[thibs]

0 value for you.

[thibs]

Well, as I stated in the beginning of my reply, I did get the point of comparing APS-C sensors solutions on other systems in the same focal length range, but indeed, maybe not everybody did. My point, on the other hand, was just to provide more products to compare the DA20-40 to, especially in the more compact categories of APS-C and 4/3rds dedicated lenses.

Agreed. Did not target you and yes your post was useful

[rbefly]

I do understand your point, though, Canon and Nikon offerings in this focal length range is limited to rather big FF lenses on APS-C DSLRs. Though all these lenses have rather good IQ, they're... big, LoL. Good job on your part of the research, BTW. You even included the prices, something I didn't care as much about.

Thanks for your reply and kind words, tigrebleu,
As a matter of fact, it was the price, as much as anything else, that prompted me to begin this thread.
Since the DA Ltd zoom was announced, several posters have complained about the price. Granted, Limited lenses are expensive compared to more general-purpose offerings, sometimes 2X or even slightly higher. It is hard to judge this accurately because the Ltd line features some 'odd' focal lengths (21mm, 70mm) that aren't produced by many- if any- other makers. Also, it's very difficult to put a price on all-metal construction vs plastic/composite construction, finer tolerances, etc.
But I had no idea if $1,000 USD was WAY out of line for a zoom in this focal range and speed.
What I found is pretty clear in the OP; It's not out of line at all. For those who stick to OEM lenses, The Pentax Ltd zoom is smaller, lighter and in three out of four cases, less expensive. It is, at worst, one stop slower, compared to the f/2.8 (constant) Canon/Nikon offerings.
In real-life APS-crop use, it is small consolation to know that the 24 ounce lens you're lugging around weighs so much because it also fits a FF body. It's still twice as heavy, much larger and there's a 75% chance it costs more than the Pentax Limited zoom. It was the only OEM choice you had in this focal range.
If anyone wishes to compare 18-55mm lenses or other greater-range zooms, please go ahead and do so.
On another thread.
Apples to Apples, Oranges to Oranges.
Ron

[Rondec]

Thanks for your reply and kind words, tigrebleu,
As a matter of fact, it was the price, as much as anything else, that prompted me to begin this thread.
Since the DA Ltd zoom was announced, several posters have complained about the price. Granted, Limited lenses are expensive compared to more general-purpose offerings, sometimes 2X or even slightly higher. It is hard to judge this accurately because the Ltd line features some 'odd' focal lengths (21mm, 70mm) that aren't produced by many- if any- other makers. Also, it's very difficult to put a price on all-metal construction vs plastic/composite construction, finer tolerances, etc.
But I had no idea if $1,000 USD was WAY out of line for a zoom in this focal range and speed.
What I found is pretty clear in the OP; It's not out of line at all. For those who stick to OEM lenses, The Pentax Ltd zoom is smaller, lighter and in three out of four cases, less expensive. It is, at worst, one stop slower, compared to the f/2.8 (constant) Canon/Nikon offerings.
In real-life APS-crop use, it is small consolation to know that the 24 ounce lens you're lugging around weighs so much because it also fits a FF body. It's still twice as heavy, much larger and there's a 75% chance it costs more than the Pentax Limited zoom. It was the only OEM choice you had in this focal range.
If anyone wishes to compare 18-55mm lenses or other greater-range zooms, please go ahead and do so.
On another thread.
Apples to Apples, Oranges to Oranges.
Ron

Agreed. Would Olympus users really buy more four thirds lenses, if Olympus made them full frame compatible (thereby increasing the lens size enormously)? Not everyone is interested in full frame cameras and it has long been the contention of folks like Thom Hogan that Nikon does not do enough to take care of the APS-C line up.

I do hope that Pentax comes out with full frame at some point, but I hope that they continue to release good products for the APS-C line as well.

[RobA_Oz]

FF equivalents for this lens on MFT?

Whoops. Of course, I meant 20-40.

[goldenarrow]

Thanks for your reply and kind words, tigrebleu,
As a matter of fact, it was the price, as much as anything else, that prompted me to begin this thread.
Since the DA Ltd zoom was announced, several posters have complained about the price. Granted, Limited lenses are expensive compared to more general-purpose offerings, sometimes 2X or even slightly higher. It is hard to judge this accurately because the Ltd line features some 'odd' focal lengths (21mm, 70mm) that aren't produced by many- if any- other makers. Also, it's very difficult to put a price on all-metal construction vs plastic/composite construction, finer tolerances, etc.
But I had no idea if $1,000 USD was WAY out of line for a zoom in this focal range and speed.

It is priced less than one ounce of gold!

