[starbase218]

You are right, but a zoom is not an ultra-wide only.

Besides, 17mm is not ultra-wide in an APS "cropped-sensor" format since the FOV is equiv. to a 34mm, perhaps a wide-normal.

For my work, I would rather have f2,8 @ 50mm than f4 @ 70mm.
That's is why I chose the Tamron 28-75mm.

R

That's actually the point I was trying to make. A larger max aperture is important in normal/tele focal lengths than it is in UWA FL's. The zooms I mentioned illustrate that, since they go out to 50 and 70mm respectively.

By the way, the FOV of a 17mm lens on a 1.5x crop camera is equivalent to about 26mm on FF, not 34.

The 20-40 Limited doesn't go very wide (although it's probably enough most of the time), and 40mm is a bit longer than normal. Generally speaking, a faster aperture becomes more important for such a lens.

---

Last edited by starbase218; 11-22-2013 at 06:35 AM.

[Iberia]

By the way, the FOV of a 17mm lens on a 1.5x crop camera is equivalent to about 26mm on FF, not 34.

I somehow doubled th FL instead of multiplying by 1,5…

R

[Zygonyx]

I appreciate your input, but acquiring razor thin DOF is not an issue, or even desirable for me. If somebody could bend the laws of physics and produce an f1.4 lens that yielded the same DOF at 1.4 that it does at 2.8 or 4, I'd pay big bucks to get it. With the high ISO capabilities of the current cameras, for my purposes (other's mileage may vary) lenses faster than 2.8 have far less appeal than they used to. In fact, now that I've written that, and reread it, I do believe I've just decided on the 20-40 over the Sigma 18-35.
I know the super shallow DOF junkies may gasp at this, but I have no need to take pictures with freckles in focus and the skin they're on out of focus.

Yep, plus compare the flares, that's another important parameter to me, probably not at Sigma's jewel advantage...

[monochrome]

I hope this lens gets into the hands of the general public soon so we can write about real-world experiences rather than endlessly postulating on suppositions.

[cali92rs]

I hope this lens gets into the hands of the general public soon so we can write about real-world experiences rather than endlessly postulating on suppositions.

Real world experiences won't matter. People will have their pre-conceived notions about the lens and then buy or not buy no matter what the other people say.
If they already think it is crafted by the hand of a god and sprinkled with pixie dust, they will buy it, even if the real world samples look horrible. They will be sure to find some excuses (poor photographic technique, not the right shooting conditions, and my favorite, they are biased and just hate pentax).

Likewise, the samples can look like masterpiece after masterpiece, and people will still complain that it doesn't have enough range, is too slow and costs too much.

[Gray]

Real world experiences won't matter. People will have their pre-conceived notions about the lens and then buy or not buy no matter what the other people say.
If they already think it is crafted by the hand of a god and sprinkled with pixie dust, they will buy it, even if the real world samples look horrible. They will be sure to find some excuses (poor photographic technique, not the right shooting conditions, and my favorite, they are biased and just hate pentax).

Likewise, the samples can look like masterpiece after masterpiece, and people will still complain that it doesn't have enough range, is too slow and costs too much.

Not sure you're 100% correct. I was very upbeat about the lens (not the price), but the few real world photographs I've seen so far have been meh and caused me to cool on the lens.

[monochrome]

Not sure you're 100% correct. I was very upbeat about the lens (not the price), but the few real world photographs I've seen so far have been meh and caused me to cool on the lens.

That FA20~35 still in stock locally - for $600 - looks better every day.

[ElJamoquio]

You clearly never handled the DA 40mm/f2.8 Ltd since otherwise you would know that that is one off the fastest auto focus lenses for Pentax.

You'r lenslist is pretty, but be serious 18mm/f2.0!!!!!!!! It is cheaper to buy a full frame camera with a standard 28mm/f2.8 lens.

Yup... right tool for the job. If you want those lenses, you really want a bigger sensor.

