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

snake · 11-09-2013, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

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.

How are you able to determine that, Alex?

Have you used the 15mm, by the way?

Kunzite · 11-09-2013, 07:08 AM

Are you still going on with that? I said "I'm not sure if...", didn't I? so it's not something I determined to be true.

snake · 11-09-2013, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Are you still going on with that? I said "I'm not sure if...", didn't I? so it's not something I determined to be true.

So then why say it?

It seems odd to have posted that at all, then when asked about it, you basically say that the post meant nothing at all.

I'm just trying to understand where your experience with all these Pentax products come from and what your area of usage is because one area where things may excel may not be right for others. In years of reading your authoritarian posts, I've not yet seen one pic, one gallery, one example, absolutely nothing. No equipment list, nothing. Nothing beyond what appears to be reading spec sheets and hearing things on the internet.

That's why I'm trying to understand and put your posts in perspective to see where you're coming from in your arguments, strong recommendations, admonishments, defenses, and so on. And it seems even more strange your reaction to being asked to post your pictures.

To be fair, you've broken some of your impartiality by already defending a lens that's not even out, not tested significantly on the street and by consumers, and merely has data available on it. So you're recommending it based on spec sheets?

**Rorschach** · 11-09-2013, 07:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by snake

So then why say it?

It seems odd to have posted that at all, then when asked about it, you basically say that the post meant nothing at all.

I'm just trying to understand where your experience with all these Pentax products come from and what your area of usage is because one area where things may excel may not be right for others. In years of reading your authoritarian posts, I've not yet seen one pic, one gallery, one example, absolutely nothing. No equipment list, nothing. Nothing beyond what appears to be reading spec sheets and hearing things on the internet.

That's why I'm trying to understand and put your posts in perspective to see where you're coming from in your arguments, strong recommendations, admonishments, defenses, and so on. And it seems even more strange your reaction to being asked to post your pictures.

To be fair, you've broken some of your impartiality by already defending a lens that's not even out, not tested significantly on the street and by consumers, and merely has data available on it. So you're recommending it based on spec sheets?

What the hell is your problem? Take this "discussion" to private messaging, please. I am getting seriously tired of this.

lytrytyr · 11-09-2013, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Even with the HD coating, I'm not sure if the 20-40 could possibly match the 15mm's (HD or smc) flare resistance.

The DA 15 has 6 groups in the optical formula, while the zoom has 8.
So indeed, we can't expect the zoom to be quite as resistant as the DA 15 HD,
unless other factors in the design prevail.

lytrytyr · 11-09-2013, 07:57 AM

Let's please all remember what it says at the top of the page:

Friendly Pentax Camera Forum!

nixcamic · 11-09-2013, 08:02 AM

The camera forum with the drama of a middle school!

I kid, this is an awesome forum, but sometimes people get way to obsessed about being right on the internet (I've never done that, oh no....)

Trying to correct everyone that's wrong on the internet is an impossible battle. Could we go back to whining about FF now?

snake · 11-09-2013, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Rorschach

What the hell is your problem? Take this "discussion" to private messaging, please. I am getting seriously tired of this.

I'm trying to understand where his recommendations and opinions are coming from. Singling one out will not make anything smoother if you perceive an issue. I'm not attacking Alex, but if this is to be a helpful community, with a focus on good information being passed around, it also helps to understand where the person giving it is coming from. On the other forum, Alex has several years of postings without a single photo ever being posted and now he's even giving advice and recommendations of products not even on the streets yet.

Let's say if he wasn't impartial/personally invested in Pentax for a second, wouldn't it also be of interest to know if he, in fact, is actually using unreleased products and has insider information and connections?

lytrytyr · 11-09-2013, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by nixcamic

sometimes people get way to obsessed about being right on the internet

Considering that was just posted on the internet, it's amazingly right!

nixcamic · 11-09-2013, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Considering that was just posted on the internet, it's amazingly right!

The first step is admitting you have a problem, I'm on the road to recovery

Frater · 11-09-2013, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

the zoom has 8

oh oh, only 8 groups having 9 elements? that's very mean for a zoom, given that even the kit's 18-55 has two more (11 elements). Further, the 20-30 doesn't seem to have even a single asperical element? specs only talk about ED.

On one hand, this makes production costs very cheap (much cheaper than the 18-55 kit) (assuming that lens elements esp. asphericals are the primary cost drivers), but on the other hand, having too few lens elements in a zoom usually introduces optical quirks.

E.g. the 18-135 also has too few lens elements in relation to its zoom range as well, and consequently it is flawed (its edges are blurred at all apertures through half of its zoom range).

I'm afraid of the 20-30 may well have similar or other flaws, as well? A lack of asphericals may weaken the short end, possibly. A decent test (e.g. photozone) will be inevitable.

Thanks 'Gray' that you shared someone's comparison shot, which impressively reveals the superiority of SMC over SD, which doesn't help SD exitement neither really. Not talking about stars (they are a matter of personal preferences), but SMC's highlights are so much cleaner and better defined, where SD's look somewhat dirty and less appealing. The violett ghosting flares are identical, maybe SMC is slightly better here, as well?

