[Zygonyx]

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.

Agreed, + let's keep in mind that any lens bargain has also its two parts interests : in this respect don't underestimate the positive impact for any future PENTAX product dévelopment that a single PENTAX lens bought has... whereas TAMRON stopped K mounted new products for at least the last 4 years...

[rbefly]

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.

You nailed it, Kunzite. The gentleman with the pointy ears has made it a crusade to go on every thread that mentions a Limited lens, with multiple posts ridiculing Pentax and praising Tamron. So it follows that the DA Ltd is too short, not wide enough, not fast enough, range is too small, too expensive and should only be compared to an F/2.8 18-55mm, so as to be more fair. Did I miss anything? Oh, yes, the red stripe is also used by Canon.
Nobody will buy it, much less use it. It is a complete flop in design, execution and pricepoint.
All presented as indisputable truth.
Whenever his personal preferences are challenged and facts presented to debate them, he jumps to a reworded, but similar complaint, without acknowledging the obviously factual and accurate viewpoint.
There's an old expression describing this tactic; 'Don't let any facts interfere with your opinion'.
As for myself, I prefer facts to overblown, pompous expressions of personal sentiments.
When you feel you've had enough of his rhetoric, the yellow triangle is your friend.
Ron

[monochrome]

When you feel you've had enough of his rhetoric, the yellow triangle is your friend.

And boriscleto™, as an actve verb, is your ally. It's fun too.

[snake]

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.

That's something quite well known and criticized externally and internally about this forum and its reviews, in fact. Any non-pentax lenses get slammed as "cheap", "not as luxurious", "off-brand", lies about coatings being inferior, and so on and the reviews will tell the same- look at how all these Pentax lenses score so high. Ridiculously so. Even the 16-50, which, beyond the SDM problems, has significant optical problems, particularly the decentered elements (which I experienced on several copies in tests) and extremely poor performance below 18mm.

[normhead]

Well. I don't know, the 18-135 sure seems to get slammed on this forum. The forum ratings are just fine. What you do is subtract 5 from the score, and use the number as out of 5. Thus a lens rated 7 out of 10 becomes 2 out of 5. A lens in the 8s becomes 3 out of 5, not very flattering, and really, I try and stay away from lenses not rated 9.5 or lower. If you do that, the rating system works just fine.

The Sigma 35 1.4 is rated 10 out of 10, and since DxO says it's the best lens on any system, it probably earns that ranking, and it's not a Pentax.

Interesting though the Tamron 17-50 is rated 9.1 for sharpness...the DA 16-50 , 8.64..maybe you can find a glaring example of lenses being ranked poorly, but at a causal glance, I can't find one.

[Quicksand]

That's something quite well known and criticized externally and internally about this forum and its reviews, in fact. Any non-pentax lenses get slammed as "cheap", "not as luxurious", "off-brand", lies about coatings being inferior, and so on and the reviews will tell the same- look at how all these Pentax lenses score so high. Ridiculously so. Even the 16-50, which, beyond the SDM problems, has significant optical problems, particularly the decentered elements (which I experienced on several copies in tests) and extremely poor performance below 18mm.

Lies? Come on.

I don't have many modern non-Pentax lenses. I have a Sigma 24-60/2.8, and at one point I had a Tamron 70-300.

I sold the Tamron because its purple fringing was terrible terrible terrible and it just wasn't that sharp.

I still have the Sigma, but I will state, on the record, that I can't shoot anything within 60 degrees of the sun, because the lens flare is abominable. It covers nearly the whole frame. It's practically unusable in bright sunlight. I suspect the coatings have something to do with this.

These lenses are off-brand, and in my opinion they are inferior, period. My Pentax 18-55 and 50-200 are better in various ways. Not all ways, mind you. But in some important ways that matter to me.

My Limiteds are better in pretty much EVERY way. And even my old Takumars have better performance in some areas.

User reviews reflect what's important to the user. They aren't objective. Don't treat them as objective.

[jsherman999]

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. .

Anyone who has spent any considerable time shooting with a DA Limited would seriously consider buying the DA 20-40, as long as it performs on par. My DA 35ltd is a powerful, fun tool.

