DA limited 20-40 f/2.8-4 mounted images

**Digitalis** · 11-08-2013, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by steve1307

I bet your wife is pleased about that

HA! as if I'd get married at my age, i'm having too much fun being single. I figure I can ruin my life by getting married at a later stage* - statistically speaking the age range where is it socially acceptable to be romantically involved with another gets broader as you get older*.

*Personally I don't think anyone should ever get married in their twenties, early thirties at the youngest. Considering the 60% divorce rate I have seen amongst my friends that got married in their twenties - they would have been better off without the frilly dress, the vows and the cake in the first place.

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-08-2013 at 09:36 PM.

bxf · 11-08-2013, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Mistral75

ED means one or several elements are made of Extra low Dispersion glass.

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Indeed, but it has another meaning as well.

In which case I guess it would mean that the glass simply isn't up to the task.

richard balonglong · 11-08-2013, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by rlatjsrud

Well I have 16-50 which used for 3 years and still fine. I'm thinking to buy 20-40 but 16-50 makes me crazy~

For me, the choice between 20-40 and 16-50 is driving me crazy!

It drives me crazy because:
16-50 is:
1. more expensive
2. bulkier and heavier
3. constant 2.8
4. has wider range in FL
20-40 is:
1. less expensive
2. smaller and is all-metal build
3. variable aperture 2.8-4
4. FL is just right
5. good looking and sexy
6. DC AF
7. Limited lens

Now, I'm really excited to see the image quality of this 20-40mm...

zany225 · 11-09-2013, 12:13 AM

Last night I tested aperture on my 18-135mm. (I don't have the 18-55 WR.)
Actually, I want to test the kit 18-55mm WR instead because size should be more similar compare to this limited zoom.

Result:
At 21mm the aperture is at f/4 (I tried to make it stop at 20mm but failed.)
At 31mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Again, I tried to make it stop at 30mm but failed.)
At 41mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Not quite sure if it was 41mm or 42mm. I have a bad memory. But I tried to make it stop at 40mm but failed.)

So that means the limited zoom is faster than 18-135mm about 1 stop at wide end, however, it's faster only 1/3 stop at long end.
Result at long end might be different than the kit 18-55mm.

deus ursus · 11-09-2013, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by steve1307

If you're not familiar with that particular acronym, then probably you're not affected by that particular condition

.
I bet your wife is pleased about that

So the 16-45 mentioned earlier is on Viagra, then? :-)

Pen-A · 11-09-2013, 02:37 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by zany225

Last night I tested aperture on my 18-135mm. (I don't have the 18-55 WR.)
Actually, I want to test the kit 18-55mm WR instead because size should be more similar compare to this limited zoom.

Result:
At 21mm the aperture is at f/4 (I tried to make it stop at 20mm but failed.)
At 31mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Again, I tried to make it stop at 30mm but failed.)
At 41mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Not quite sure if it was 41mm or 42mm. I have a bad memory. But I tried to make it stop at 40mm but failed.)

So that means the limited zoom is faster than 18-135mm about 1 stop at wide end, however, it's faster only 1/3 stop at long end.
Result at long end might be different than the kit 18-55mm.

18-55wr:

20-32mm/f4.0 and f4.5 to 42mm

Sandy Hancock · 11-09-2013, 02:58 AM

I bought the DA*16-50 new from B&H for $750 this time last year. Just sayin'

Originally posted by richard balonglong

20-40 is:
1. less expensive

zany225 · 11-09-2013, 03:01 AM

Thanks Pen-A!!

Size is not significant factor anymore.
Construction is superior. But it was compensated with price.
Speed is somewhat considerable, maybe, hmmmm, not sure. But again, price makes this lens speed looks not worth enough.

