Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-24-2013, 04:22 AM   #886
Pentaxian
VladimirYo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
I collected my K-3 Silver yesterday and the shopowner said that the lens would be in in the first half off december.
Wow!
The lack of release recent years of new Pentax lenses forces pentax users to buy even not tested brand-new lenses.

11-24-2013, 04:25 AM   #887
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,093
QuoteOriginally posted by VladimirYo Quote
The lack of release recent years of new Pentax lenses forces pentax users to buy even not tested brand-new lenses.
Well, Pentax Limiteds are usually a safe bet based on past iterations.
11-24-2013, 05:28 AM   #888
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
Well, Canikon enthusiast's/pro's also preorder lenses and very often cameras, so it's not unique in any way.
11-24-2013, 08:09 AM   #889
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,762
QuoteOriginally posted by VladimirYo Quote
The lack of release recent years of new Pentax lenses . . .
Lack of release?

Along with the revamp of the DA Limited primes,
Pentax has released quite a number of new lenses recently,
in K, Q, and 645 mounts.

11-24-2013, 09:23 AM   #890
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 182
Got to play a bit with the 20-40 on the camera show in Stockholm today. Not a good location to test optical qualities, but I expect them to be excellent, and I did not see any indication that is not a correct assumption.

A few subjetive reactions:
Compared to other Limited it is huge....well maybe not huge, but still a large piece sompared to anything Limited so far. OK, it is a zoom, so that was to be expected (and one of the reasons I prefer primes).
It was light. As we are used with small limiteds full of glass, a 2*zoom of course consists of a lot more air than we are used to. This is of course good, or the lens would weigh a kilo or so, but first impression was that is was light.
The feeling of the zoom ring was good, but still a bit of a disappointment. I alsways compare with old A or A* lenses, but this was like the rest of the Limiteds, even with the seals. So still best in class, but I had been hoping for a bit more 'feel' to it.

So will I buy one? Not sure yet. I have the 20-35 which is a much smaller lens, but much more plastic and not sealed of course. But a K-3 limited with a 20-40 silver would look nice, but I keep asking myself why I would like a camera that looks nice. I already have K5s, K5IIs and now K3, all taking excellent pictures, and that is what a camera is supposed to do, I think :-)
11-24-2013, 11:11 AM   #891
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Lack of release?

Along with the revamp of the DA Limited primes,
Pentax has released quite a number of new lenses recently,
in K, Q, and 645 mounts.
Just taking the K-mount, it seems like a lot less than Canon or Nikon. I don't know if the Q has more or less lenses than the Nikon J or Canon M ish, personally I don't follow those cameras that closely.

I don't really care about the lack of releases in K- the last one I 'waited' for was the 560. Now I don't want or need other k-mount lenses. Nevertheless competitors seem to update more often, but I haven't looked up any schedule.

...as an aside, personally I don't consider the 'revamp' of the Limited lenses 'new'. Coating itself definitely doesn't qualify in my opinion. Changing the shape of the aperture blades doesn't qualify in my opinion, but it's closer.
11-24-2013, 11:16 AM   #892
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by quarc Quote
Got to play a bit with the 20-40 on the camera show in Stockholm today. Not a good location to test optical qualities, but I expect them to be excellent, and I did not see any indication that is not a correct assumption.

A few subjetive reactions:
Compared to other Limited it is huge....well maybe not huge, but still a large piece sompared to anything Limited so far. OK, it is a zoom, so that was to be expected (and one of the reasons I prefer primes).
It was light. As we are used with small limiteds full of glass, a 2*zoom of course consists of a lot more air than we are used to. This is of course good, or the lens would weigh a kilo or so, but first impression was that is was light.
The feeling of the zoom ring was good, but still a bit of a disappointment. I alsways compare with old A or A* lenses, but this was like the rest of the Limiteds, even with the seals. So still best in class, but I had been hoping for a bit more 'feel' to it.

So will I buy one? Not sure yet. I have the 20-35 which is a much smaller lens, but much more plastic and not sealed of course. But a K-3 limited with a 20-40 silver would look nice, but I keep asking myself why I would like a camera that looks nice. I already have K5s, K5IIs and now K3, all taking excellent pictures, and that is what a camera is supposed to do, I think :-)
Well, the throw is rather short both for focus and zoom but I grabbed the Zeiss lenses next to the Pentax table and apart from the throw they felt very much the same. The only Zeiss that gave me much more "feel" was the Otus, that huge clunk of glass!
11-24-2013, 11:24 AM   #893
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
Well, the throw is rather short both for focus and zoom but I grabbed the Zeiss lenses next to the Pentax table and apart from the throw they felt very much the same. The only Zeiss that gave me much more "feel" was the Otus, that huge clunk of glass!
Wow, you mean the focus ring was as damped as the Zeiss? That would be really unusual for a Pentax lens. Short throw wouldn't bother me much on an AF lens, and short zoom throw is a positive thing.

