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

Iberia · 11-09-2013, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Only by empirical observation; I'm not aware of any laboratory measurements being published (except Pentax' own chart). Yes, it's clearly better.

Have you compared images taken (by you or someone else) using identical lenses with different coatings?
And if so, can you post a link?

Such claims cannot be validated unless they're substatiated with adequate testing.

The days when I believed in every manufacturer claim are long gone…

R

Last edited by Iberia; 11-09-2013 at 03:11 AM. Reason: rephrased for clarity and added quote

snake · 11-09-2013, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Only by empirical observation; I'm not aware of any laboratory measurements being published (except Pentax' own chart). Yes, it's clearly better.

That doesn't make it "clearly better", since there are always, even in your own posts over several years, deviations between lab results and what one sees in the real world. When people have bashed Pentax based on pure numbers and spec sheets, you've told them to the effect of using the said item or bashed them for not using it and relying too much on the print. But now we're seeing you on the other side.

In the spirit of the impartial side to your postings, Alex, we need to wait for the real world to see. Nothing will be better "clearly" in every situation. There are always tradeoffs, which we will have to see. Perhaps, little difference at all.

Iberia · 11-09-2013, 03:14 AM

Blind brand following is bound to cloud our reasoning somewhere along the way…

R

D1N0 · 11-09-2013, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Iberia

Blind brand following is bound to cloud our reasoning somewhere along the way…

R

same goes for blind sceptisism

Kunzite · 11-09-2013, 03:29 AM

Other lame attempts to discredit me?

Don't you realize they only shows that you don't have any argument?

If something can be seen with the naked eye (as opposed to lab measurements), I will call it "clearly better". Deal with that.
I saw the difference at Photokina, and then there are sites who made side to side comparisons, in challenging conditions:
GANREF | ???????

Iberia · 11-09-2013, 03:48 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

there are sites who made side to side comparisons, in challenging conditions:
GANREF | ???????

Adequate testing is fine, one doesn't have to measure everything.

R

snake · 11-09-2013, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Other lame attempts to discredit me?

Don't you realize they only shows that you don't have any argument?

If something can be seen with the naked eye (as opposed to lab measurements), I will call it "clearly better". Deal with that.
I saw the difference at Photokina, and then there are sites who made side to side comparisons, in challenging conditions:
GANREF | ???????

I didn't even argue with you, Alex.

gazonk · 11-09-2013, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by bxf

Perhaps it's simply due to he fact that I haven't been around these forums long enough, but I don't recall such a determined dissection of the value of the other Limited lenses. I always had the impression that the value of these was accepted due to their generally conceded superior optical and construction qualities.

I think there were negative comments about the DA35 Ltd (e.g. "who needs a 35mm macro? Ridiculous!") and DA15 Ltd ("f/4? ridiculous!"), but mostly these comments wane when proof of the optical quality comes.

Gray · 11-09-2013, 04:53 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Iberia

Has anyone confirmed the better HD coating performance through objective/cientifical evaluation methods?
R

I don't think the HD coating makes much practical difference in the field.

Here's a comparison of the smc and HD 15/4 limiteds. (The smc DA in fact looks better because its starbursts aren't stunted by rounded blades like the HD version).

HD version

smc version

Original images and thread link (thanks mooeep).

RonHendriks1966 · 11-09-2013, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Iberia

Blind brand following is bound to cloud our reasoning somewhere along the way…

R

This is absolutely right.

But you know, you can look for the best gear available all your life, or just use the tools that are available for you.

When you buy a K-3 and this new DA 20-40mm/f2.8-4 and you can't make some descent images over the coming years, then the problem is never your gear.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-09-2013, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Gray

I don't think the HD coating makes much practical difference in the field.

Here's a comparison of the smc and HD 15/4 limiteds. (The smc DA in fact looks better because its starbursts aren't stunted by rounded blades like the HD version).

HD version

smc version

Original images and thread link (thanks mooeep).

I like the smc version more.

Kunzite · 11-09-2013, 05:05 AM

The 15mm is known for its incredible resistance to flare, isn't it? But change the coatings in a lens more prone to flare, and you might see a difference

The discussion about coatings started with the HD 20-40 vs. smc 16-50. Even with the HD coating, I'm not sure if the 20-40 could possibly match the 15mm's (HD or smc) flare resistance.

JinDesu · 11-09-2013, 05:50 AM

Mind you the change in the starburst is because of the change in the aperture blade shapes.

infoomatic · 11-09-2013, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

I like the smc version more.

me too, I should grab an smc version I think (have been considering this lens for months)

D1N0 · 11-09-2013, 06:12 AM

So now rounded aperture blades are lame all of a sudden. Maybe some people should get a star burst filter.

