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

gazonk · 01-22-2014, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by goubejp

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 · 01-22-2014, 03:23 PM

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 · 01-22-2014, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by 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?

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

starbase218 · 01-23-2014, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by 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?

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 · 01-23-2014, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by goubejp

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 · 01-23-2014, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

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 · 01-23-2014, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

Possibly because Adam did careful testing.

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

jimr-pdx · 01-23-2014, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by seventysixersfan

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 · 01-23-2014, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by seventysixersfan

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 · 01-23-2014, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by thibs

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 · 01-23-2014, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

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 · 01-23-2014, 06:09 PM

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

mtux · 01-23-2014, 07:18 PM

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

civiletti · 01-24-2014, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by thibs

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 · 01-24-2014, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by civiletti

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?

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

01-22-2014, 02:12 PM	#1216
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by goubejp 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

01-22-2014, 03:23 PM	#1217
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	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?

01-22-2014, 03:47 PM	#1218
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by 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? Buy this now, if you like the 16-85 later sell it? Not many used available, probably only take a $100 loss...

01-23-2014, 05:01 AM	#1219
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by 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? 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?

01-23-2014, 11:48 AM	#1220
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by goubejp 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.

01-23-2014, 12:08 PM	#1221
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by jimr-pdx 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?

01-23-2014, 12:58 PM	#1222
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by civiletti Possibly because Adam did careful testing. Ow, so those who like it didn't test correctly. Hum...

01-23-2014, 02:25 PM	#1223
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Originally posted by seventysixersfan 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?

01-23-2014, 02:36 PM	#1224
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,175	Originally posted by seventysixersfan 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.

01-23-2014, 02:48 PM	#1225
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by thibs 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.

01-23-2014, 04:15 PM	#1226
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by civiletti 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.

01-23-2014, 06:09 PM	#1227
Red Solo Cup New Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 12	I am close to buying this lens. Just wish it were $799.

01-23-2014, 07:18 PM	#1228
mtux Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: the Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,444	It might be a replacement for DA 16-50!?

01-24-2014, 10:30 AM	#1229
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by thibs 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.

01-24-2014, 10:52 AM	#1230
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by civiletti 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?