[lytrytyr]

Pentax made a bold move with the 20-40

I don't think of it as bold or new,
just a DA replacement for the aging FA 20-35
that they recently pulled from their home market.

[audiobomber]

There is lots of more space for a motor in a large f/2.8 zoom, than in a small prime lens.

Not necessarily a problem.


Size was not really the point I was addressing. In-lens motor, QS and WR do not affect optics, therefore adding them is not a complete redesign. You just need a new barrel.

[Transit]

There's no point in turning the FA limiteds into DFA* primes at twice the size and price. Ricoh should release new DA* fast primes corresponding to traditional focal lengths, but the FA limiteds are unique and should stay that way.

i agree

[ToyTank]

This may be a stupid question, is the noise from a screw drive lens the mechanics of the lens or the motor in the camera body? Some combination?

I remember reading in a review the screw drive of the K5II was not as obnoxious as the K30(which is what I use) and I wonder if a silent brushless motor in the body would make these screw drive lenses nearly silent

[Fogel70]

Not necessarily a problem.


Size was not really the point I was addressing. In-lens motor, QS and WR do not affect optics, therefore adding them is not a complete redesign. You just need a new barrel.

Sure, in small slow prime lenses with tiny lens elements there might be possible to fit a motor, but that's not exactly the description of FA Ltd.
And to save size lenses like Canon 40/2.8 STM use focus by wire, which would be another big disadvantage IMO.

[DavidSKAF3]

This is one of the most interesting threads I've come across since joining the forums. Whatever the verdict may be, I am impressed by your knowledge and enthusiasm!

[Fogel70]

This may be a stupid question, is the noise from a screw drive lens the mechanics of the lens or the motor in the camera body? Some combination?

I remember reading in a review the screw drive of the K5II was not as obnoxious as the K30(which is what I use) and I wonder if a silent brushless motor in the body would make these screw drive lenses nearly silent

It's a combination of both, but I think it's usually the gears in the lens that contribute more to the noise.
But it will vary, some cameras are louder than other, and some lenses are much louder than other.

I believe higher level cameras with more rigid bodies dampens the noise more, and lenses with lower mass moving in AF will emit less noise.
But it might also vary with the design of the lens. I have some Tamron lenses with really terrible AF noise.

[tclausen]

I don't think of it as bold or new,
just a DA replacement for the aging FA 20-35
that they recently pulled from their home market.

Fair enough comment - but, it misses the point I was trying to make....

When I referred to a "bold move", it was to "release a limited lens that *directly* competes with other limited lenses, at least one of which is recognized as being beyond outstanding".

For example, if owning the 21mm Ltd, the 31mm Ltd, and a 40/43Ltd, one presumably would be unlikely to acquire the 20-40 Ltd - whereas one might be getting a 60mm Ltd, for example, as it would complement the other line-up.

Pentax either believes that the market is big enough, that there are distinct populations to which to sell both the 20-40 AND the range of Limited primes, or that the 20-40 simply brings something that'll make even those owning a 21Ltd, 31Ltd and 40/43Ltd want to acquire one.

For the latter, personally, I am not sure that WR and "zoom" are enough "something" to merit an acquisition when already having invested in a Ltd kit. Thus, the 20-40 Ltd zoom - to me - appears to be Pentax betting on attracting a new crowd of users with little or no prior investment in "premium lenses"

That, to me, is a bold move.

And this, regardless of from which (if any) existing design this lens has been evolved.

[tclausen]

Sure, in small slow prime lenses with tiny lens elements there might be possible to fit a motor, but that's not exactly the description of FA Ltd.

Well, it half-way is. The FA Limited's are fast - and I *heart* them for it.

The DA Limited's are, however, disappointingly slow. I would have preferred if the charter for a lens to qualify for "Limited" label was, that it also is an f/<2.0.

I honestly think that the /4.0 DA Ltd are skirting the acceptable on this front (for all their other qualities). No surprise that the FA Ltd and the 55/1,4 are my favorite Pentaxes, eh?

[ToyTank]

lenses like Canon 40/2.8 STM use focus by wire, which would be another big disadvantage IMO.

I've used the 40/2.8 STM briefly and the canon 18-55 STM. The only disadvantage I've found is the inability to focus when the lens is not connected, like if using extension tubes/reversed etc. There is some supposed lag but IMO manual focus is a smooth slow operation anyway and I noticed no lag. Having the quick shift like ability is nice, not sure if canon calls it quick shift or something else. The 18-55 STM is completely silent, 40 makes very very little noise.

[lytrytyr]

When I referred to a "bold move", it was to "release a limited lens that *directly* competes with other limited lenses, at least one of which is recognized as being beyond outstanding".