[Mr Spocko]

There it is, Mr Spocko. You've done it again. It's clear you write these posts, my question is, do you read them?
Your quote above boils down to this:
The Pentax DA 35mm f/2.4AL is a MISTAKE from Pentax because YOU happen to already own a 3rd party zoom that includes that particular focal length and is only 1/2 stop slower.
Your lens collection should determine which lenses Pentax makes? When did you become chief of their product line?
You've done this before, many times. If what you have is produced by Tamron, that fact alone makes the Pentax offering redundant, superfluous and a mistake.
I guess we're all fortunate Tamron doesn't make a 70mm prime lens. Otherwise, according to your logic, the DA 70mm Ltd. wouldn't have a reason to exist.
As has been pointed out several times before, the Limited line is made to be smaller and more compact, sometimes at the expense of maximum aperture. If you value lens speed over size, the Limiteds are not for you. But that doesn't preclude the rest of the lens-buying public, which is exactly the problem. You can't seem to tell the difference.
Get over it!
Ron

Maybe you need to take a step back and consider what's going on in the photo world.
I use and play with other makers from time to time, and I can see what they are offering.

Seems fairly obvious to me that the 35mm f2.4 was a misfire from Pentax purely on speed. You can argue with that, but that's how I see it. Reason is people want "an equivalent 50mm that is "fast", which is probably why Nikon and Sony have 35mm f1.8 lenses (I've used both BTW too)
Did both other makers screw up? Or maybe they understood what people wanted, a budget 35mm lens that is affordable and "faster" than a zoom lens.

f2.4 is not fast for a 35mm crop prime lens, it's rather slow actually.
Oh wait we can buy the 35mm f2 AL lens for a mere £609 (frankly another ridiculous priced lens)

I also get out and talk to people, and most folks don't want to pay a premium for slow lenses, that's one reason Pentax has such a tiny market share (one of a number I would add)
I wish things were different, but I have news and it's sad news..most people out there couldn't care less about the limited lens range, they don't find it interesting, in fact people I talk to find it quite uninteresting. To most buyers lens speed is a major consideration for a lens, and that's where I think the mistakes are being made. People buy zooms and f2.8 zooms too, there is very little reason to buy an f2.8 or near there prime lens.

I've even had folks say to me why are these limited lenses not weather sealed? (bar this new zoom) for the price they are puzzled even more so since Pentax has made a big thing about weather sealing, yet their limited "pricey" lenses don't have it. Leaves them scratching their head a bit

I get it, not sure why Pentax doesn't

[monochrome]

most people out there couldn't care less about the limited lens range, they don't find it interesting, in fact people I talk to find it quite uninteresting. To most buyers lens speed is a major consideration for a lens, and that's where I think the mistakes are being made. People buy zooms and f2.8 zooms too, there is very little reason to buy an f2.8 or near there prime lens.

I've even had folks say to me why are these limited lenses not weather sealed? (bar this new zoom) for the price they are puzzled even more so since Pentax has made a big thing about weather sealing, yet their limited "pricey" lenses don't have it. Leaves them scratching their head a bit

I get it, not sure why Pentax doesn't

Ricoh cannot wave a magic wand and have a complete product catalog in a year. For now they have a 50/1.8. The door is open for you to move to the price of the 50/1.8.

We've discussed over and over why weather sealed and small don't go together well. It is also well-established this is really a niche, probably small-production lens, so probably not representative of anything really significant strategically.

We have no idea what kind of volume lens production capacity Pentax has right now - perhaps the existing and future volume production capacity is already allocated to lenses that aren't yet announced and this was produced within a small gap? But people insist on seeing things as discrete product silos rather than points in a continuum, tactical releases within an overall strategy. So be it.

There is already a Canon and there is already a Nikon. The market doesn't need another. Those who want the things you state already have them.

Pentax chooses to be something other than just another CaNikon. You could just get theirs and be done with wishing Pentax is something it isn't.

Not sure why you don't get it, but whatever. boriscleto™.

[Kunzite]

Seems fairly obvious to me that the 35mm f2.4 was a misfire from Pentax purely on speed.

One of the most popular Pentax lens (judging after a quick glance at Amazon and few Japanese sites), is "a misfire". Wow.

I get it, not sure why Pentax doesn't

Yeah, right.

[Mr Spocko]

Ricoh cannot wave a magic wand and have a complete product catalog in a year. For now they have a 50/1.8. The door is open for you to move to the price of the 50/1.8.

We've discussed over and over why weather sealed and small don't go together well. Do their scalps itch?

There is already a Canon and there is already a Nikon. The market doesn't need another. Those who want the things you state already have them.

Pentax chooses to be something other than just another CaNikon. You could just get theirs and be done with wishing Pentax is something it isn't.

Not sure why you don't get it.

You must have missed the press release about the 20-40mm then as it does have sealing Small and sealing don't go together?
Are we paying attention at all here?

I agree Ricoh/Pentax are going for something different..in 10 years time we can all share our stories about where it all went wrong, and "buying my next ebay Pentax DSLR...shame they don't make them anymore" I'm sure many users find it quite frustrating at times, market reality is despite having some decent bodies out there, Pentax are going nowhere fast.

