[Mr Spocko]

Stop this; you're giving me ideas. Expensive ideas. Must... resist...

I think I said it already - if I'll stay APS-C I'd want this zoom, because it's perfect for me: reasonably fast for a zoom, compact, light and it looks fantastic (well, that's more of a bonus than a necessary feature).
If I'll go FF (provided that Pentax will make one) I'd want something equivalent for it.

You see, Mr Spocko, there are people who cares about such products.

I'm sure a few will buy the lens, most won't though
And it hardly screams "wow" to potential Pentax buyers.
I never rated the 21mm f3.2 as a very interesting lens from day one, once the HD version came out at almost £600 it became something of a joke rather than a serious consideration for most people.

Situation is I sold my 40mm f2.8 after I got the Tamron 17-50 it replaces 2 limited primes easily as well as making the 35mm f2.4 pointless, and it makes the 20-40mm unnecessary too. Granted no WR but hey you can't have it all. There you go convenience and speed and nice price, I'm sure I'm not the only one passing on some Pentax offerings and buying Tamron glass

[Alizarine]

Situation is I sold my 40mm f2.8 after I got the Tamron 17-50 it replaces 2 limited primes easily as well as making the 35mm f2.4 pointless, and it makes the 20-40mm unnecessary too. Granted no WR but hey you can't have it all. There you go convenience and speed and nice price, I'm sure I'm not the only one passing on some Pentax offerings and buying Tamron glass

I guess it all boils down to preference. I have the Tamron 17-50 also, but given the money, the choice is automatic - I'm switching to the Limited.

[goldenarrow]

And people returning 3 or 4 Tamron zooms because of serious decentering issues. Will be waiting to hear about any decentering with a Pentax Ltd. zoom. I believe Photozone did report one Pentax zoom tested and returned for another one, but that was not a Limited zoom. Quality will be essential for this puppy, or else why bother and get a lottery ticket with your Tamron??

[monochrome]

Situation is I sold my 40mm f2.8 after I got the Tamron 17-50 it replaces 2 limited primes easily as well as making the 35mm f2.4 pointless, and it makes the 20-40mm unnecessary too.

Then you are clearly not the target customer. I am the target customer and there are plenty of me in the world. Sure, an expensive niche lens but better in many respects that matter to me than the Tamron and a cost-effective way for me to have DA Limited quality in place of 3 lenses.

What's the issue? You won't spend the money? Money is not the only scorekeeper.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 11-13-2013 at 10:13 AM.

[cfraz]

I'm sure a few will buy the lens, most won't though

I'm sure that's true, and I'm sure Ricoh knows the likely sales figures better than you or me. The idea that "most will buy this" was not one of Ricoh's design criteria for this Pentax lens. To say otherwise requires setting aside the entire history of the limited line of Pentax lenses. None of the limited lenses, including the 20-40, appeal to the center of the market bell curve. It's way out on the edge. That's just part of the limited series DNA. That does not mean that the lenses are not useful in their target areas, that users will not prize them highly, that photographers will not make amazing photographs with them, that Ricoh cannot profit from them, or that they should not be produced. Nor does it mean that Ricoh cannot also make lenses which do press all the mass market buttons.

And it hardly screams "wow" to potential Pentax buyers.

I've read quite a lot of "wow" in this thread alone.

I would guess by the sheer number of posts you've made on the subject, that you are passionate about letting the community know you really don't like this lens. That's great. No problem.

If you expect to convince others that they will not be satisfied with the lens, or are just plain stupid if they buy it, or that Ricoh should withdraw the lens, [and that's certainly what the tone of your posts make me think you are doing] then I think you're going to get a bit of push-back.

[Kunzite]

I'm sure a few will buy the lens, most won't though
And it hardly screams "wow" to potential Pentax buyers.
I never rated the 21mm f3.2 as a very interesting lens from day one, once the HD version came out at almost £600 it became something of a joke rather than a serious consideration for most people.

Situation is I sold my 40mm f2.8 after I got the Tamron 17-50 it replaces 2 limited primes easily as well as making the 35mm f2.4 pointless, and it makes the 20-40mm unnecessary too. Granted no WR but hey you can't have it all. There you go convenience and speed and nice price, I'm sure I'm not the only one passing on some Pentax offerings and buying Tamron glass

"Most"... most people would buy kit lenses, are you saying Pentax should only make kit lenses? Maybe they should give up completely on making lenses, because people can buy the Tamron? Tell us, what's the strategy?

As a Pentax user not afraid of buying quality - this lens screams "wow".

[H. Sapiens]

...
And it hardly screams "wow" to potential Pentax buyers.
I never rated the 21mm f3.2 as a very interesting lens from day one, once the HD version came out at almost £600 it became something of a joke rather than a serious consideration for most people.

