[monochrome]

???

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?

There is a word descriptive of the repeated, disruptive actions of certain posters here. However, one shalt not direct that word at a member specifically, lest one shoud attract the ire (and Infraction Points) of a Mod.

Best to simply use the boriscleto™ strategy.

[bxf]

Best to simply use the boriscleto™ strategy.

I haven't yet taken advantage of this technology, but I feel I'm heading there.

[snake]

???

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?

Actually, I read entry 2, which led me to the Tamron. However, references are available throughout these forums about sentiment otherwise.

[yorik]

Best to simply use the boriscleto™ strategy.

Explain please.... (I have the feeling it might be useful, but I want to use it correctly )

[THoog]

Explain please.... (I have the feeling it might be useful, but I want to use it correctly )

BC has raised use of the "Ignore User" feature to an art form (and trademarked it).

I find I'm using it more and more myself these days. It's a pity, because in many cases, I respect the speaker's knowledge, ability, and opinion, but it's presented in such a way that I just don't want to hear them any more.

[rbefly]

As much as I believe the 'Ignore User" function is a good tool for eliminating certain posters from your world, it has limitations; That person may well be quoted by another (non-offensive) poster later in the thread, which sort of defeats the purpose. This thread is a good example.
But primarily because it doesn't address the problem, it avoids it. The yellow triangle is an 'official' message to those who administer notices, warnings and, if justified, 'time-outs' for the offender, which can vary in length from a week to....forever.
I prefer a more global approach, not just the singular one. Some reported posts may not draw direct action, but you are leaving a paper trail and that will add up. If the offending party continues the action, even on different threads, it will become obvious to those who monitor the Forum. "So-and-so has been reported again, by a different member on a new thread." So it isn't just a case of personality clash, it is more of a consensus or general opinion.
Again I stress, use these methods only when you feel strongly that someone is actively trolling, flaming, abusive or rude. We have rules which 99% of the members follow, and functions to deal with them if they don't. But the Mods, as good and hard-working as they are, can't be everywhere at once.
Last, as far as I know, the 'Report this post' function is handled with discretion, your actions are not known to anyone but the staff.
JMO,
Ron

[monochrome]

Explain please.... (I have the feeling it might be useful, but I want to use it correctly )

BC has raised use of the "Ignore User" feature to an art form (and trademarked it).

I find I'm using it more and more myself these days. It's a pity, because in many cases, I respect the speaker's knowledge, ability, and opinion, but it's presented in such a way that I just don't want to hear them any more.

And as he did that I made it an active verb, as in to "boriscleto" a poster. Picking up on the fun, he Trademarked the action, so I added the ™ to my Reply.

Actually, it's all in a bit of darkish good humor. I myself have from time to time gone a bit overboard. Lately I just tire of unnecessary negativism. Ricoh has breathed new life into Pentax and we should, IMHO, confine our criticisms to factual observation rather than bloviaton and petty slander.

I believe we will see an announcement and a new product about once a month for literally years. They won't all be earthshaking but they'll all be very high quality, supported and followed up with improvements and corrections where necessary. Bomm . . . Boom . . . Boom BOOM BOOM . . . . Boom Boom - always in the news, forcing DPR and Imaging Resource and DCI to constantly recognize and review Pentax, getting the installed base up again so third-party manufacturers can make for the K-mount, building the cash flow so that RIAC can actually support the brand - all the things we've wanted Pentax to do for years Ricoh is actually doing - and we criticize them for a unique, Limited Zoom?? Good Grief.

Ricoh Hasn't killed the Brand - they're Living the Brand.

It's all good and it is about time we accept that Pentax is back and Ricoh is real.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 11-14-2013 at 09:17 AM.

[tigrebleu]

I am not familiar with nikon and canon lenses-- do the ones you listed have Weather resistance and silent focusing motoring? What about Construction material -- are they plastic or metal?

All these lenses have silent focusing (USM for Canon, SWM for Nikon)... All Canon lenses mentioned in the original post are weather sealed, but the Nikon 17-35mm is not weather resistant (well, there's a ring at the mount, not no W/R on the rest of the lens), while the 16-35mm is fully W/R.

The Canon 16-35mm and Nikon 17-35mm are F/2.8 pro lenses, and make good use of metal in their construction, with some external parts made out of plastic. The Canon 17-40mm and Nikon 16-35mm have a metal barrel, and some external parts made out of metal, but they use a bit more plastic on the exterior than the pro lenses.

