[Iberia]

I have never seen a zoom lens with a perfect MTF - especially in this focal length, some MTF graphs from zoom lenses look like the person plotting them had a heart attack.



MTF from Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

Shouldn't you be comparing the 20-40mm APS with a full-frame equivalent, say a 2x zoom like the Contax f3,4/35-70mm?

Contax 35-70mm v Sigma 24-70mm v Contax 35mm


http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/co..._35-70mm_e.pdf

R

[Sinister]

The niggle which bothers me is whether it still makes sense to sink a lot of money into APS-C-only lenses (on the assumption the 20-40mm is APS-C only). With FF cameras like the D610 or the A7 hovering at only slightly more than the K3, and with high-spec top-quality m43 cameras in the running now too, the photography market has changed a great deal in the past 2-3 years. It's harder to sell something at a premium when there are increasingly tempting alternatives out there. Chances are Pentax itself will be offering one by the end of next year, too.

To a certain extend that bothers me, too

[repaap]

I hope that K-5II, K-3 improved focus is making that focus travel sing. Snappy, good for streets? or things like that..?

[Digitalis]

Shouldn't you be comparing the 20-40mm APS with a full-frame equivalent, say a 2x zoom like the Contax f3,4/35-70mm?

I was just using that MTF chart from the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L to illustrate a point, I wasn't making a comparison between it and the new DA20-40mm f/2.8~4.

[Unlimited]

I expected the high price.. actually it could have been worse.
Still I think most people fail to see the limiteds for what they are: lens with limited size and weight, with limited capabilities and an intentionally limited audience (that is done by price). Add a random (weird) FL and at least decent build quality and you have the magic formula. But this zoom it's not as limited as it could have been: it has a 2x zoom (there are lens with less zoom ratio.. true very few), it has a motor and WR. So stop complaining about the price and buy something more sane: it's definitely not a lens for you. They know they will sell few lens.. I think that is their target anyway. Could they sell it for 20% less and sell at least 3-4 times as many: surely but then they wouldn't limit (themselves) enough. So that's why lens are called limited: had they've been awesome they would have called them Elite or something; at least they're being honest. Or maybe they have a new strategy: sell only on BF, Cyber-Monday or with discounts.. that way they can somehow artificially increase the perceived value of the lens.. who knows.
If you want a 20-40 buy a used Sigma 20-40 f2.8: it's much cheaper, has constant f2.8 and it's a FF lens. Surely it's big (duh... it's FF), has no WR, and has lower build quality (although still decent I'd say) but the IQ is quite decent from the reviews on this site and from my own brief experience with one. I was close to buy one in Canon mount for less than 200 Euro: I should have bought it, but then thought that the only extra 4mm wider compared to my Sigma 24-70 Macro were not enough a reason to keep swapping lens. In retrospect I should have bought it for that price.. on the other hand that would have been one more lens for me to sell now.
To each his own (ideas).

[Vylen]

I want to see pics of the silver version on the silver K-3!

[Mr Spocko]

I dont think very many people requested DA 15, DFA 100 WR, and DA 60-250 either. Those now become three of pentax's best lenses.

Releasing lenses with wtf specs is a pentax speciality, I think it's kind of charming. Following what the masses want, in monochrome's word is very "unpentaxy"

Canon won't release a 20-40/2.8-4 that's this small because they can't. They dont have a single zoom lens this small that performs well.

Nobody would buy a Canon 20-40mm f2.8-f4!
I don't disagree some of the Canon lenses are quite big size wise, I know I've used a few. That's the price you pay for electronic aperture, and in lens motors

The DA 15mm made sense because it offers a wider angle than normal zooms, the 100mm is a macro and well play with the WR aspect too so again that's a sensible lens to have in a range (everyone has a 100mm macro or near enough) 60-250mm well I think a bit pricey myself I'd go for a 70-200mm personally..but it's not completely off the wall that offering.

20-40mm just seems weird and falls into a bad place range wise. It's not wide enough, not fast enough, and not much at the tele end, and erm it's just damn expensive. I just can't see it doing that well. If you have a WR zoom already why bother? It's got to compete v the 17-50mm's which are cheaper and faster, the 21mm f3.2 well it kinda compete with their own lens.

Maybe I don't get it but I can't work it out

[Vylen]

So, if I bought the HD 21, 35 and 40mm here in Aus, it would cost $1877... as I said before, $1000 is a bargain price as an alternative to carrying those three... although, it's yet to be seen how much it would actually cost here.

That said, it probably won't be optically as good as those 3 primes - otherwise, what incentive is there for people to buy those individual lenses?

[Iberia]

So, if I bought the HD 21, 35 and 40mm here in Aus, it would cost $1877... as I said before, $1000 is a bargain price as an alternative to carrying those three... although, it's yet to be seen how much it would actually cost here.

That said, it probably won't be optically as good as those 3 primes - otherwise, what incentive is there for people to buy those individual lenses?

