[lytrytyr]

Wasn't the ~17-85 the one that was originally supposed to be DA*? I wonder what they dropped to make it only DA: IQ, WR, speed?

There are two reasons to lose the asterisk:

1. It behaves like a "wild card" in searches.

2. It's associated with SDM.

[VisualDarkness]

Also lenses like 560mm skips the *. I would say that it's a good thing for marketing to skip it and focus on normal letters instead.

[jimr-pdx]

... None of those lenses is really a world-beater optically. I can't see the point of a ~17-85 unless it really brings something special to the table, so here's hoping.

Actually, looking at the old 2012 lens roadmap, that prospective DA* zoom looked more like ~14-85, so plans really have become less ambitious!

An optical world-beater will not improve the way I shoot (I'd take a state champion though ), and I'm OK with that if it's less of a wallet-beater. Going with f/3.5-4.5 would be nice, it is a formula that produced many great lenses in the past. It's all a FL guess for now so I'd choose to start at 17mm. If it's ~14-85 I will pass as going that wide end brings too many challenges and compromises for my comfort (plus that would make $999 Limited a bargain!). If it starts below 16mm I'll just say no & the Limited zoom becomes an easier choice (assuming the budget improves).

[DogLover]

I'd actually only be interested if it was a constant 2.8. I could only justify something in that range if it could replace my Sigma 24-70/2.8.

[ElJamoquio]

There are two reasons to lose the asterisk:

1. It behaves like a "wild card" in searches.

2. It's associated with SDM.

Yup. I realize it's an old Pentax thing but the * doesn't really work well nowadays. Of course 'HD' is about a decade past it's prime as well.

[Quicksand]

Of course 'HD' is about a decade past it's prime as well.

We're going backwards in time! New Pentax lenses! Now IN COLOR!

[VisualDarkness]

I will put my money in "YRWT" written on future lenses. Oh, it means "You Really Want This".

[thibs]

I will put my money in "YRWT" written on future lenses. Oh, it means "You Really Want This".

They really should take it retro and call their lenses Color Pentax instead of SMC/HD/Whatever ...
Heck their coating specially optimized for Color digital photography

ahem...

[Sandy Hancock]

For those of you interesting in this lens' flare resistance, I would say it isn't bad. This is a pretty severe test.


Flare test f/11

By comparison, a similar shot with the SMC DA 21mm limited. Like the other HD limiteds, the starbursts of the HD DA 20-40 limited are just not the same....


DA21 f/11

But stop the zoom down to f/16 and you get a better starburst effect, but still not quite in the same league as the DA21.


Flare test f/16

[Sandy Hancock]

But I reckon the bokeh of the new lens is better than the DA21. I am slightly closer to the Agapanthus in the first shot, so apparent depth of field is slightly different. 1mm less focal length also makes a surprisingly big difference to the perspective.


20-40 @20mm f/5.6


DA21mm f/5.6

[wed7]

the 21 is sharper from my screen here, tfs!

[Sandy Hancock]

the 21 is sharper from my screen here, tfs!

Remember these are only rough and ready hand-held tests. I think that difference may have something to do with the slightly closer focal distance, and hence the shallower relative depth of field. it possibly also affects my subjective impression about bokeh quality. I will need to repeat the comparison with a tripod.

My DA 21 limited is pretty sharp across the frame at f/5.6, whereas my HD DA 20-40 limited at 20mm still has ordinary corners at 20mm and f/5.6. At the long it is good from the get-go though

[dankoBanana]

dont like it :\ poor flare resistance

[VisualDarkness]

dont like it :\ poor flare resistance

Poor? Higher contrast and lesser blobs than a 21mm limited.

[Zygonyx]

dont like it :\ poor flare resistance

It can't agree with this / @20mm f/11 :