Situation is I sold my 40mm f2.8 after I got the Tamron 17-50 it replaces 2 limited primes easily as well as making the 35mm f2.4 pointless, and it makes the 20-40mm unnecessary too. Granted no WR but hey you can't have it all. There you go convenience and speed and nice price, I'm sure I'm not the only one passing on some Pentax offerings and buying Tamron glass

And you'll say that Tamron of yours scream "wow"? Not to me. It is no principle or anything but so far I have passed on all Tamron's offerings except for an old 350mm mirror thing back from the film days.

I'll admit the numbers are less than impressing, but for me the ltd. zoom would replace my 21ltd (which, despite less than impressive data, easily have bagged me enough images to have payed itself off) and the 35mm ltd. - my main workhorse. I admit the extra mm at the wide end would have been nice but from 35-50 I can easily do without. For me, it is a trade off and the perfect lens is just not there, so I wait for reports on the 20-40 and go from there.

[Dr Orloff]

For travelling this is a highly tempting option. It's not the lens on it's own but how it combines to form a kit that makes it so appealing. I could imagine this in combination with the DA15 and FA77 as a very high quality and practical travel kit. The advantages of compact size and WR are huge. I think it's very well thought out. And it's not just the lenses themselves. You can take a more compact tripod and filter system. Brilliant.

[H. Sapiens]

For travelling this is a highly tempting option. It's not the lens on it's own but how it combines to form a kit that makes it so appealing. I could imagine this in combination with the DA15 and FA77 as a very high quality and practical travel kit. The advantages of compact size and WR are huge. I think it's very well thought out. And it's not just the lenses themselves. You can take a more compact tripod and filter system. Brilliant.

Exactly Doctor! That is the use and the setup, I have in mind. It is not as compact as I would have liked but weight it far more important to me and the weight of the 20-40 is not a deal breaker.

[thibs]

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.

Of course, completely agree. Some data is missing.

[Sandy Hancock]

I never rated the 21mm f3.2 as a very interesting lens from day one, once the HD version came out at almost £600 it became something of a joke rather than a serious consideration for most people.

Did you come to this conclusion after owning and using said lens? I adore my DA21. One of the major concerns I have about this new lens is I might feel compelled to sell my beautiful tiny21mm prime. My FA43 is also under threat, but nothing will displace my FA31.

[Andi Lo]

The tamron 17-50 and 28-75 lenses are fine. I think some people are downplaying their great optical performance unecessarily just because they're cheap. They're easily the best bargain on the APSC market: great image quality, which is utmost priority for most photographers, at the cost of playing roulette (buy used is better) and ok build quality (it's still better than the non-wr kitlens). It has some weaknesses (such as flare or corner sharpness) that may or may not matter to you, but they hit all the right buttons with many people.

The two Tamrons are actually the smallest lenses of its class, being compared to the limiteds is actually a big compliment to them, as it's a budget lens that performs almost on equal terms to DA lims.

I bought my tammy first before i got any limited because it's the sensible thing to do, it's just way better bang for buck (My Tamron 28-75 cost the same as my DA 40). Just because the tamron gets me the shots doesnt mean I can't enjoy the luxury of the limiteds though. DA lims is a luxury item, it also gets you from point A to B but with style and the small perks that the tamron doesnt have.

[Alizarine]

The tamron 17-50 and 28-75 lenses are fine. I think some people are downplaying their great optical performance unecessarily just because they're cheap. They're easily the best bargain on the APSC market: great image quality, which is utmost priority for most photographers, at the cost of playing roulette (buy used is better) and ok build quality. It has some weaknesses (such as flare or corner sharpness) that may or may not matter to you, but they hit all the right buttons with many people.

Can't say I'm underplaying the Tamron basic 2.8 zooms, as I have one myself and it has replaced the kit lens for me, used in all occasions except when it rains. It's just that, personally, if I had the money and the sample images I'm seeing from the net are as true as they get, then it's a no brainer to get the Limited and sell the Tamron in the long run. True, the Limited is a luxury item... one that I believe will work nicely too. But for now, I don't need it (yet, because my pocket disagrees with it!)

[Kunzite]

The tamron 17-50 and 28-75 lenses are fine. I think some people are downplaying their great optical performance unecessarily just because they're cheap. They're easily the best bargain on the APSC market: great image quality, which is utmost priority for most photographers, at the cost of playing roulette (buy used is better) and ok build quality (it's still better than the non-wr kitlens). It has some weaknesses (such as flare or corner sharpness) that may or may not matter to you, but they hit all the right buttons with many people.

What we're "downplaying" is this idea that we all should only search "best bargains", and reach the same conclusion that nothing else should exist.

[Andi Lo]

What we're "downplaying" is this idea that we all should only search "best bargains", and reach the same conclusion that nothing else should exist.

I think people just need to realize that the DA 2040 is a luxury item and not intended to compete with the Tamronsess.

Like you I also disagree that we should always look for best bargains. The luxury items exist for a reason, because they have value. If a person dont see the value of this DA 2040, nothing wrong with that, just dont assume that everyone thinks so.