[rbefly]

That is assuming you would use these C/N lenses on a crop body, while they are designed to cover fullframe. Not really a fair comparison imho.

Hello starbase218,
How is it unfair? This isn't the Full Frame Forum, I couldn't compare an imaginary DA Ltd zoom made for use on a non-existent Pentax body. This is the lens offered, for the bodies Pentax offers.
Any more than I could speculate (accurately) how much smaller, lighter and cheaper the Nikon/Canon offerings WOULD BE, if only they would produce them in APS-C-specific, format. They made that choice, they tout how much better FF is, over APS-C. Well, choices have consequences; What they perceived as an advantage (size of format) is also a disadvantage, when a single lens must also work on two formats.
I tried to compare the only similar WA zooms available from Nikon and Canon, against a new Pentax zoom. Pentax only makes APS-C DSLR's.
Everything else is guesswork, and there's over 1,000 pages on three different threads, for that.
JMO,
Ron

---

Last edited by rbefly; 11-11-2013 at 05:06 AM.

[starbase218]

It is if it is clear you compair in this context.
You could do the same on an FF bofy and you'd (most probably) get the DA Limited to vignette so badly the FF lenses would take a good laugh.

I see no problem in this comparison. As long as it is clear you're working on a specific format: APS-C.

Ok, but then you might as well compare APS-C specific lenses from Canon and Nikon, like the 17-55's. True, they don't cover the same FL - they cover more, at both ends of the range. And they are constant f/2.8. And while the Nikon is more expensive, the Canon seems to be comparable in price, if not cheaper (it's around 750 euros here in The Netherlands). Plus the Canon looks to be very sharp.

Or, take the Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5. Slightly slower than the Pentax, but suited to FF, much cheaper and 385 grams, which isn't that much. And at less than 600 euros, it's much cheaper. And you get a ring-type ultrasonic motor with that.

You are right that Pentax has created a unique lens. However, they are also asking us to pay for nothing else but that uniqueness. It is quite expensive if you think how much glass is inside, or what kind of AF it has.

The problem I am having with the Pentax is that you pay for lightweight and small dimensions. If I go out and buy a TV, I expect the smaller models to be cheaper, because it took less resources to make it in the first place. But this is not reflected in the price of the 20-40mm at all. Quite the opposite; the small size is seen as an advantage. And it may very well be, but it's not an advantage that they should charge you extra money for, or at least not so much. IMHO.

[Kikool_CH]

Hi

I also think you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The Canon L series are professional products designed and intended to be used on FF cameras. They are not WA lenses but Ultra Wide to quite Wide zooms, their design is probably quite different than the 20-40 which could be considered as moderately wide to normal zoom. I don't see any interest to screw them on an APS-C camera, except if you already have a FF (have both APS-C and FF) or intend to go through the FF route later.

Two different classes...

I don't look down at all on the DA ltd, of which I'm sure it's a good lens (hopefully, given the price). I think it has been designed as a very good all-arounder, an ideal replacement for the kit lens.

[lytrytyr]

We'll have to wait to see if the Pentax is or is not. Meaning the DA zoom may vignette on a camera that Pentax doesn't offer anyway, at least right now.

No need to wait.

Before this current thread was even started,
@Zygonyx had posted about trying it
on a full frame camera offered by Pentax (the PZ-1p),
and the Limited zoom vignetted.

"I am affraid it doesn't cover 24x36mm"

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/241156-da-limited-2...ml#post2573684

[Clavius]

I only now noticed the filter thread size of 55mm. I thought all DA ltds were supposed to have 49mm? Not that I care about compactness or anything. It's just surprising.

[Mistral75]

Hi

I also think you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The Canon L series are professional products designed and intended to be used on FF cameras. They are not WA lenses but Ultra Wide to quite Wide zooms, their design is probably quite different than the 20-40 which could be considered as moderately wide to normal zoom. (...)

Two different classes...

(...)

I'll second that.

It's the same as comparing smc Pentax-DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited and smc Pentax-A 15mm f/3.5 and concluding "shame on the designers of the '80s for designing such a big, bulky and heavy lens, only one third of a stop faster."

