[gazonk]

Glad you like it. I share your opinion, mine is very good too and easily outperforms DA 21.

I like the comments the lens get from several users here. I tried the DA21 briefly and was somewhat underwhelmed. The only thing which worries me about the 20-40 is that it overlaps with my beloved DA35 Ltd - I think I would have a hard time deciding between them if I owned both

[jimr-pdx]

Arrrgh, I hate walking the tightrope, waiting for specs on the ~16-85 lens! This one is generally a winner, no surprise - but if the extra range is WR, maybe DC too?

[ElJamoquio]

Arrrgh, I hate walking the tightrope, waiting for specs on the ~16-85 lens! This one is generally a winner, no surprise - but if the extra range is WR, maybe DC too?

Buy this now, if you like the 16-85 later sell it? Not many used available, probably only take a $100 loss...

[starbase218]

Arrrgh, I hate walking the tightrope, waiting for specs on the ~16-85 lens! This one is generally a winner, no surprise - but if the extra range is WR, maybe DC too?

I'm actually counting on some kind of SDM II with a ring-type motor, probably a constant f/4 aperture (or f/2.8 if the range is something like 24-70) and a pricetag to match (e.g. expensive). It was , after all, a DA* lens when it first appeared on the roadmap. So I'm hoping that the demotion to DA has nothing to do with lesser quality, but more with a changing nomenclature (e.g. DA* would be dropped).

If not, then what is Pentax up to with its pro-line of lenses?

[civiletti]

Glad you like it. I share your opinion, mine is very good too and easily outperforms DA 21. I wonder why it has been rated so bad in Adam's review.

Possibly because Adam did careful testing.

[seventysixersfan]

waiting for specs on the ~16-85 lens! This one is generally a winner, no surprise - but if the extra range is WR, maybe DC too?

I'm pretty sure it's been discussed before in other threads, but I still don't know what the proposed DA 16-85 zoom will fill the need for. It's not a limited, it's not a DA*, just a regular DA lens. It could have DC and WR, and frankly at this point, given lens technology, I'd be very disappointed if any new lens design came out without at least the DC or SDM motor. Whether it's also WR will be interesting to see. Could be a replacement for the DA 17-70 with added WR? And would it compete too much with (that is, cannibalize sales from) the DA 18-135 DC WR?

[thibs]

Possibly because Adam did careful testing.

Ow, so those who like it didn't test correctly. Hum...

[jimr-pdx]

I'm pretty sure it's been discussed before in other threads, but I still don't know what the proposed DA 16-85 zoom will fill the need for. It's not a limited, it's not a DA*, just a regular DA lens. It could have DC and WR, and frankly at this point, given lens technology, I'd be very disappointed if any new lens design came out without at least the DC or SDM motor. Whether it's also WR will be interesting to see. Could be a replacement for the DA 17-70 with added WR? And would it compete too much with (that is, cannibalize sales from) the DA 18-135 DC WR?

True, it seems confusing - but Pentax does have DA35 and 50 'competing' with the Limiteds so they've been here before.
Really I'd prefer a 24-70WR but of course those are "always" FF lenses, no one could possibly want a 36-105mm equivalent on their aps-c cameras. Except me?

[northcoastgreg]

but I still don't know what the proposed DA 16-85 zoom will fill the need for. It's not a limited, it's not a DA*, just a regular DA lens

The last rumor to surface about this lens is that it would be an 18-70 f2.8. Whatever it turns out to be, I suspect the real reason for it is: faster focus motor to work with the K-3.

[Uluru]

Ow, so those who like it didn't test correctly. Hum...

Yes, all others have been viciously deceived by their own eyes.
Incredible fact, but true.

[DogLover]

Possibly because Adam did careful testing.

More likely that he got a less-than-stellar copy. It has been established that there has been some sample variation, not unheard of in a new design.

[Red Solo Cup]

I am close to buying this lens. Just wish it were $799.

[mtux]

It might be a replacement for DA 16-50!?

[civiletti]

Ow, so those who like it didn't test correctly. Hum...

A few exposures posted at common webpage size prove little about lens performance. Adam's test included center and corner 1:1 details at various apertures.

[Quicksand]

A few exposures posted at common webpage size prove little about lens performance. Adam's test included center and corner 1:1 details at various apertures.

But your original (rather harsh, IMHO) response was directed to several OWNERS of the lens who have used it personally. Do you own it? Have you used it?