If Ricoh had decided to release the compact 18-55 in a Limited quality edition (slim metal housing, tight tolerances, and not only with a choice between black vs silver, but also SMC vs SD), I would have been a lucky man!

ElJamoquio · 11-09-2013, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

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

The shorter the focal length, the more I like straight blades.

Kunzite · 11-09-2013, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

The DA 15 has 6 groups in the optical formula, while the zoom has 8.
So indeed, we can't expect the zoom to be quite as resistant as the DA 15 HD,
unless other factors in the design prevail.

This is exactly my reasoning, this and the excellent flare resistance of the 15mm.
The zoom might be able to match a less flare resistant prime, but the 15mm? Doubtful, but still I think it should do pretty well.

I'm also very curious what they were able to achieve with "only" 9 elements, one ED and one SLD.

normhead · 11-09-2013, 08:36 AM

Quote:

The shorter the focal length, the more I like straight blades.

As opposed to gay blades?

bxf · 11-09-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by snake

So then why say it?

It seems odd to have posted that at all, then when asked about it, you basically say that the post meant nothing at all.

I'm just trying to understand where your experience with all these Pentax products come from and what your area of usage is because one area where things may excel may not be right for others. In years of reading your authoritarian posts, I've not yet seen one pic, one gallery, one example, absolutely nothing. No equipment list, nothing. Nothing beyond what appears to be reading spec sheets and hearing things on the internet.

That's why I'm trying to understand and put your posts in perspective to see where you're coming from in your arguments, strong recommendations, admonishments, defenses, and so on. And it seems even more strange your reaction to being asked to post your pictures.

To be fair, you've broken some of your impartiality by already defending a lens that's not even out, not tested significantly on the street and by consumers, and merely has data available on it. So you're recommending it based on spec sheets?

I understood Kunzite's original comment to mean that the benefits of the HD coating may not be that obvious with a lens that is resistant to flare in the first place. Makes sense to me.

You seem to have to an (not so hidden) agenda with your posts. I don't believe you are gaining many points.

11-09-2013, 08:16 AM	#746
Frater Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 143	Originally posted by lytrytyr the zoom has 8 oh oh, only 8 groups having 9 elements? that's very mean for a zoom, given that even the kit's 18-55 has two more (11 elements). Further, the 20-30 doesn't seem to have even a single asperical element? specs only talk about ED. On one hand, this makes production costs very cheap (much cheaper than the 18-55 kit) (assuming that lens elements esp. asphericals are the primary cost drivers), but on the other hand, having too few lens elements in a zoom usually introduces optical quirks. E.g. the 18-135 also has too few lens elements in relation to its zoom range as well, and consequently it is flawed (its edges are blurred at all apertures through half of its zoom range). I'm afraid of the 20-30 may well have similar or other flaws, as well? A lack of asphericals may weaken the short end, possibly. A decent test (e.g. photozone) will be inevitable. Thanks 'Gray' that you shared someone's comparison shot, which impressively reveals the superiority of SMC over SD, which doesn't help SD exitement neither really. Not talking about stars (they are a matter of personal preferences), but SMC's highlights are so much cleaner and better defined, where SD's look somewhat dirty and less appealing. The violett ghosting flares are identical, maybe SMC is slightly better here, as well? If Ricoh had decided to release the compact 18-55 in a Limited quality edition (slim metal housing, tight tolerances, and not only with a choice between black vs silver, but also SMC vs SD), I would have been a lucky man! Last edited by Frater; 11-09-2013 at 08:27 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, 07:05 AM	#736
snake Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: NY/Germany Posts: 1,183	Originally posted by Kunzite 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. How are you able to determine that, Alex? Have you used the 15mm, by the way?

11-09-2013, 07:08 AM	#737
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Are you still going on with that? I said "I'm not sure if...", didn't I? so it's not something I determined to be true.

11-09-2013, 07:29 AM	#738
snake Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: NY/Germany Posts: 1,183	Originally posted by Kunzite Are you still going on with that? I said "I'm not sure if...", didn't I? so it's not something I determined to be true. So then why say it? It seems odd to have posted that at all, then when asked about it, you basically say that the post meant nothing at all. I'm just trying to understand where your experience with all these Pentax products come from and what your area of usage is because one area where things may excel may not be right for others. In years of reading your authoritarian posts, I've not yet seen one pic, one gallery, one example, absolutely nothing. No equipment list, nothing. Nothing beyond what appears to be reading spec sheets and hearing things on the internet. That's why I'm trying to understand and put your posts in perspective to see where you're coming from in your arguments, strong recommendations, admonishments, defenses, and so on. And it seems even more strange your reaction to being asked to post your pictures. To be fair, you've broken some of your impartiality by already defending a lens that's not even out, not tested significantly on the street and by consumers, and merely has data available on it. So you're recommending it based on spec sheets?