[bdery]

That's a pretty interesting list. One thing more in favour of the 20-40. You are comparing MSPR with actual prices for the other lenses. The actual price of the 20-40 is likely to be lower.

[lightbulb]

Where is my 10-20 wr limited? If I was crazy about close up portrait I had say the 20 40 makes a good lens.

[rbefly]

For the third time, it's not 'apples and oranges' That would only apply if Canon (or Nikon, or anyone else) made these lenses in FULL FRAME ONLY.
But they didn't, did they?
What part of that is so hard to understand?
Canon and Nikon chose to make these lenses useable in both formats. Pentax didn't twist their arm, so they could have a weight and size advantage.
You can't have it both ways; If the lens works in APS-C, is sold for APS-C, competes with similar offerings in APS-C and the makers sells APS-C (or cropped format) cameras, it doesn't matter (to this discussion) what other formats it fits.
This thread is comparing a new Pentax APS-C lens (obviously, since that's the only DSLR format Pentax has available) to lenses from other makers that THOSE COMPANIES market as APS-C compatable.
There's a Full Frame forum for all the rest of these non-applicable opinions.
Ron

[Mistral75]

For the third time, it's not 'apples and oranges' That would only apply if Canon (or Nikon, or anyone else) made these lenses in FULL FRAME ONLY.
But they didn't, did they?
What part of that is so hard to understand?
Canon and Nikon chose to make these lenses useable in both formats. Pentax didn't twist their arm, so they could have a weight and size advantage.
(...)

There is no such thing as making a full-frame lens useable on half-frame sensors.

It is, per se.

[bdery]

For seventysixersfan and any others who may be interested, I took a look at the Canon and Nikon home sites regarding the construction features of the four lenses. Here's what I found;
Both Canon zooms feature the 'Ultra Sonic Monitor' (USM) which reduces focusing noise. I don't know how this compares to the DC motor used in the new DA Ltd zoom, but would assume they're both pretty quiet.
Both Canon zooms are described as 'Weather-Resistant'
The Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom features a 'Silent Wave Motor' (SWM) for focusing. It is described as having a 'rugged construction and professional grade dust and moisture resistance to withstand even the most trying conditions'. I've shortened this to 'W/R' on the first post.
The Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 zoom features SWM.
Neither site goes into detail about metal/plastic used in the lens construction. I would guess (always a dangerous tactic!) the higher-priced f/2.8 zooms, clearly aimed at the advanced/pro market, are more sturdy than the f/4.0 versions. How much metal/plastic/composite materials and in what ratios? Got me.
I've added the focusing motor initials and 'W/R' for all lenses in the initial comparisons, where appropriate.
Ron

I have talked to a Nikon rep last week. While their equipment is "WR", when I asked if I could use it under rain, he made a face and said something along the lines of "no, not really". They resist to humid environments but not actual water.

[monochrome]

Ron: Facts are insufficient. Reason is insufficient. Though everyone has and is entitled to an opinion and many commenters making posts RE: this lens make some reasonable statements about the utility of the price / value relationship (who really needs the "Limited" quality of the lens? Just give us the IQ at a lower price) - there remains a group of commenters who have returned to the "Pentax can do no right unless they give stuff away" school of value, or "Pentax isn't Canon" or Pentax must be smoking what the Mayor of Toronto is smoking (actual post on another thread).


Ricoh hasn't yet convinced the market they are ignoring Canon, competing slightly above Nikon and offering a premium product at lower volume for a discerning customer who is willing to pay for:

• Image Quality
• Current-market competitive features
• Higher quality manufacturing tolerances
• Engineering expertise
• Smaller package
• Durability, weather sealing and IBIS
• A bit of intellectual snob appeal, I think

Pentax Pricing is a feature, not, a bug. You'll need to pay up to own Pentax - but it is worth it. Many, many users will scoff at this strategy if it actually plays out - and they will be served well by the consumer grade Canon products. Many other users will scoff at this strategy and they will be served well by Nikon (and Canon) professional products.
But a certain breed of cat - our breed of cat - will find Pentax attractive and will pay for the quality, with an idea that their children will inherit their lenses.

