The DA limited is 20-40? and WR?!

starbase218 · 11-06-2013, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

Oh but they will sell, because iq will be on par with the primes, which can't be said for the 18-55 wr.

Then compare it to the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Used at 2.8-4.0 from 20 to 40mm it will probably be tack sharp as well, and a whole lot cheaper!

And then you can go to f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.
And the zoom range is bigger.
And it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

I know that is a bit bigger and heavier. Still, it just doesn't add up. At least to me. I don't know what Pentax is doing, but it's something I'm having a really hard time relating to.

Anyway... maybe I should be out shooting instead of hanging around forums watching releases of products that I just don't get.

D1N0 · 11-06-2013, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by starbase218

Then compare it to the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Used at 2.8-4.0 from 20 to 40mm it will probably be tack sharp as well, and a whole lot cheaper!

And then you can go to f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.
And the zoom range is bigger.
And it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

I know that is a bit bigger and heavier. Still, it just doesn't add up. At least to me. I don't know what Pentax is doing, but it's something I'm having a really hard time relating to.

Anyway... maybe I should be out shooting instead of hanging around forums watching releases of products that I just don't get.

sure but the DA* 16-50 isn't better than the tamron 17-50 as well, but pentax still sells it.

deejjjaaaa · 11-06-2013, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

and the m43 as a whole has four (three zooms and one prime).

4 (40-150/2.8 from Olympus coming) + 1, plus the whole bunch of 43 optics w/ MMF-3 dust- and splash-proof lens mount adapter

starbase218 · 11-06-2013, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

sure but the DA* 16-50 isn't better than the tamron 17-50 as well, but pentax still sells it.

True, but at least that's as fast, and it has 1mm extra wide-angle.

Plus, you know where the money went: you pick it up and it's heavy, because there is a lot of glass inside. So there is some sense of justification to the price, if only subconsciously.

Also, it helps that the Canikon equivalents aren't any cheaper. So it sort of is the norm. These f/2.8 standard zooms are also much more versatile than this 20-40mm lens. So yes, the Tamron is actually a really good buy, but although the Pentax is more expensive, it still gives you a very versatile lens. The value-for-money is still ok.

Na Horuk · 11-06-2013, 05:01 PM

..apparently it has 55mm filter

Quicksand · 11-06-2013, 05:21 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by starbase218

Image quality will be better than the 18-55 WR. But 1000 USD... for the build and image quality???

I know, right? Who buys a lens for image quality?

Mr Spocko · 11-06-2013, 05:21 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by starbase218

Then compare it to the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Used at 2.8-4.0 from 20 to 40mm it will probably be tack sharp as well, and a whole lot cheaper!

And then you can go to f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.
And the zoom range is bigger.
And it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

I know that is a bit bigger and heavier. Still, it just doesn't add up. At least to me. I don't know what Pentax is doing, but it's something I'm having a really hard time relating to.

Anyway... maybe I should be out shooting instead of hanging around forums watching releases of products that I just don't get.

I dunno what Ricoh are smoking, maybe they're watching too much "breaking bad" on Netflix

Honestly, I don't see the point the range is odd for APS-C, it's a small range..worse it's not even constant f2.8
Buy a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, pocket the change and you can pay for most of a brand new K5II! Or buy another lens or 2

£849 is a crazy crazy price for a zoom like that. What is it gold plated?
This is why I don't think Ricoh are very smart, nobody really wants this lens so why bother making it?
I'm sure forum members can think of 3/4 much more useful lenses than this.

Sandy Hancock · 11-06-2013, 05:34 PM

I can't believe anyone seriously thought it would be any cheaper.
If I didn't already have the 21, 31 and 43 (and the 16-50 if I need a WR zoom) I would be tempted. The filter size is a bit of a downer though - very un-limited size.

**Digitalis** · 11-06-2013, 05:51 PM

I'm just as surprised by the price - I knew it would be more expensive, but you could just about buy two sigma 18-35mm f/1.8's for the cost of one of these lenses.

