I speak with my wife... ;-)

4 Days Ago   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,914
I havenít used the 16-50 PLM. I have used many other DA* lenses. I donít agree about the lacking character unless printed. I do however think thereís something about shooting with the limited lenses (size, feel, etc. ) that is quite pleasing which may impact how creative you might be.
4 Days Ago - 2 Likes   #6
Pentaxian
AfterPentax Mark II's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,067
I would not compare the two. They each have their character. I own the 20-40 for many years now and the results with it made me never look at the 16-50. I own the 11-18 and the 50-135 and the 20-40 fills the gap. All of them have that "Pentax" feeling, being different from the mob. The danger is that if you like the 20-40mm your expensive 16-50 will get long holidays and tell that to your missus.... To make it palatable for her promise her a nice camera so that she can use the lenses as well .
4 Days Ago - 2 Likes   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,914
QuoteOriginally posted by AfterPentax Mark II Quote
I would not compare the two. They each have their character. I own the 20-40 for many years now and the results with it made me never look at the 16-50. I own the 11-18 and the 50-135 and the 20-40 fills the gap. All of them have that "Pentax" feeling, being different from the mob. The danger is that if you like the 20-40mm your expensive 16-50 will get long holidays and tell that to your missus.... To make it palatable for her promise her a nice camera so that she can use the lenses as well .
Thatís a better way to put things. I own the 16-50 sdm and rarely use it now that I have the 20-40. I also use the 50-135 and 11-18.

4 Days Ago   #8
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Tennessee
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19
Both are great but the handling and weight of the 20-40mm is fantastic. I use it everyday. I have no regrets selling the 16-50mm plm.
4 Days Ago   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 399
My impressions, owning both the 20-40 and 16-50 SDM, on the K-3, mainly nature and landscapes:

They seem to both be equally sharp - perhaps the 16-50 has a slight advantage here, but for my purposes of printing up to, say, 16"x20" or 20"x24" both are more than adequate.

The 20-40 seems to have deeper, richer tonal rendering, which can be wonderful for certain landscapes and nature scenes. It also seems to have a kind of organic rendering of tonal transitions that's hard to describe, but looks wonderful. Not hard and edgy.... fuller and "rounded", if that's the right way to put it (this is hard to put into words). But it's a lovely quality which I very much like.

The 16-50, OTOH, has a lighter, more open tonal rendering, which can be equally wonderful for the right scenes. Colour tones don't seem to be as deep as the 20-40, but have an open airy quality. I have the 50-135 as well, and that lens renders the same. I love it! The way it renders things like wildflowers and foliage is really beautiful.

So, bottom line, I'm keeping both. Re. weight and size - I'll carry the 16-50 and 50-135 on shorter mountain hikes when I don't mind the weight, but the 20-40 comes out when I want to go light and carry a single lens only, or with a small short tele prime.

Hope this helps.

Svend

PS - nice city you live in. The home of Franke & Heideke :-). I had an aunt who lived there, and I always enjoyed my visits.
4 Days Ago   #10
Pentaxian
AfterPentax Mark II's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,067
And please bear in mind, that the older limiteds were based on older lens designs. The 20-40 is a completely newly designed Ltd, it has WR, it is the one and still only Ltd zoom. It is more modern than the other Ltd's except for the new 21mm, which is also a modern design that has nothing to do with the older 21mm Ltd but the FL in the name. And do not forget that lovely retro look of the 20-40!
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #11
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,473
I sold my DA20-40 because I prefer the individuality of the Limited primes which cover the focal range, but it is a truly lovely lens. I still have all the Limited primes, and can't imagine parting with any of them.

The DA*16-50PLM is a beast. Beyond its size and weight I have found nothing not to love. After two copies of the OG version, the edge to edge sharpness, lack of fringing, and focus speed have been a revelation. Compared to the 20-40, the extra room at both ends is significant; it can cover landscape to portrait duties, and everything in between, with aplomb.

Although I am a believer in the Limited "pixie dust', I suspect you would be hard pressed to pick the difference between the two lenses in a side-by-side shoot off.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
Posts: 1,319
QuoteOriginally posted by licht96 Quote
I must find some good words, when I speak with my wife... ;-)
You need a new/better arrangement?! My wife and I each have an "allowance" which we can spend any way we want (and can accumulate from month-to-month up to any amount - even enough for a new K-3 III a while ago).
4 Days Ago   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,914
QuoteOriginally posted by AstroDave Quote
You need a new/better arrangement?! My wife and I each have an "allowance" which we can spend any way we want (and can accumulate from month-to-month up to any amount - even enough for a new K-3 III a while ago).
Similar here.
4 Days Ago   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2013
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 777
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
The DA*16-50PLM is a beast. Beyond its size and weight I have found nothing not to love. After two copies of the OG version, the edge to edge sharpness, lack of fringing, and focus speed have been a revelation. Compared to the 20-40, the extra room at both ends is significant; it can cover landscape to portrait duties, and everything in between, with aplomb.

Although I am a believer in the Limited "pixie dust', I suspect you would be hard pressed to pick the difference between the two lenses in a side-by-side shoot off.
I admit to having no desire to use monster lenses with relatively short focal lengths on my KP, so the size and weight of the DA* 16-50 PLM are good enough reasons for not loving it, whatever its other qualities. I have the 20-40 and it is an excellent lens, so the final sentence quoted above is also interesting and significant for me. (Nevertheless, my 21 and 40 Limiteds get used more!)

To each his own.

Philip
4 Days Ago   #15
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,473
QuoteOriginally posted by MrB1 Quote
I admit to having no desire to use monster lenses with relatively short focal lengths on my KP, so the size and weight of the DA* 16-50 PLM are good enough reasons for not loving it, whatever its other qualities.
Define "monster". To clarify, I used the term "beast" in reference to the 16-50PLM's image making qualities, not its size. Poor choice of words, perhaps

Sure, it's not small. It's slightly bigger than the old 16-50, but it's smaller than the DFA24-70 and *much* smaller than the DFA15-30.

But yes: to each his own
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bokeh, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, plm, range, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 20-40 Limited vs DA 16-50 PLM Image Comparison Biff Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 11-15-2022 01:52 PM
HD Pentax-D FA 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED PLM WR SR & HD Pentax-DA★ 50-135mm f/2.8 ED PLM D1N0 Pentax News and Rumors 227 11-10-2022 05:44 PM
Advantages of HD PENTAX-DA 20-40MMF2 8-4 ED LIMITED Mikesul Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 09-12-2022 05:05 PM
Justification for the Pentax 20-40 Limited, compared to 18 50 HD AlexanderS Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 06-01-2018 11:37 AM
What are the advantages and dis-advantages of using a Focusing Screen? HoBykoYan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 10-06-2011 12:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top