Trying to convince PF readers this is a good idea or a single lens is competitive is a losing proposition - their biases are too deeply ingrained and they've far too long embraced their expectations of Pentax to change them - that it is third-tier (at best) and can never compete as an equal with Canon, Nikon and Sony. Well guess what? Ricoh will bypass that entire rubric and compete above them (In the wide gulf between Nikon and Leica) by defining their own vision of Good, Better and Best.

So let the Forum have its little spats. Buy the gear, Take your photos. Show your friends what Pentax can do - that's more meaningfuil anyway.
.

[David&karen]

Well, I have owned or long term rented every one of the Nikon and Canon lenses discussed. For the Nikon it was used on a D3X for 3 years. No matter what the Nikon rep said, the Nikon 16-35 VR is weather sealed up to the same or better than the Pentax WR standard, but is mostly made of plastic and is not considered a pro lens, but a higher consumer lens. I have shot with the 17-35 AFS and it is not sealed except at the lens mount like all the older pro nikon glass(80-200 f2.8 etc), but is mostly made of metal. Nikon only specifies how weather sealed their lenses are on 3 of them, and even this changes on their website: the 24-70 f2.8, the 14-24 f2.8 and sometimes the newest 70-200 f2.8. It is assumed in the pro community that many others like the 16-35 vr are also completely WR(I can vouch for that one in the lousy winter in Germany in 2010). Only one Nikon DX lens is thought to be sealed: the 17-55 f2.8 and it is $1300 street price and their is no VR in it. I owned the Canon 5DII, the Canon 17-40 is sealed, and made mostly of plastic. It requires a filter to complete the sealing. It is also very soft in the corners to f11 or so on FF. The 16-35 f2.8 canon is sealed, has more metal in it but still at least 1/2 plastic, and sharper on FF. None of the specifically mentioned lenses is totally/mostly made of metal except the Nikon 17-35 f2.8. I consider the Pentax Limiteds to be pro class lenses by virtue of their construction quality. Not every pro lens is super fast in f-stop. And I do think the MAP of the 20-40 lens is fair if it holds up it's end with very good/excellent quality straight from the largest lens opening. I used Leica M's exclusively until I started the change to digital in 2008. You want pricy, look at Leica glass. But they are beautiful to use, touch, look at. And the Pentax Limiteds are mechanically just as good IMO, and many times just as good optically, esp. compared to the Leica glass from 3-5 years ago. The only reason I quit Leica was the M8 was a real bummer, and no one knew if the M9 would be FF or not. And the M9 sensor turned out to be very noisy like many CCD sensors. Now I am content not to use any more Leicas as I found the K7/K5/K5IIs/ and I presume the K3 to be quieter than the M4 shutter(you tube has a video somewhere, I have sold all my leica gear by now) with a whole lot of other features. Anyhow, call me if I blew technicalities on this post, as I am juggling three things now, and I will correct as needed. But I like the Pentax 20-40 a lot, I just pray it is optically up to snuff.

David

[Rondec]

I just think it is a niche lens, made more so because it is so expensive. I have no problem with a 2 x lens, but 20mm just isn't that wide on APS-C. A 16 to 30mm lens would have been a better offering, although it would probably have had to be larger than it currently is.

I have no problem with Ricoh making such a lens, but this feels a little frivolous in the current line up. I would rather have had refreshes of the 16-50 and 50-135...

[bdery]

Ricoh hasn't yet convinced the market they are ignoring Canon, competing slightly above Nikon

They have not convinced the naysayers, but seeing how fast the K-3 is selling, I think the market is pretty happy.

No matter what the Nikon rep said, the Nikon 16-35 VR is weather sealed

He was talking generally about bodies and lenses. Not one specific lens. But he would not stand by his product on this level. He also said no other was doing better in this aspect, and seemed nonplused when I politely corrected him by showing him my 18-55 WR (and a few other lenses )

the Canon 17-40 is sealed, and made mostly of plastic. It requires a filter to complete the sealing.

Then it is not sealed, is it?