**robbiec** · 11-06-2013, 05:55 PM

How dare anyone compare a Tamron to a Pentax Limited! It is like comparing a pair of rubber soled and imatation leather shoes bought in a Walmart weekend offer to a pair of bespoke Budapester shoes. It is apples and oranges. Pentax do not cater to my camera is big, my lens is big, i'm a serious photographer... Pentax have filled out a sub 135 format system that caters to the more discrete photographer, who does not need to announce their presence, who revels in the handling and ergonomics of a beautifully built, capable and quiet but also class leading K-3. To speak bluntly my friends, if you want brash, big, noisy, a statement in other words... F%£¥ off to the competition

Simple really.

JinDesu · 11-06-2013, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

I'm just as surprised by the price - I knew it would be more expensive, but you could just about buy two sigma 18-35mm f/1.8's for the cost of one of these lenses.

Two? Where are you finding the 18-35 for $500, because I will buy it right now.

Mr Spocko · 11-06-2013, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

I can't believe anyone seriously thought it would be any cheaper.
If I didn't already have the 21, 31 and 43 (and the 16-50 if I need a WR zoom) I would be tempted. The filter size is a bit of a downer though - very un-limited size.

Nobody expected it to be "cheap" but £850/$1000 is really pushing things a tad.
I saw it and thought maybe £599 tops, couldn't actually believe the RRP is over £800

2 issues
How many people don't have this range covered? (very few I would think in either zooms or combination of primes) - ie there is little demand for such a lens
If it's such a great focal range imagine Canon releasing a 20-40mm f2.8-f4 L, it would get laughed off the market and forums FF or APS-C.

I'm trying to find the posts from Pentax users saying "please Pentax we need a 20-40mm f2.8-f4 limited zoom" I've yet to find one, but can find plenty of other sensible lens requests

Mr Spocko · 11-06-2013, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by robbiec

How dare anyone compare a Tamron to a Pentax Limited! It is like comparing a pair of rubber soled and imatation leather shoes bought in a Walmart weekend offer to a pair of bespoke Budapester shoes. It is apples and oranges. Pentax do not cater to my camera is big, my lens is big, i'm a serious photographer... Pentax have filled out a sub 135 format system that caters to the more discrete photographer, who does not need to announce their presence, who revels in the handling and ergonomics of a beautifully built, capable and quiet but also class leading K-3. To speak bluntly my friends, if you want brash, big, noisy, a statement in other words... F%£¥ off to the competition

Simple really.

It's all about the optics dude!
17-50mm outperforms the Pentax 16-50mm
90mm macro is well respected by all
70-200mm f2.8 is actually quite a good lens (it's not perfect but decent), albeit screw driven..try buying a decent 70-200mm f2.8 for under £600

Sure I grant you Tamron build is well it's "ok" for what is it and the price reflects that. Limited lenses have superb build, but how rough do you treat your gear?
I suspect quite a lot of Pentax users buy Tamron lenses, because they can actually afford them!

And most (not all of them granted) have nothing to be ashamed of optics wise either.
I mean we do take photos, so the lenses do matter..good optics and fair prices are a win win for the buyer

ElJamoquio · 11-06-2013, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by bossa

The 15mm is not as good as the Sigm 8-16,

Flare and sunstars are much better on the 15 IME. If I had to pick one it'd be the 15 without hesitation, for me.

ElJamoquio · 11-06-2013, 06:10 PM

I dunno, I'm surprised it's that cheap, I would've said $1200. Pentax pricing is out of control.

Will it be 'better' than the sometimes $1600 DA* 16-50? I dunno, but I'd-sure-as-shootin' prefer the 20-40. Maybe.

The proof is in the pudding... there's almost nothing, specification wise, between the Zeiss 85mm F/1.4 and the Rokinon 85mm F/1.4. And yet the price of the Rokinon is one-fifth the price of the Zeiss. Why?

There's many similar examples in the lens world...