[Gray]

That FA20~35 still in stock locally - for $600 - loks better every day.

Thanks monochrome. I already have that sweet lens - I am a huge fan. Paid $350 for it I think . But I just so like the design of the 20-40 - a great WR match for my K-5II - but WR alone isn't enough to get me to replace my 18-135 (which I use in rain) or the 20-35 (which I use for landscapes).

[northcoastgreg]

Imagine the 17-70/4 would be similarly priced to the 16-50/2.8. Which one do you think would sell better, even with the increased range and lighter weight of the 17-70?

Not a fair comparison. The DA 17-70 is a nice lens, but it doesn't quite feature that Pentax limited or star rendering, microcontrast, or color rendition. Also, however expensive the DA 20-40 may be, it's not as expensive as the DA* 16-50. You will be saving hundreds of dollars going for the slower option.

If you're a landscape shooter and you want a WR standard zoom lens, until this limited zoom, you had three choices for K-Mount: the DA* 16-50, the DA 18-135, and the DA 18-55 WR. If you wanted the very best standard zoom lens for landscape, your only choice was a lens that was heavy, that was prone to SDM failures, and that forced you to pay extra for speed you didn't need. With the DA 20-40, we now have a high end WR standard zoom that's a better fit for landscape shooters than anything else offered for APS-C DSLRs, regardless of brand.

Why do the fast lens-ophiles have to complain that finally those of us who prefer slower glass now have one high-end standard zoom lens to fit our needs? Does every lens Pentax makes have to fit your specific needs? After all, their are plenty of fast zoom lenses to choose from. Not only the 16-50, but multiple options from Tamron and Sigma. Sigma even has a 1.8 zoom, which will appear in the K-Mount early next year. Camera manufacturers tend to cripple their slower zoom lenses by using inferior glass, coatings, build quality in order to save money and force march their high-end users into buying more expensive, faster lenses, regardless of actual need. There is actually a greater need, and hence potentially a greater demand, for slower high-end glass, because there's so much less of it out there.

When Canon in 1999 released their 70-200/4, that lens became an instant classic among landscape photographers, and remains one of the most highly regarded zoom lenses for landscape photography to this day. But for years that Canon 70-200/4 was more the exception than the rule. Nikon didn't get around to make a 70-200/4 until last year. Although both companies makes some nice prosumer f4 zooms, if you want the very best Nikon or Canon WA or standard zooms, you've got splurge for the f2.8 variants. When I go on trips throughout the American West, I see scores of landscape photographers toting immense Canon and Nikon FF cameras sporting immense f2.8 zooms. It doesn't have to be this way. There's no reason why a variable aperture zoom or constant f4 zoom can't be every bit as good, both in terms of optics and build quality, as the f2.8 zooms. Nikon and Canon have avoided making such zooms in order to force their users into paying for wide apertures that are largely useless to the landscape photographer.

Pentax has provided some great zoom options for landscape photographers on the wide and long end of things with the DA 12-24 and the DA* 60-250. But in the middle Pentax users have been forced to choose between one high-end f2.8 zoom (with SDM problems) and several mid-range offerings. Until now. I can see the DA 20-40 being the same sort of game changer for Pentax landscape photogs as that Canon 7-200/4 has been for Canon landscape photogs.

[Zygonyx]

Not sure you're 100% correct. I was very upbeat about the lens (not the price), but the few real world photographs I've seen so far have been meh and caused me to cool on the lens.

Well, i would modestly NOT take for granted any of the samples i have seen (or taken myself ).
So far they were exclusively made with pre-production lenses, and none after a sufficient accomodation period.

Don't forget these 4 skills that differenciate DA20-40 from FA20-35 in any case :
- DC engine
- weathersealed
- incomparable look and build quality
- available in silver
And be sure that people denying this or the rest, have other eye-flaws behind their judjment...