They're not Leica you know..they are niche and can charge a premium. I'd like to remind you that Pentax in 35mm days were really the working man's SLR camera and decently priced. Going up market isn't working for Pentax at all

[Mr Spocko]

One of the most popular Pentax lens (judging after a quick glance at Amazon and few Japanese sites), is "a misfire". Wow.

Yeah, right.

Yes Pentax sell one 35mm f2.4 lens to every 5000 NIkon 35m f1.8 lens.
What an achievement!

[Rondec]

Maybe you need to take a step back and consider what's going on in the photo world.
I use and play with other makers from time to time, and I can see what they are offering.

Seems fairly obvious to me that the 35mm f2.4 was a misfire from Pentax purely on speed. You can argue with that, but that's how I see it. Reason is people want "an equivalent 50mm that is "fast", which is probably why Nikon and Sony have 35mm f1.8 lenses (I've used both BTW too)
Did both other makers screw up? Or maybe they understood what people wanted, a budget 35mm lens that is affordable and "faster" than a zoom lens.

f2.4 is not fast for a 35mm crop prime lens, it's rather slow actually.
Oh wait we can buy the 35mm f2 AL lens for a mere £609 (frankly another ridiculous priced lens)

I also get out and talk to people, and most folks don't want to pay a premium for slow lenses, that's one reason Pentax has such a tiny market share (one of a number I would add)
I wish things were different, but I have news and it's sad news..most people out there couldn't care less about the limited lens range, they don't find it interesting, in fact people I talk to find it quite uninteresting. To most buyers lens speed is a major consideration for a lens, and that's where I think the mistakes are being made. People buy zooms and f2.8 zooms too, there is very little reason to buy an f2.8 or near there prime lens.

I've even had folks say to me why are these limited lenses not weather sealed? (bar this new zoom) for the price they are puzzled even more so since Pentax has made a big thing about weather sealing, yet their limited "pricey" lenses don't have it. Leaves them scratching their head a bit

I get it, not sure why Pentax doesn't

I hate to burst your bubble, but for Ricoh/Pentax to be successful they need to do something different from Canon/Nikon. The reality is that the volume isn't there for them to match or under cut prices of the big two and simply to parrot their lenses for more money, would be disasterous. Pentax needs to blaze a different path. Make lenses that are different. Find niches for camera bodies that haven't been explored by Canon and Nikon. And in the end, they may find themselves in the number three position.

I will add, that having lenses that open up (like Canon's 50mm) to f1.8 and then have painful rendering and are prone to falling apart, may be a recipe for collecting users of your equipment, but it certainly is not a recipe for keeping them.

[Mr Spocko]

Optically the 35mm f2.4 is nothing special it's "ok" but not a revelation I've tried it and I've used the Nikkor 35mm f1.8, and the Sony 35mm f1.8 too.
It's not a better lens than either even ignoring the speed aspect (which is hard to ignore) It's not a bad lens by any means, but you are missing the point entirely.

New buyer "thinking" about their DSLR purchase looks at various makers lens ranges, having a slower than rivals 35mm crop lens isn't something to celebrate it's a turn off as buyers look for lenses like this to get them started. Sure we now have the 50mm f1.8 which is good, but then so do Nikon and Sony.

The Nikkor 35mm is nice enough you get a metal mount, quick shift focus, a hood and quiet AF. The lens is very usable wide open and it's actually cheaper than the Pentax! Bokeh isn't amazing granted, it has some CA issues too, and more distortion than expected...still it's solid enough as a lens. The Sony is cheaply made, but has a very good close focus and is even better than the Nikkor wide open, but has more vignetting, but less distortion and CA..and the nicest bokeh of the 3, you also get a hood and again it's a bit cheaper than the Pentax

It's really important for makers to have a competitive offering here to play to new users.
I remember picking up the 35mm f2.4 in the shop, with the cheap excuse for a front lens cap, no hood, the rather sad non proper rear lens cap..and yes 3/4 of a stop bothered me.
It was a thanks but no thanks. Come on Pentax can really do much better here.

You have to be competitive in the budget lenses, even if you are trying to be different elsewhere

[Parallax]

Mr Spocko, your posts, though well written are quite lengthy. Wouldn't you save yourself a lot of time and save a lot of wear and tear on your keyboard by just typing "Pentax is a loser"?

[Mr Spocko]

No because I'm learning to touch type!
It helps no end I have to say.

Pentax have "massive potential" they just have to work out how to exploit that.
Anyway back to this lens my vote goes for an 18-50mm limited f2.8-f4, more useful range with WR and excellent build, £850 is too high so knock it down to about £650 winner all round.
That extra 2mm wide end is most useful, still would be compact enough and would be far more attractive to buyers