[tigrebleu]

I understand that you wanted to compare lenses with a similar focal length range on APS-C, but comparing full frame lenses with an image circle about twice the surface area of APS-C lenses isn't fair for the full frame lenses to start with, at least in terms of size, weight and filter size. You still have a point in the fact that Canon and Nikon don't have a lot of APS-C options in the range of the DA 20-40mm (the 17-55mm F2.8 lens they both have in their line-up is the only one, actually ).

To be fairer, you could also have included other lenses with a similar equivalent focal length range, but in APS-C (DSLR or mirrorless) and in FourThirds and MicroFourThirds mount.

So I added a few APS-C and 4/3 lenses to the ones in the original post. And for purposes of a "decent" comparison, I didn't include any lens with a max. aperture smaller than F/4, or any lens with a focal length lower than 28mm or greater than 70mm in full frame equivalent, so that it's close to the limits of the Pentax's 30-60mm in FF equivalent focal length range. Here we go:

- Canon: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Fujinon: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Nikkor: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- (Olympus) Zuiko Lens 14-35mm F2.0 SWD
Filter: 77mm — Size (D x L): 86.0mm x 123.0mm* — Weight: 900g* — Weather sealed: YES** — Motor: SWD — Stabilizer: NO, in-camera
*: Plus the length and weight increase of a MMF-2 or MMF-3 adapter when used on MicroFourThirds cameras.
**: Only with MMF-3 on MFT cameras (MMF-2 not weather sealed).

- Panasonic: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Pentax DA Limited 20-40mm f/2.8-4.0
Filter: 55mm — Size (D x L): 71.0mm x 68.5mm — Weight: 283g — Weather sealed: YES — Motor: DC — Stabilizer: NO, in-camera

- Samsung: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Sigma ART 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM
Filter: 72mm — Size (D x L): 78mm x 121.0mm — Weight: 811g — Weather sealed: NO — Motor: HSM — Stabilizer: NO (in-camera on Pentax recent DSLRs)

- Sony: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Tamron: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

The Sigma 18-35mm beats the DA 20-40mm on aperture speed and wide FOV, but is much shorter at the tele end and doesn't have weather sealing. And it's a LOT bigger than the Pentax 20-40mm.

The other one, the Olympus Zukio 14-35mm F/2 is as big as the Sigma 18-35mm, has similar aperture and size, and is even a bit heavier. But it does have weather sealing.

Still, the DA 20-40mm offers the best option in the pack when it comes to traveling light or using a non-obstrusive lens on your camera, at least in this very limited focal length range.

But...

If I could've included the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F/2.8-4 R LM, it would have been a close call, with the Fujinon having a better focal length range but no weather sealing... Same for Panasonic's Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm F2.8 Asph. / Power OIS lens, with the Panasonic having a faster aperture, wider FOV but shorter tele reach and no weather sealing either. But both go beyond the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range.

[thibs]

I understand that you wanted to compare lenses with a similar focal length range on APS-C, but comparing full frame lenses with an image circle about twice the surface area of APS-C lenses isn't fair for the full frame lenses to start with, at least in terms of size, weight and filter size. You still have a point in the fact that Canon and Nikon don't have a lot of APS-C options in the range of the DA 20-40mm (the 17-55mm F2.8 lens they both have in their line-up is the only one, actually ).

To be fairer, you could also have included other lenses with a similar equivalent focal length range, but in APS-C (DSLR or mirrorless) and in FourThirds and MicroFourThirds mount.

So I added a few APS-C and 4/3 lenses to the ones in the original post. And for purposes of a "decent" comparison, I didn't include any lens with a max. aperture smaller than F/4, or any lens with a focal length lower than 28mm or greater than 70mm in full frame equivalent, so that it's close to the limits of the Pentax's 30-60mm in FF equivalent focal length range. Here we go:

- Canon: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Fujinon: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Nikkor: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- (Olympus) Zuiko Lens 14-35mm F2.0 SWD
Filter: 77mm — Size (D x L): 86.0mm x 123.0mm* — Weight: 900g* — Weather sealed: YES** — Motor: SWD — Stabilizer: NO, in-camera
*: Plus the length and weight increase of a MMF-2 or MMF-3 adapter when used on MicroFourThirds cameras.
**: Only with MMF-3 on MFT cameras (MMF-2 not weather sealed).