11-24-2013, 11:30 AM   #894
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
Wow, you mean the focus ring was as damped as the Zeiss? That would be really unusual for a Pentax lens. Short throw wouldn't bother me much on an AF lens, and short zoom throw is a positive thing.
It isn't as damped as the Zeiss lenses, you need the light friction with the short throw, but it's smooth and the ring feels wonderful with its structure. Quite funny how zeiss went the complete opposite way with the ring on Otus with its totally smooth rubber design.
11-24-2013, 12:04 PM - 1 Like   #895
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,015
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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.
I don't have either the 17-70 or the 16-50, but from images I've seen from each lens, it appears to me that the 16-50 has better microcontrast and color rendition. The differences are subtle and some people may not notice. But I would be surprised if they are not there. Nor are those differences "subjective" in the disparaging sense of the word. There are almost certainly differences, even measurable differences, in light transmission and and how that transmission is distributed across the color spectrum between various lenses. Those differences, and additional differences relating to characteristics of the lens that cannot be measured, lead to differences in output which can be noticed by many, if not by most, viewers of images made by the respective lenses, most noticeable in fine color prints.

I've taken many very similar pictures with the DA 12-24, the DA 16-45, and the FA 24-90. I perceive the DA 12-24 and the FA 24-90 as capable producing more aesthetically pleasing color landscapes than the DA 16-45. Is that a "subjective" delusion? Well if it is, it must be a widespread "subjective" delusion, experienced by many people; because while I have sold dozens of images from the 12-24 and the 24-90, I've sold nothing from the DA 16-45. Is that a coincidence? After all, none of my buyers have an idea what sort of lens, or even what brand of camera, I use.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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.
It's not an issue of being offended. Nor is anyone saying you can't write your thoughts. But you made a conjectural statement about matters of fact that I believed to be mistaken and which I thought deserved a response from an alternative point of view. I was not responding to you personally but merely to the thoughts you expressed. Maybe you didn't mean to imply the following, but much of the hostility toward this lens seems to be along the lines of: "This lens doesn't make any sense (for anyone). Why did Pentax waste it's time and precious resources making it?" Just like many high-end lenses, the DA 20-40 is going to make sense for some people, but not for others. Some of the critics of the DA 20-40 don't seem to understand this. They seem annoyed that Pentax should make a high end standard zoom that isn't fast or doesn't have a wide range. But why shouldn't Pentax (and other lens makers, like Sigma) make as many different types of lenses as is economically feasible? I have absolutely no use for an f1.8 standard zoom lens, but I'm sure glad that Sigma decided to make one for the K mount. Neither the Sigma 18-35 nor the DA 20-40 strike me as making the other lens irrelevant. Even though they cover much the same focal range, they are very different lenses for different needs. Isn't it great that Pentaxians will soon have two great new standard zoom options to choose from? So why all the complaining and hand-wringing over the DA 20-40?
11-24-2013, 04:40 PM   #896
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I don't have either the 17-70 or the 16-50, but from images I've seen from each lens, it appears to me that the 16-50 has better microcontrast and color rendition. The differences are subtle and some people may not notice. But I would be surprised if they are not there. Nor are those differences "subjective" in the disparaging sense of the word. There are almost certainly differences, even measurable differences, in light transmission and and how that transmission is distributed across the color spectrum between various lenses. Those differences, and additional differences relating to characteristics of the lens that cannot be measured, lead to differences in output which can be noticed by many, if not by most, viewers of images made by the respective lenses, most noticeable in fine color prints.

I've taken many very similar pictures with the DA 12-24, the DA 16-45, and the FA 24-90. I perceive the DA 12-24 and the FA 24-90 as capable producing more aesthetically pleasing color landscapes than the DA 16-45. Is that a "subjective" delusion? Well if it is, it must be a widespread "subjective" delusion, experienced by many people; because while I have sold dozens of images from the 12-24 and the 24-90, I've sold nothing from the DA 16-45. Is that a coincidence? After all, none of my buyers have an idea what sort of lens, or even what brand of camera, I use.
The thing is, I was actually an audiophile. In fact, I still am, but I also used to believe in the exact same reasoning you use for lenses, but applied to audio equipment, cables, etc etc. If you go to Hifi forums, you will also read how people argue that, because everyone describes what they believe to be audible differences in a similar way, the differences almost certainly have to be real.

Nowadays, I'm not so sure anymore. I think that it is equally plausible, if not more so, that the look and feel of the equipment affects the perception of the sound generated by the equipment. Just as the look and feel of really solid lenses could affect perception of images taken with those lenses. So I'm actually not so focused on audio equipment any more, but more on the music itself. I actually find that much more satisfying, because that's what matters.

But I'm no stranger to affected perception myself. So if a certain tweak sounds better to me, then I may go for it, even though I know that it may only be my perception that has changed. The difference is that I'm ok with that.

But getting back to differences in lenses: you say it appears to you that the 16-50 has better microcontrast and color rendition. That may be the case, or not, but there is no proof here. No A/B comparisons of the same scene, the same light, shot with both lenses in the same timeframe. What is microcontrast, anyway? For the same reason, I'm also unable to answer your question whether it is a coincidence that you sold nothing from the 16-45, but I do wonder if the answer really matters.