[cali92rs]

My DA 35ltd is a powerful, fun tool.

That 35mm LTD is probably the lens i most regret getting rid of
IMHO it's versatilty is unmatched for a prime lens. You can shoot landscapes, true 1:1 macros and nice portraits.

[Na Horuk]

Any non-pentax lenses get slammed as "cheap", "not as luxurious", "off-brand", lies about coatings being inferior,

The biggest complaint about these forums that I see are the negative Nancies whining about Pentax and calling everyone who disagrees with them a fanboy (and now even a liar)

Are the lens ratings a little inflated? Sure, but what do you expect from an aggregate of user reports. Nobody blindly follows the rating numbers, the real value of the reviews is the commentary and sample photos.

[monochrome]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to decide a lower priced Tamron zoom that offers really good IQ at the price is a preferable choice over a beautiful jewel of a lens at some large multiple of the price and the same IQ.

After all, a $2 materials generic attractor fly will get 95% of the rises that a $7.50 materials beautiful Henryville Special will, I can tie five of them in the same time as one of the prettier fly and if I break one off - well, ho hum, I have another dozen in my wallet.

But the point is, ho hum. I don't fly fish just to catch trout and I don't photograph just to capture photons. This is a hobby, not a job. Some of the fun is using the fine (or legacy) tools - the way they feel, look and sound while they're being used. If that is fanboish or Pentaxy - well OK then I'm guilty. Sue me.

I could flog the fly fishing metaphor to death - rods, reels, hand-tied leaders, imported cane vs. carbon-graphite vs. boron shafts, nickel silver ferrules and agate guides versus stainless, maple or rosewood reel seats - you get the idea - they all catch fish, but some are more fun than others.

So I also think it's perfectly unreasonable for someone to say Pentax shouldn't make a lens for people who have a different feature/price/value decision set. Ricoh isn't stupid, opinion to the contrary. They'll sell plenty of this lens and make plenty of money.

Since I now apparently have to really think about a FF strategy, I really have to think about a complete gear strategy. Is all this film stuff really important or just a conceit? Is APSc realy what I want or just what I have? Can I get a K3, 2 Limiteds and a zhort Zoom and be prepared for a FF, a medium wide, a normal and some legacy MF telephotos? Do I really need this Q and K-01 stuff?

This Limited Zoom might just allow me to stay with APSc and Limiteds. plan to own a FF and keep some legacy FF lenses. That was probably impossible before.

[snake]

This is a hobby, not a job

Quite possibly for you. Not everyone.

[thibs]

Geez I like the politics of this forum to allow everyone to have an opinion but sometimes I really wished there were limits (and yes I know, where would we put them ??)

[bxf]

That's something quite well known and criticized externally and internally about this forum and its reviews, in fact. Any non-pentax lenses get slammed as "cheap", "not as luxurious", "off-brand", lies about coatings being inferior, and so on and the reviews will tell the same- look at how all these Pentax lenses score so high. Ridiculously so. Even the 16-50, which, beyond the SDM problems, has significant optical problems, particularly the decentered elements (which I experienced on several copies in tests) and extremely poor performance below 18mm.

???

Oh really? It just so happens that two comparisons I've read - 17-70mm and 16/17-50mm - show the Pentax entrants in last place. The 12-24mm is rated middle in the group.

Pentax 17-70mm Lens Comparison - Conclusion and Ratings - PentaxForums.com
DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - The Bottom Line - PentaxForums.com
DA 12-24mm vs Sigma and Tamron 10-24mm Comparison - The Bottom Line - PentaxForums.com

Are we viewing the same forum?

[kenyee]

The 20-40 can't really be compared w/ the lenses in the OP. It chops off the wide angle range and that's the hardest part to get right even w/o the heavier weight it requires (wider angle = bigger filters = wider glass = more weight).
You're better off comparing it to Sigma's no longer made 24-60/2.8 lens...

[snake]

You're better off comparing it to Sigma's no longer made 24-60/2.8 lens...

Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 EX DG Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database