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

11-06-2013, 04:38 PM	#526
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by D1N0 Oh but they will sell, because iq will be on par with the primes, which can't be said for the 18-55 wr. Then compare it to the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Used at 2.8-4.0 from 20 to 40mm it will probably be tack sharp as well, and a whole lot cheaper! And then you can go to f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. And the zoom range is bigger. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper. I know that is a bit bigger and heavier. Still, it just doesn't add up. At least to me. I don't know what Pentax is doing, but it's something I'm having a really hard time relating to. Anyway... maybe I should be out shooting instead of hanging around forums watching releases of products that I just don't get.

11-06-2013, 04:44 PM	#527
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by starbase218 Then compare it to the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Used at 2.8-4.0 from 20 to 40mm it will probably be tack sharp as well, and a whole lot cheaper! And then you can go to f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. And the zoom range is bigger. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper. I know that is a bit bigger and heavier. Still, it just doesn't add up. At least to me. I don't know what Pentax is doing, but it's something I'm having a really hard time relating to. Anyway... maybe I should be out shooting instead of hanging around forums watching releases of products that I just don't get. sure but the DA* 16-50 isn't better than the tamron 17-50 as well, but pentax still sells it.

11-06-2013, 04:48 PM	#528
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by Andi Lo and the m43 as a whole has four (three zooms and one prime). 4 (40-150/2.8 from Olympus coming) + 1, plus the whole bunch of 43 optics w/ MMF-3 dust- and splash-proof lens mount adapter

11-06-2013, 04:55 PM	#529
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by D1N0 sure but the DA* 16-50 isn't better than the tamron 17-50 as well, but pentax still sells it. True, but at least that's as fast, and it has 1mm extra wide-angle. Plus, you know where the money went: you pick it up and it's heavy, because there is a lot of glass inside. So there is some sense of justification to the price, if only subconsciously. Also, it helps that the Canikon equivalents aren't any cheaper. So it sort of is the norm. These f/2.8 standard zooms are also much more versatile than this 20-40mm lens. So yes, the Tamron is actually a really good buy, but although the Pentax is more expensive, it still gives you a very versatile lens. The value-for-money is still ok.

11-06-2013, 05:01 PM	#530
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	..apparently it has 55mm filter

11-06-2013, 05:21 PM - 2 Likes	#531
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by starbase218 Image quality will be better than the 18-55 WR. But 1000 USD... for the build and image quality??? I know, right? Who buys a lens for image quality?

11-06-2013, 05:21 PM - 1 Like	#532
Mr Spocko Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 254	Originally posted by starbase218 Then compare it to the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Used at 2.8-4.0 from 20 to 40mm it will probably be tack sharp as well, and a whole lot cheaper! And then you can go to f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. And the zoom range is bigger. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper. I know that is a bit bigger and heavier. Still, it just doesn't add up. At least to me. I don't know what Pentax is doing, but it's something I'm having a really hard time relating to. Anyway... maybe I should be out shooting instead of hanging around forums watching releases of products that I just don't get. I dunno what Ricoh are smoking, maybe they're watching too much "breaking bad" on Netflix Honestly, I don't see the point the range is odd for APS-C, it's a small range..worse it's not even constant f2.8 Buy a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, pocket the change and you can pay for most of a brand new K5II! Or buy another lens or 2 £849 is a crazy crazy price for a zoom like that. What is it gold plated? This is why I don't think Ricoh are very smart, nobody really wants this lens so why bother making it? I'm sure forum members can think of 3/4 much more useful lenses than this.

11-06-2013, 05:34 PM	#533
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I can't believe anyone seriously thought it would be any cheaper. If I didn't already have the 21, 31 and 43 (and the 16-50 if I need a WR zoom) I would be tempted. The filter size is a bit of a downer though - very un-limited size.

11-06-2013, 05:51 PM	#534
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I'm just as surprised by the price - I knew it would be more expensive, but you could just about buy two sigma 18-35mm f/1.8's for the cost of one of these lenses.