I do object to your statement that there are things that can't be measured that still affect image quality. I mean, it's all physics, really. It may be that reviews don't measure certain aspects of lenses, but that doesn't mean that those aspects can't be measured.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
It's not an issue of being offended. Nor is anyone saying you can't write your thoughts. But you made a conjectural statement about matters of fact that I believed to be mistaken and which I thought deserved a response from an alternative point of view. I was not responding to you personally but merely to the thoughts you expressed. Maybe you didn't mean to imply the following, but much of the hostility toward this lens seems to be along the lines of: "This lens doesn't make any sense (for anyone). Why did Pentax waste it's time and precious resources making it?" Just like many high-end lenses, the DA 20-40 is going to make sense for some people, but not for others. Some of the critics of the DA 20-40 don't seem to understand this. They seem annoyed that Pentax should make a high end standard zoom that isn't fast or doesn't have a wide range. But why shouldn't Pentax (and other lens makers, like Sigma) make as many different types of lenses as is economically feasible? I have absolutely no use for an f1.8 standard zoom lens, but I'm sure glad that Sigma decided to make one for the K mount. Neither the Sigma 18-35 nor the DA 20-40 strike me as making the other lens irrelevant. Even though they cover much the same focal range, they are very different lenses for different needs. Isn't it great that Pentaxians will soon have two great new standard zoom options to choose from? So why all the complaining and hand-wringing over the DA 20-40?
I actually don't mind Pentax making this lens. In fact, if it were cheaper, I might even end up buying it. I already have the 70mm Limited, and a small and lightweight set of excellent optics does appeal to me, even if they aren't super-fast. I have actually been considering getting more Limiteds, but don't want to be tied to primes. In that sense, the 20-40mm does make sense to me. Together with the 70 and the 15 it would make a great set. It's just that, for the price, I want it to be a more capable lens, and it's not. At the end of the day, it's still a 2.8-4, and for this kind of money, I know that's going to bother me. That's why I hope they sell none. So they may realize they have to offer more value.

So, in short: I may not have a problem with this lens. I do have a problem with the value that Pentax is offering by pricing this lens as they have. Because I like Pentax to charge what I think are fair prices.

But, if others think this is a fair price for what it is: by all means, go ahead and buy it, shoot with it, enjoy it!

Last edited by starbase218; 11-24-2013 at 04:52 PM.
11-24-2013, 04:55 PM   #897
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
Some more comments about the lens and pics here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/243569-pentax-stock...ml#post2591034
11-24-2013, 04:58 PM   #898
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,284
The end result from a lens is the photo that is displayed in some way. Look some day at the tone curves that each manufacturer applies to the output of digital sensors. Each are different, and subjective. Lenses have similar qualities, in fact one that doesn't score well on some test may produce more pleasing images.

The math, charts etc are useful only to a point. What matters it's what can be produced.

I don't pay much attention to reviews anymore, except as one more data point. I look for comments from skilled users who find that the lens moves them to capture images. An emotional response, because with some exceptions great photography is an art, an expression of a feeling. Yes good technical capabilities are necessary, but not everything.
11-24-2013, 05:13 PM   #899
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,762
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I think that it is equally plausible, if not more so, that the look and feel of the equipment affects the perception of the sound generated by the equipment.
By that token, transferred to our photographic discussion,
it seems as if Greg should be perceiving the FA 24-90 output as sub-standard,
since whatever its virtues, that lens is not noted for its build quality or superior feel.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
What is microcontrast, anyway?
It is usually quantified by the 40 lp/mm MTF curve,
so resolution of very fine detail.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
For the same reason, I'm also unable to answer your question whether it is a coincidence that you sold nothing from the 16-45, but I do wonder if the answer really matters.
The answer (I guess "no") matters to the relevance of Greg's argument.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I do object to your statement that there are things that can't be measured that still affect image quality. I mean, it's all physics, really. It may be that reviews don't measure certain aspects of lenses, but that doesn't mean that those aspects can't be measured.
It's certainly not all physics.

Perception is closely tied to how human systems
(brains, ears, eyes, and the connections between them)
interpret physical signals,
so there is a lot of biology and psychology involved,
much of it not yet understood.

Several people have attempted to measure bokeh quality, for example,
but those attempts do not yet seem to be satisfactory.
11-25-2013, 01:43 AM   #900
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 121
It is limited, but given it's capabilities, I would still go for Tamron 17-50/2.8. This reminds me of the old M 40-80/2.8-4 aka "not wide enough, not small enough and with IQ not there to compensate for its shortcomings, the only nice thing being the pseudo macro mode"

It looks nice, though.
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!
20-40mm, da, dc, f2.8-4, hd, lens, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-da, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The DA Limited Series Review [15/21/35/40/70] DonThomaso Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 03-04-2014 05:13 PM
KMZ remaking the MIR-20 and Helios 40-2 ironlionzion Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 09-27-2012 11:36 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA 21, 40 and 70, D FA 100 WR and FA 50/1.4, all EX++(Canada) farfisa Sold Items 11 04-23-2012 06:38 AM
Wanted - Acquired: DA 40 ltd and a DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 Jeff Bennett Sold Items 5 03-22-2011 03:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 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