11-09-2013, 03:12 AM	#722
snake Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: NY/Germany Posts: 1,183	Originally posted by Kunzite Only by empirical observation; I'm not aware of any laboratory measurements being published (except Pentax' own chart). Yes, it's clearly better. That doesn't make it "clearly better", since there are always, even in your own posts over several years, deviations between lab results and what one sees in the real world. When people have bashed Pentax based on pure numbers and spec sheets, you've told them to the effect of using the said item or bashed them for not using it and relying too much on the print. But now we're seeing you on the other side. In the spirit of the impartial side to your postings, Alex, we need to wait for the real world to see. Nothing will be better "clearly" in every situation. There are always tradeoffs, which we will have to see. Perhaps, little difference at all. Last edited by snake; 11-09-2013 at 03:26 AM.

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

11-09-2013, 03:10 AM	#721
Iberia Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 135	Originally posted by Kunzite Only by empirical observation; I'm not aware of any laboratory measurements being published (except Pentax' own chart). Yes, it's clearly better. Have you compared images taken (by you or someone else) using identical lenses with different coatings? And if so, can you post a link? Such claims cannot be validated unless they're substatiated with adequate testing. The days when I believed in every manufacturer claim are long gone… R Last edited by Iberia; 11-09-2013 at 03:11 AM. Reason: rephrased for clarity and added quote

11-09-2013, 03:14 AM	#723
Iberia Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 135	Blind brand following is bound to cloud our reasoning somewhere along the way… R

11-09-2013, 03:26 AM	#724
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Iberia Blind brand following is bound to cloud our reasoning somewhere along the way… R same goes for blind sceptisism

11-09-2013, 03:29 AM	#725
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Other lame attempts to discredit me? Don't you realize they only shows that you don't have any argument? If something can be seen with the naked eye (as opposed to lab measurements), I will call it "clearly better". Deal with that. I saw the difference at Photokina, and then there are sites who made side to side comparisons, in challenging conditions: GANREF \| ???????

11-09-2013, 03:48 AM - 1 Like	#726
Iberia Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 135	Originally posted by Kunzite there are sites who made side to side comparisons, in challenging conditions: GANREF \| ??????? Adequate testing is fine, one doesn't have to measure everything. R

11-09-2013, 03:53 AM	#727
snake Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: NY/Germany Posts: 1,183	Originally posted by Kunzite Other lame attempts to discredit me? Don't you realize they only shows that you don't have any argument? If something can be seen with the naked eye (as opposed to lab measurements), I will call it "clearly better". Deal with that. I saw the difference at Photokina, and then there are sites who made side to side comparisons, in challenging conditions: GANREF \| ??????? I didn't even argue with you, Alex.

11-09-2013, 04:13 AM	#728
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by bxf Perhaps it's simply due to he fact that I haven't been around these forums long enough, but I don't recall such a determined dissection of the value of the other Limited lenses. I always had the impression that the value of these was accepted due to their generally conceded superior optical and construction qualities. I think there were negative comments about the DA35 Ltd (e.g. "who needs a 35mm macro? Ridiculous!") and DA15 Ltd ("f/4? ridiculous!"), but mostly these comments wane when proof of the optical quality comes.

11-09-2013, 04:53 AM - 2 Likes	#729
Gray Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Cape Town Photos: Gallery Posts: 536	Originally posted by Iberia Has anyone confirmed the better HD coating performance through objective/cientifical evaluation methods? R I don't think the HD coating makes much practical difference in the field. Here's a comparison of the smc and HD 15/4 limiteds. (The smc DA in fact looks better because its starbursts aren't stunted by rounded blades like the HD version). HD version smc version Original images and thread link (thanks mooeep).

11-09-2013, 04:55 AM	#730
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Iberia Blind brand following is bound to cloud our reasoning somewhere along the way… R This is absolutely right. But you know, you can look for the best gear available all your life, or just use the tools that are available for you. When you buy a K-3 and this new DA 20-40mm/f2.8-4 and you can't make some descent images over the coming years, then the problem is never your gear.

11-09-2013, 04:56 AM	#731
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Gray I don't think the HD coating makes much practical difference in the field. Here's a comparison of the smc and HD 15/4 limiteds. (The smc DA in fact looks better because its starbursts aren't stunted by rounded blades like the HD version). HD version smc version Original images and thread link (thanks mooeep). I like the smc version more.

11-09-2013, 05:05 AM	#732
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	The 15mm is known for its incredible resistance to flare, isn't it? But change the coatings in a lens more prone to flare, and you might see a difference The discussion about coatings started with the HD 20-40 vs. smc 16-50. Even with the HD coating, I'm not sure if the 20-40 could possibly match the 15mm's (HD or smc) flare resistance.

11-09-2013, 05:50 AM	#733
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Mind you the change in the starburst is because of the change in the aperture blade shapes.

11-09-2013, 05:52 AM	#734
infoomatic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 255	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 I like the smc version more. me too, I should grab an smc version I think (have been considering this lens for months)

11-09-2013, 06:12 AM	#735
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	So now rounded aperture blades are lame all of a sudden. Maybe some people should get a star burst filter.