I see two obvious ones: the "I love limiteds and can't restrain myself" syndrome and the "cuteness" factor.

R

[Andi Lo]

Nobody would buy a Canon 20-40mm f2.8-f4!
I don't disagree some of the Canon lenses are quite big size wise, I know I've used a few. That's the price you pay for electronic aperture, and in lens motors

The DA 15mm made sense because it offers a wider angle than normal zooms, the 100mm is a macro and well play with the WR aspect too so again that's a sensible lens to have in a range (everyone has a 100mm macro or near enough) 60-250mm well I think a bit pricey myself I'd go for a 70-200mm personally..but it's not completely off the wall that offering.

20-40mm just seems weird and falls into a bad place range wise. It's not wide enough, not fast enough, and not much at the tele end, and erm it's just damn expensive. I just can't see it doing that well. If you have a WR zoom already why bother? It's got to compete v the 17-50mm's which are cheaper and faster, the 21mm f3.2 well it kinda compete with their own lens.

Maybe I don't get it but I can't work it out

Oh yes they do, they just traded 2.8, WR, and size for 17mm (I know APS users buy this lens too)
http://www.photozone.de/reviews/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review

I do think that a person should pickup a 17-50/2.8 first if they dont have one, before getting this lens, I think the price itself already shows that. (it makes me cry, sigh) ;_; Pentax is trying to sell a macbook air here. In terms of pure horsepower it's nothing special but there's nothing in the market that's quite like it. In macbook air's case these are battery life, screen, macOS (great for mobile imo), and build quality. Macbook air shouldn't be your primary computing tool though, you should buy a desktop first.

If you're an APSC user and like street photography / hiking, would you prefer to have a 17-50/2.8 or 20-40/2.8-4 WR? The 20-40 has three things in its favor: WR, size, and build quality. IMO these means you're much more likely to carry it, it's not specs alone that determines photography. You will have no hesitation to pickup a WR, small lens just because it might rain, or when there's no more space in your bag after you bring that quintessential 70-200 (or 50-135/60-250). See that the same logic can be applied to a macbook air.

I've experienced firsthand that while metal lenses (Takumar, DA Limiteds) may have no direct spec benefit over a fast zoom lens, there's the intangible quality of using something so beautiful and precisely crafted, that you actually want to pick it up and use it (again, same with apple products)

But $1k

[snake]

What I can see this lens becoming is something of a classic for war/documentary/news photographers, but the era of Pentax being in that realm is long gone. And not to mention, it would really need to get its limited primes sealed to help deal with that.

[Rondec]

Price is too high. But certainly street price will be lower -- in the 800s, maybe? But considering where the DA limited primes are selling for, surely a limited zoom wasn't going to sell for 500 or even 600 dollars.

Not sure why everyone is touting the kit lens as some kind of awesome piece of glass. Yes, it is light and sealed, and yes, if you shoot at f8, your shots will be decently sharp. But it wouldn't be too hard for this lens to be sharper wide open than the kit lens is stopped down a little.

[Iberia]

I expected the high price.. actually it could have been worse.
Still I think most people fail to see the limiteds for what they are: lens with limited size and weight, with limited capabilities and an intentionally limited audience (that is done by price). Add a random (weird) FL and at least decent build quality and you have the magic formula. But this zoom it's not as limited as it could have been: it has a 2x zoom (there are lens with less zoom ratio.. true very few), it has a motor and WR. So stop complaining about the price and buy something more sane: it's definitely not a lens for you. They know they will sell few lens.. I think that is their target anyway. Could they sell it for 20% less and sell at least 3-4 times as many: surely but then they wouldn't limit (themselves) enough. So that's why lens are called limited: had they've been awesome they would have called them Elite or something; at least they're being honest. Or maybe they have a new strategy: sell only on BF, Cyber-Monday or with discounts.. that way they can somehow artificially increase the perceived value of the lens.. who knows.

When I buy into a system I expect it's manufacturer to provide an adequate lens lineup.
Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable for photographers to complain whenever Pentax gives birth to yet another an awkward focal length or zoom range when there are still important lenses missing from the lineup…

R

[MMVIII]

What I can see this lens becoming is something of a classic for war/documentary/news photographers, but the era of Pentax being in that realm is long gone. And not to mention, it would really need to get its limited primes sealed to help deal with that.

Exactly, travelling light with this lens as an always on, and expanding maybe with 15mm and 70mm, covering all needs for professional documentation, in harsh environmental conditions, if necessary add an 55mm 1,4 for low light situations, and you are done. The LX was the preferred tool for example for archaeologists in the field, or for aerial reconnaisance (beside the 645). This route is still open to Pentax, no doubt.

[bossa]

Shouldn't you be comparing the 20-40mm APS with a full-frame equivalent, say a 2x zoom like the Contax f3,4/35-70mm?

Contax 35-70mm v Sigma 24-70mm v Contax 35mm


http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/co..._35-70mm_e.pdf

R

Flailing MTF graphs, the enemone of image quality