The rest I wanna see is the IQ of this zoom limited.

richard balonglong · 11-09-2013, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

I bought the DA*16-50 new from B&H for $750 this time last year. Just sayin'

The 16-50 from B&H is $1,296... The price keeps on changing... -_-'

Sandy Hancock · 11-09-2013, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by richard balonglong

The 16-50 from B&H is $1,296... The price keeps on changing... -_-'

Timing is everything.

JinDesu · 11-09-2013, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Timing is everything.

Should apply to the 20-40 too.

SyncGuy · 11-09-2013, 08:39 AM

Uh oh.... I see that the airspace on the front grouping is rather small from the pic.. And that could likely mean the lens would start to sharpen up nicely only from f/5.6 or smaller onwards... :/
Let's hope the ED elememts will really help at >f/5.6..

And since most photos are at 30mm as pointed out, i can only imagine it extending like the 16-50.. Not too attractive to me.. :P

sTi · 11-09-2013, 03:05 PM

Doesn't anyone find it strange that the 20-40 contains no aspherical elements? I can't think of any modern K-mount lens which goes down to 20mm that does not have at least one aspherical element. I wonder what optical tricks Pentax employed to achieve the (hopefully) stellar optical performance without an aspherical element.

lytrytyr · 11-09-2013, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by sTi

I wonder what optical tricks Pentax employed to achieve the (hopefully) stellar optical performance without an aspherical element.

This lens has a Super-Low Dispersion (SLD) element:

PENTAX - HD PENTAX-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR

NitroDC · 11-09-2013, 06:06 PM

I don't understand how anyone can speculate on the quality of this lens when no one owns one yet and no sample images have been posted at all.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA limited 20-40 f/2.8-4	rlatjsrud	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-02-2013 11:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: K-5 + 18-135, 40 f/2.8 , 70mm f/2.4, 35 f/2.4, F50 f/1.7, 55-300 ED, Tamron 17-50.	rrwilliams64	Sold Items	19	03-08-2013 07:09 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax limited DA40 DA 40mm f/2.8 DA70 70mm f/2.4	bear111111	Sold Items	7	01-20-2013 01:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: 2 Amazing lenses: DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited and FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro	Nick Siebers	Sold Items	5	07-17-2012 04:03 PM

11-08-2013, 09:29 PM	#31
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by steve1307 I bet your wife is pleased about that HA! as if I'd get married at my age, i'm having too much fun being single. I figure I can ruin my life by getting married at a later stage* - statistically speaking the age range where is it socially acceptable to be romantically involved with another gets broader as you get older. Personally I don't think anyone should ever get married in their twenties, early thirties at the youngest. Considering the 60% divorce rate I have seen amongst my friends that got married in their twenties - they would have been better off without the frilly dress, the vows and the cake in the first place. Last edited by Digitalis; 11-08-2013 at 09:36 PM.

11-08-2013, 09:33 PM	#32
bxf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lisbon area Posts: 1,660	Originally posted by Mistral75 ED means one or several elements are made of Extra low Dispersion glass. Originally posted by lytrytyr Indeed, but it has another meaning as well. In which case I guess it would mean that the glass simply isn't up to the task.

11-08-2013, 11:26 PM	#33
richard balonglong Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Baguio City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 350	Originally posted by rlatjsrud Well I have 16-50 which used for 3 years and still fine. I'm thinking to buy 20-40 but 16-50 makes me crazy~ For me, the choice between 20-40 and 16-50 is driving me crazy! It drives me crazy because: 16-50 is: 1. more expensive 2. bulkier and heavier 3. constant 2.8 4. has wider range in FL 20-40 is: 1. less expensive 2. smaller and is all-metal build 3. variable aperture 2.8-4 4. FL is just right 5. good looking and sexy 6. DC AF 7. Limited lens Now, I'm really excited to see the image quality of this 20-40mm...