[JinDesu]

Could always wait for the price to drop $200 during sales.

[ElJamoquio]

Why do the fast lens-ophiles have to complain that finally those of us who prefer slower glass now have one high-end standard zoom lens to fit our needs?

Why, indeed*. Great post.


*(because they want something for them).

[Paul the Sunman]

Not a fair comparison. The DA 17-70 is a nice lens, but it doesn't quite feature that Pentax limited or star rendering, microcontrast, or color rendition. Also, however expensive the DA 20-40 may be, it's not as expensive as the DA* 16-50. You will be saving hundreds of dollars going for the slower option.

If you're a landscape shooter and you want a WR standard zoom lens, until this limited zoom, you had three choices for K-Mount: the DA* 16-50, the DA 18-135, and the DA 18-55 WR. If you wanted the very best standard zoom lens for landscape, your only choice was a lens that was heavy, that was prone to SDM failures, and that forced you to pay extra for speed you didn't need. With the DA 20-40, we now have a high end WR standard zoom that's a better fit for landscape shooters than anything else offered for APS-C DSLRs, regardless of brand.

...

Some excellent points. Indeed, people are too quick to presume that if a lens is not for them, then it's not for anybody.

After just spending 11 days in Japan and shooting in some pretty wet weather, I'm about ready to invest in a compact WR wide-to-mid zoom. My 18-55 WR doesn't get much use because of disappointing IQ compared to my Limited primes, so the DA 20-40 actually looks like a viable option if the quality is there. Changing (non-WR) primes in the rain is not fun.

[starbase218]

Not a fair comparison. The DA 17-70 is a nice lens, but it doesn't quite feature that Pentax limited or star rendering, microcontrast, or color rendition. Also, however expensive the DA 20-40 may be, it's not as expensive as the DA* 16-50. You will be saving hundreds of dollars going for the slower option.

I don't know. I have both the 17-70 and the 16-50, and I have been wondering that maybe, just maybe these subjective quality differences have more to do with how DA* or Limited lenses are perceived than with actual lens performance.

It is actually quite similar in the world of high-end audio. Expensive cd-players, for example, often have extremely solid build quality etc. But will you really be able to tell the difference between a $50 cd-player and a $5000 cd-player? I doubt it. And in the end, that's all that matters, right?

If you're a landscape shooter and you want a WR standard zoom lens, until this limited zoom, you had three choices for K-Mount: the DA* 16-50, the DA 18-135, and the DA 18-55 WR. If you wanted the very best standard zoom lens for landscape, your only choice was a lens that was heavy, that was prone to SDM failures, and that forced you to pay extra for speed you didn't need. With the DA 20-40, we now have a high end WR standard zoom that's a better fit for landscape shooters than anything else offered for APS-C DSLRs, regardless of brand.

I can only speak for myself, but I would never consider 20-40mm a landscape range. The 12-24, sure. And I shot some landscapes with the 16-50 too, so that also fits the bill to me.

Why do the fast lens-ophiles have to complain that finally those of us who prefer slower glass now have one high-end standard zoom lens to fit our needs? Does every lens Pentax makes have to fit your specific needs? After all, their are plenty of fast zoom lenses to choose from. Not only the 16-50, but multiple options from Tamron and Sigma. Sigma even has a 1.8 zoom, which will appear in the K-Mount early next year. Camera manufacturers tend to cripple their slower zoom lenses by using inferior glass, coatings, build quality in order to save money and force march their high-end users into buying more expensive, faster lenses, regardless of actual need. There is actually a greater need, and hence potentially a greater demand, for slower high-end glass, because there's so much less of it out there.

Now you're turning things around. If you like it, go buy it. I don't care. I don't like it, and I've explained why. If you don't agree with me, fine. Make your own choices, and so will I, and everybody's happy.

But if you can write why you like it so much, why can't I write what my thoughts are? They are just my thoughts, no reason to feel offended or anything.