11-09-2013, 07:51 AM - 1 Like	#739
Rorschach Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kuusamo, Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 652	Originally posted by snake So then why say it? It seems odd to have posted that at all, then when asked about it, you basically say that the post meant nothing at all. I'm just trying to understand where your experience with all these Pentax products come from and what your area of usage is because one area where things may excel may not be right for others. In years of reading your authoritarian posts, I've not yet seen one pic, one gallery, one example, absolutely nothing. No equipment list, nothing. Nothing beyond what appears to be reading spec sheets and hearing things on the internet. That's why I'm trying to understand and put your posts in perspective to see where you're coming from in your arguments, strong recommendations, admonishments, defenses, and so on. And it seems even more strange your reaction to being asked to post your pictures. To be fair, you've broken some of your impartiality by already defending a lens that's not even out, not tested significantly on the street and by consumers, and merely has data available on it. So you're recommending it based on spec sheets? What the hell is your problem? Take this "discussion" to private messaging, please. I am getting seriously tired of this.

11-09-2013, 07:53 AM	#740
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Kunzite Even with the HD coating, I'm not sure if the 20-40 could possibly match the 15mm's (HD or smc) flare resistance. The DA 15 has 6 groups in the optical formula, while the zoom has 8. So indeed, we can't expect the zoom to be quite as resistant as the DA 15 HD, unless other factors in the design prevail.

11-09-2013, 07:57 AM	#741
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Let's please all remember what it says at the top of the page: Friendly Pentax Camera Forum!

11-09-2013, 08:02 AM	#742
nixcamic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Guatemala Posts: 354	The camera forum with the drama of a middle school! I kid, this is an awesome forum, but sometimes people get way to obsessed about being right on the internet (I've never done that, oh no....) Trying to correct everyone that's wrong on the internet is an impossible battle. Could we go back to whining about FF now?

11-09-2013, 08:06 AM	#743
snake Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: NY/Germany Posts: 1,183	Originally posted by Rorschach What the hell is your problem? Take this "discussion" to private messaging, please. I am getting seriously tired of this. I'm trying to understand where his recommendations and opinions are coming from. Singling one out will not make anything smoother if you perceive an issue. I'm not attacking Alex, but if this is to be a helpful community, with a focus on good information being passed around, it also helps to understand where the person giving it is coming from. On the other forum, Alex has several years of postings without a single photo ever being posted and now he's even giving advice and recommendations of products not even on the streets yet. Let's say if he wasn't impartial/personally invested in Pentax for a second, wouldn't it also be of interest to know if he, in fact, is actually using unreleased products and has insider information and connections?

11-09-2013, 08:06 AM	#744
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by nixcamic sometimes people get way to obsessed about being right on the internet Considering that was just posted on the internet, it's amazingly right!

11-09-2013, 08:12 AM	#745
nixcamic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Guatemala Posts: 354	Originally posted by lytrytyr Considering that was just posted on the internet, it's amazingly right! The first step is admitting you have a problem, I'm on the road to recovery

11-09-2013, 08:23 AM	#747
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by D1N0 So now rounded aperture blades are lame all of a sudden. Maybe some people should get a star burst filter. The shorter the focal length, the more I like straight blades.

11-09-2013, 08:36 AM	#748
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by lytrytyr The DA 15 has 6 groups in the optical formula, while the zoom has 8. So indeed, we can't expect the zoom to be quite as resistant as the DA 15 HD, unless other factors in the design prevail. This is exactly my reasoning, this and the excellent flare resistance of the 15mm. The zoom might be able to match a less flare resistant prime, but the 15mm? Doubtful, but still I think it should do pretty well. I'm also very curious what they were able to achieve with "only" 9 elements, one ED and one SLD.

11-09-2013, 08:36 AM	#749
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: The shorter the focal length, the more I like straight blades. As opposed to gay blades?

11-09-2013, 08:41 AM	#750
bxf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lisbon area Posts: 1,660	Originally posted by snake So then why say it? It seems odd to have posted that at all, then when asked about it, you basically say that the post meant nothing at all. I'm just trying to understand where your experience with all these Pentax products come from and what your area of usage is because one area where things may excel may not be right for others. In years of reading your authoritarian posts, I've not yet seen one pic, one gallery, one example, absolutely nothing. No equipment list, nothing. Nothing beyond what appears to be reading spec sheets and hearing things on the internet. That's why I'm trying to understand and put your posts in perspective to see where you're coming from in your arguments, strong recommendations, admonishments, defenses, and so on. And it seems even more strange your reaction to being asked to post your pictures. To be fair, you've broken some of your impartiality by already defending a lens that's not even out, not tested significantly on the street and by consumers, and merely has data available on it. So you're recommending it based on spec sheets? I understood Kunzite's original comment to mean that the benefits of the HD coating may not be that obvious with a lens that is resistant to flare in the first place. Makes sense to me. You seem to have to an (not so hidden) agenda with your posts. I don't believe you are gaining many points.