11-09-2013, 12:13 AM	#34
zany225 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Corvallis, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 247	Last night I tested aperture on my 18-135mm. (I don't have the 18-55 WR.) Actually, I want to test the kit 18-55mm WR instead because size should be more similar compare to this limited zoom. Result: At 21mm the aperture is at f/4 (I tried to make it stop at 20mm but failed.) At 31mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Again, I tried to make it stop at 30mm but failed.) At 41mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Not quite sure if it was 41mm or 42mm. I have a bad memory. But I tried to make it stop at 40mm but failed.) So that means the limited zoom is faster than 18-135mm about 1 stop at wide end, however, it's faster only 1/3 stop at long end. Result at long end might be different than the kit 18-55mm.

11-09-2013, 12:46 AM	#35
deus ursus Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Stårheim, Norway Posts: 658	Originally posted by steve1307 If you're not familiar with that particular acronym, then probably you're not affected by that particular condition . I bet your wife is pleased about that So the 16-45 mentioned earlier is on Viagra, then? :-)

11-09-2013, 02:37 AM - 1 Like	#36
Pen-A Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 675	Originally posted by zany225 Last night I tested aperture on my 18-135mm. (I don't have the 18-55 WR.) Actually, I want to test the kit 18-55mm WR instead because size should be more similar compare to this limited zoom. Result: At 21mm the aperture is at f/4 (I tried to make it stop at 20mm but failed.) At 31mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Again, I tried to make it stop at 30mm but failed.) At 41mm the aperture is at f/4.5 (Not quite sure if it was 41mm or 42mm. I have a bad memory. But I tried to make it stop at 40mm but failed.) So that means the limited zoom is faster than 18-135mm about 1 stop at wide end, however, it's faster only 1/3 stop at long end. Result at long end might be different than the kit 18-55mm. 18-55wr: 20-32mm/f4.0 and f4.5 to 42mm

11-09-2013, 02:58 AM	#37
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I bought the DA16-50 new from B&H for $750 this time last year. Just sayin' Originally posted by richard balonglong 20-40 is:* 1. less expensive

11-09-2013, 03:01 AM	#38
zany225 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Corvallis, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 247	Thanks Pen-A!! Size is not significant factor anymore. Construction is superior. But it was compensated with price. Speed is somewhat considerable, maybe, hmmmm, not sure. But again, price makes this lens speed looks not worth enough. The rest I wanna see is the IQ of this zoom limited.

11-09-2013, 05:33 AM	#39
richard balonglong Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Baguio City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 350	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock I bought the DA*16-50 new from B&H for $750 this time last year. Just sayin' The 16-50 from B&H is $1,296... The price keeps on changing... -_-'

11-09-2013, 05:48 AM	#40
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by richard balonglong The 16-50 from B&H is $1,296... The price keeps on changing... -_-' Timing is everything.

11-09-2013, 05:55 AM	#41
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Timing is everything. Should apply to the 20-40 too.

11-09-2013, 08:39 AM	#42
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Uh oh.... I see that the airspace on the front grouping is rather small from the pic.. And that could likely mean the lens would start to sharpen up nicely only from f/5.6 or smaller onwards... :/ Let's hope the ED elememts will really help at >f/5.6.. And since most photos are at 30mm as pointed out, i can only imagine it extending like the 16-50.. Not too attractive to me.. :P

11-09-2013, 03:05 PM	#43
sTi Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 98	Doesn't anyone find it strange that the 20-40 contains no aspherical elements? I can't think of any modern K-mount lens which goes down to 20mm that does not have at least one aspherical element. I wonder what optical tricks Pentax employed to achieve the (hopefully) stellar optical performance without an aspherical element.

11-09-2013, 04:09 PM	#44
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by sTi I wonder what optical tricks Pentax employed to achieve the (hopefully) stellar optical performance without an aspherical element. This lens has a Super-Low Dispersion (SLD) element: PENTAX - HD PENTAX-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR

11-09-2013, 06:06 PM	#45
NitroDC Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 342	I don't understand how anyone can speculate on the quality of this lens when no one owns one yet and no sample images have been posted at all.