For example, if owning the 21mm Ltd, the 31mm Ltd, and a 40/43Ltd, one presumably would be unlikely to acquire the 20-40 Ltd - whereas one might be getting a 60mm Ltd, for example, as it would complement the other line-up.

Pentax either believes that the market is big enough, that there are distinct populations to which to sell both the 20-40 AND the range of Limited primes, or that the 20-40 simply brings something that'll make even those owning a 21Ltd, 31Ltd and 40/43Ltd want to acquire one.

I suspect that Pentax, and certainly many users (myself included)
regard primes and zooms as separate categories.

The DA*16-50 covers the focal lengths of five Limited primes,
and almost matches a sixth, for example.

Good IQ in these high-end zooms,
slightly compromised in comparison to high-end primes
as a small price to pay for convenience
and usability in foul environments
where you wouldn't want to be changing lenses.

[mikemike]

My point, as I stated, was that the horse / car analogy did not apply. I still don't see that it does.

One way that it might is that you have in autos you have a niche for off-road vehicles jeep and land rover that manage to survive well often with better reputations and brand value than their parent companies (Chrysler and formally Ford now Tata) by sticking to their tradition. You also have small car companies like mini and smart car that are able to be quirky and keep similarly strong followings.

Pentax has carved out both of those niches, they have the most complete WR line up that provides mid-level and high-level bodies, lenses, and flashes.

There second wheelhouse, compact SLRs are under serious threat from u43 and new mirrorless mounts. They have obviously been reacting and trying (trying but not really succeeding) to maintain their ground on this front with K-01 and Q. I think if they want to win on this front, they will need to do a mirrorless APS-C mount and do it in a way that doesn't spook the K-Mount natives oh and they will need to leapfrog about 2-3 generations of CDAF from what exists with their current offerings to catch up to olympus.

[Uluru]

And I would not consider weather sealing, and especially not build quality, to be innovative. I guess my point was that I don't see where the pentax automobile is to everyone else's horse.

It was an illustration of Pentax–User relationship. Users don't know at all what is available to Ricoh Imaging, what kind of technologies, patents and production ideas. We have zero clue, and all our wishes are made from the material we know. That is why users can hardly imagine a good innovation that makes product more desirable — they just continue riding the horse, cannot predict a shift, nor the company is willing to share it before the right time comes.

For example AA simulator; no one had any clue it will be delivered in a Pentax camera, or that is doable in more than a theoretical game (it was never mentioned here on PF) and that is one of the most innovative technological solutions in 2013 that will undoubtedly sell more Pentax cameras that previously imagined.

And so forth.

[Fogel70]

I've used the 40/2.8 STM briefly and the canon 18-55 STM. The only disadvantage I've found is the inability to focus when the lens is not connected, like if using extension tubes/reversed etc. There is some supposed lag but IMO manual focus is a smooth slow operation anyway and I noticed no lag. Having the quick shift like ability is nice, not sure if canon calls it quick shift or something else. The 18-55 STM is completely silent, 40 makes very very little noise.

The biggest disadvantage of focus by wire lenses like Canon 40/2.8 is that there is no room for a distance scale, which makes it difficult to set focus in some conditions. FI when you want to set focus to hyperfocal distance. Its can also be hard to tell when you have set focus on infinity or closest focus distance as there is no mechanical stop on the focus ring. Another disadvantage is the you loose compatibility with old manual focus SLR..

IMO focus by wire works best on mirrorless camera where you can use focus peaking in the EVF. Some mirrorless cameras even show a distance scale in the EVF.

[climbertrev]

It was an illustration of Pentax–User relationship. Users don't know at all what is available to Ricoh Imaging, what kind of technologies, patents and production ideas. We have zero clue, and all our wishes are made from the material we know. That is why users can hardly imagine a good innovation that makes product more desirable — they just continue riding the horse, cannot predict a shift, nor the company is willing to share it before the right time comes.

For example AA simulator; no one had any clue it will be delivered in a Pentax camera, or that is doable in more than a theoretical game (it was never mentioned here on PF) and that is one of the most innovative technological solutions in 2013 that will undoubtedly sell more Pentax cameras that previously imagined.

And so forth.

We await to see what may or not happen (and have no clue)

However

Just to raise the full frame concept (sorry!!!)
Here's another pundit who reckons it (i.e.that concept) might be limited (and he's not a digital baby by any means)

Full Frame Myth

Maybe Pentax don't need to go FF
Maybe an excellent APCS camera (K3 anybody) with superlative lens will do the job

I rest my case