[Zygonyx]

1. The Sigma actually beats several primes for speed and sharpness.
2. I do a lot of event work where flash is not allowed, so speed is more important than size.
3. The tests I have seen show that the 20-40mm is best at 30mm stopped down to F/5.6. I own the 31mm which is faster as better. Just buy the 31mm for the price.
4. There are better walk around lenses for the money if you are a casual shooter. The limited zoom range, speed, & cost are not a good combination.

Nevertheless, having both 31/1.8 and 20-40 Ltd, i know which one sits by default on my K-3...

[RonHendriks1966]

Nevertheless, having both 31/1.8 and 20-40 Ltd, i know which one sits by default on my K-3...

wich one?

[Zygonyx]

The limited zoom
A real pleasure to use, and a great IQ afaics

[RonHendriks1966]

The limited zoom
A real pleasure to use, and a great IQ afaics

It is more versatile......

[harrisonww]

My prediction


We will see three new K mount lenses at Photokina.


16-85
70-200
150-400


Philip

I pray your right. 70-200mm PLEEEASE i want to shoot sports!

[Nicolas06]

1. The Sigma actually beats several primes for speed and sharpness.
2. I do a lot of event work where flash is not allowed, so speed is more important than size.
3. The tests I have seen show that the 20-40mm is best at 30mm stopped down to F/5.6. I own the 31mm which is faster as better. Just buy the 31mm for the price.
4. There are better walk around lenses for the money if you are a casual shooter. The limited zoom range, speed, & cost are not a good combination.

i understand that it is not the best lens for you. This doesn't mean it is inherently a bad lens. You just don't like the compromize.

[lytrytyr]

1. The Sigma actually beats several primes for speed and sharpness.
2. I do a lot of event work where flash is not allowed, so speed is more important than size.

But with the Sigma so big, there's no longer any advantage to shooting APS-C.
You'd do better enjoying the extra zoom range a 24-70/2.8 gives you on FF.

3. The tests I have seen show that the 20-40mm is best at 30mm stopped down to F/5.6.

Which tests would those be? (BTW, my experience with the actual lens shows otherwise.)

Even DXO, which reduces reductio ad absurdum to new levels of absurdity,
says that the lens is best at 35mm and f/4.

4. There are better walk around lenses for the money if you are a casual shooter.

I agree. If you are a casual shooter, just out for record shots, the DA 20-40 would be wasted on you.

The limited zoom range, speed, & cost are not a good combination.

Those features are not the USPs for the DA 20-40.
But they are what make possible the lens's unique combination
of WR, small size, flare resistance,
and rendering in the same league as the best primes.

[Winder]

i understand that it is not the best lens for you. This doesn't mean it is inherently a bad lens. You just don't like the compromize.

I didn't say it was a bad lens. I said it was optically average.

---------- Post added 09-14-14 at 03:35 PM ----------

But with the Sigma so big, there's no longer any advantage to shooting APS-C.
You'd do better enjoying the extra zoom range a 24-70/2.8 gives you on FF.



Which tests would those be? (BTW, my experience with the actual lens shows otherwise.)

Even DXO, which reduces reductio ad absurdum to new levels of absurdity,
says that the lens is best at 35mm and f/4.


I agree. If you are a casual shooter, just out for record shots, the DA 20-40 would be wasted on you.


Those features are not the USPs for the DA 20-40.
But they are what make possible the lens's unique combination
of WR, small size, flare resistance,
and rendering in the same league as the best primes.

If you like the lens, then use it an enjoy it. I have yet to read a glowing review of the optical performance. Maybe you can provide one.

[lytrytyr]

I have yet to read a glowing review of the optical performance. Maybe you can provide one.

"Very good sharpness in the centre at maximum aperture
Excellent sharpness when stopped down
Low CA"

from
HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited DC WR Lens Review

Or read the objective charts on Lenstip/Optyczne, and disregard the subjective commentary.

[Nicolas06]

I didn't say it was a bad lens. I said it was optically average.

Then how should we rate Sigma and Tamron 17-50, Pentax 16-50, 17-70 Contemporary pentax 17-70 and a like? optically poor?

[IchabodCrane]

"Very good sharpness in the centre at maximum aperture
Excellent sharpness when stopped down
Low CA"

from
HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited DC WR Lens Review

Or read the objective charts on Lenstip/Optyczne, and disregard the subjective commentary.

The also wrote right about the "pros" you cite:

"In summary, this lens may represent poor value for money for many. Others who like the excellent build quality and retro design may appreciate the small niche this lens fills."

[lytrytyr]

The also wrote right about the "pros" you cite:

"In summary, this lens may represent poor value for money for many. Others who like the excellent build quality and retro design may appreciate the small niche this lens fills."

Yes, totally missing the points: small size, light weight, flare resistance, distinctive rendering.
And I don't know where they get the "retro".

Like I said, "Disregard the subjective commentary"!

[Uluru]

One question to ask Ricoh: why they opted for 20-40 zoom instead of a prime lens?
Users always asked for a prime in that range, never a Limited zoom. So, why force upon a solution no one asked for?

[lytrytyr]

One question to ask Ricoh: why they opted for 20-40 zoom instead of a prime lens?

No need to ask Ricoh: The FA 20-35, like the rest of the FA gang, needed updating with WR, Quick-Shift, and focus motor.

Users always asked for a prime in that range, never a Limited zoom.

Because until now, users thought "Limited" meant "prime".

[Uluru]

No need to ask Ricoh: The FA 20-35, like the rest of the FA gang, needed updating with WR, Quick-Shift, and focus motor.


Because until now, users thought "Limited" meant "prime".

Not really. I never ever read anyone asking for a zoom Limited to fill in the gap in the DA Limiteds range. People asked for 24mm, or 28mm or similar.
Same as Pentax Q lenses; users asked for a small wide prime reasonably priced, never a slow zoom with a high price mark.

Ricoh does what users never asked for — that is my point. So why they do that?