11-06-2013, 05:55 PM	#535
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	How dare anyone compare a Tamron to a Pentax Limited! It is like comparing a pair of rubber soled and imatation leather shoes bought in a Walmart weekend offer to a pair of bespoke Budapester shoes. It is apples and oranges. Pentax do not cater to my camera is big, my lens is big, i'm a serious photographer... Pentax have filled out a sub 135 format system that caters to the more discrete photographer, who does not need to announce their presence, who revels in the handling and ergonomics of a beautifully built, capable and quiet but also class leading K-3. To speak bluntly my friends, if you want brash, big, noisy, a statement in other words... F%£¥ off to the competition Simple really.

11-06-2013, 05:57 PM	#536
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by Digitalis I'm just as surprised by the price - I knew it would be more expensive, but you could just about buy two sigma 18-35mm f/1.8's for the cost of one of these lenses. Two? Where are you finding the 18-35 for $500, because I will buy it right now.

11-06-2013, 05:58 PM	#537
Mr Spocko Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 254	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock I can't believe anyone seriously thought it would be any cheaper. If I didn't already have the 21, 31 and 43 (and the 16-50 if I need a WR zoom) I would be tempted. The filter size is a bit of a downer though - very un-limited size. Nobody expected it to be "cheap" but £850/$1000 is really pushing things a tad. I saw it and thought maybe £599 tops, couldn't actually believe the RRP is over £800 2 issues How many people don't have this range covered? (very few I would think in either zooms or combination of primes) - ie there is little demand for such a lens If it's such a great focal range imagine Canon releasing a 20-40mm f2.8-f4 L, it would get laughed off the market and forums FF or APS-C. I'm trying to find the posts from Pentax users saying "please Pentax we need a 20-40mm f2.8-f4 limited zoom" I've yet to find one, but can find plenty of other sensible lens requests

11-06-2013, 06:02 PM	#538
Mr Spocko Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 254	Originally posted by robbiec How dare anyone compare a Tamron to a Pentax Limited! It is like comparing a pair of rubber soled and imatation leather shoes bought in a Walmart weekend offer to a pair of bespoke Budapester shoes. It is apples and oranges. Pentax do not cater to my camera is big, my lens is big, i'm a serious photographer... Pentax have filled out a sub 135 format system that caters to the more discrete photographer, who does not need to announce their presence, who revels in the handling and ergonomics of a beautifully built, capable and quiet but also class leading K-3. To speak bluntly my friends, if you want brash, big, noisy, a statement in other words... F%£¥ off to the competition Simple really. It's all about the optics dude! 17-50mm outperforms the Pentax 16-50mm 90mm macro is well respected by all 70-200mm f2.8 is actually quite a good lens (it's not perfect but decent), albeit screw driven..try buying a decent 70-200mm f2.8 for under £600 Sure I grant you Tamron build is well it's "ok" for what is it and the price reflects that. Limited lenses have superb build, but how rough do you treat your gear? I suspect quite a lot of Pentax users buy Tamron lenses, because they can actually afford them! And most (not all of them granted) have nothing to be ashamed of optics wise either. I mean we do take photos, so the lenses do matter..good optics and fair prices are a win win for the buyer

11-06-2013, 06:04 PM	#539
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by bossa The 15mm is not as good as the Sigm 8-16, Flare and sunstars are much better on the 15 IME. If I had to pick one it'd be the 15 without hesitation, for me.

11-06-2013, 06:10 PM	#540
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	I dunno, I'm surprised it's that cheap, I would've said $1200. Pentax pricing is out of control. Will it be 'better' than the sometimes $1600 DA* 16-50? I dunno, but I'd-sure-as-shootin' prefer the 20-40. Maybe. The proof is in the pudding... there's almost nothing, specification wise, between the Zeiss 85mm F/1.4 and the Rokinon 85mm F/1.4. And yet the price of the Rokinon is one-fifth the price of the Zeiss. Why? There's many similar examples in the lens world...