- Panasonic: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Pentax DA Limited 20-40mm f/2.8-4.0
Filter: 55mm — Size (D x L): 71.0mm x 68.5mm — Weight: 283g — Weather sealed: YES — Motor: DC — Stabilizer: NO, in-camera

- Samsung: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Sigma ART 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM
Filter: 72mm — Size (D x L): 78mm x 121.0mm — Weight: 811g — Weather sealed: NO — Motor: HSM — Stabilizer: NO (in-camera on Pentax recent DSLRs)

- Sony: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Tamron: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

The Sigma 18-35mm beats the DA 20-40mm on aperture speed and wide FOV, but is much shorter at the tele end and doesn't have weather sealing. And it's a LOT bigger than the Pentax 20-40mm.

The other one, the Olympus Zukio 14-35mm F/2 is as big as the Sigma 18-35mm, has similar aperture and size, and is even a bit heavier. But it does have weather sealing.

Still, the DA 20-40mm offers the best option in the pack when it comes to traveling light or using a non-obstrusive lens on your camera, at least in this very limited focal length range.

But...

If I could've included the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F/2.8-4 R LM, it would have been a close call, with the Fujinon having a better focal length range but no weather sealing... Same for Panasonic's Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm F2.8 Asph. / Power OIS lens, with the Panasonic having a faster aperture, wider FOV but shorter tele reach and no weather sealing either. But both go beyond the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range.

I don't think most people got the point of the OP (although, as I quoted another poster, it is indeed missing data).
The question is not to judge the lenses overall but to compare with other lenses on APS-C sensor, in the 20-40 range and around f/2.8 to f/4.
So this is a very specific window. Of course other lenses (usually) have bigger range and that's fine of course but that is beyond the point.
Most of this lenses will run circles around the 20-40 as soon as you get oustide of the scope the said comparison, and for good reasons too.

[Dr Orloff]

I think there comes a time to unsubscribe from a thread and go and take some photographs. That was a while back.

[Gray]

I don't think most people got the point of the OP (although, as I quoted another poster, it is indeed missing data).
The question is not to judge the lenses overall but to compare with other lenses on APS-C sensor, in the 20-40 range and around f/2.8 to f/4.
So this is a very specific window. Of course other lenses (usually) have bigger range and that's fine of course but that is beyond the point.
Most of this lenses will run circles around the 20-40 as soon as you get oustide of the scope the said comparison, and for good reasons too.

Having read the thread, I agree with your assessment.

[Rondec]

One thing I would mention is that the limited lenses in general hold their value really well. I have purchased many of them over the years and have always been able to sell them for close to what I paid for them, or sometimes more. This has not been my experience with off brand lenses. I haven't tried to sell any of my DA * lenses, but I have a feeling that they don't hold their value nearly as well, due to SDM fears (not a big deal to me -- I'm pretty satisfied with them).

[rbefly]

Hello tigrebleu,
Thank you for checking other makers and finding lenses suitable for this comparison. That was an oversight on my part and your contribution certainly is useful.
Although it is no excuse for missing the entries from Olympus and Sigma, after reading several pages of choices (each!) by Nikon and Canon to find close matches, I felt I'd done enough homework. Clearly not the case!
In any event, It all will hopefully help potential buyers make a more well-informed choice.
Without beating a dead horse, I felt it was obvious going in that the Canon and Nikon entries would be larger in size, due to the requirement of fitting two different formats. But, the logical comparison would be against Canon and Nikon APS-crop body useage, and the (generally comparable) lenses offered for them. If any maker produced cropped-format-only lenses in this size range, I'd have gladly added them. Assuming better research on my part, of course!
Thanks again to you and Thibs for reminding me of the missing data.
Ron

[snake]

One thing I would mention is that the limited lenses in general hold their value really well. I have purchased many of them over the years and have always been able to sell them for close to what I paid for them, or sometimes more. This has not been my experience with off brand lenses. I haven't tried to sell any of my DA * lenses, but I have a feeling that they don't hold their value nearly as well, due to SDM fears (not a big deal to me -- I'm pretty satisfied with them).

To be fair, if you sell them at or slightly above, at a later time, you are losing money due to currency devaluation/inflation.

Plus look at how the ads out there all state MIJ, where applicable. People are waiting on those and the prices of older MIJ runs are the ones holding value, at least in monetary units.