Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

chrisfer · 03-06-2017, 01:17 AM

The 16-85 is a big lens, the 20-40 is lighter, like the K-3 compared to the KP ...
If you do not care about the size, you should go for the 16-85mm, and the K-3 II...

Sandy Hancock · 03-06-2017, 02:27 AM

The 20-40 seems the logical match for the KP to me. 55mm vs 72mm filter diameter. Faster aperture at both ends. "Limited" rendering. Put a 15 and 70 prime at each end and you have a superb three lens kit.

I considered a 16-85 for an upcoming overseas trip (with the KP), but its size has completely put me off; it's only marginally smaller than my DA*16-50. At the moment I'm leaning towards little primes and maybe the DA55-300 as a long option.

**aslyfox** · 03-06-2017, 04:39 AM

Since I have been taught not to make assumptions, I am posting links which might of help and/or interest

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - PentaxForums.com

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-20-40mm-f2.8-4-limited-dc-wr.html

HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

I don't know if there is a thread on the forum that invites users of the 20 - 40 to post their pictures there might be

Sandy Hancock · 03-06-2017, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Aslyfox

I don't know if there is a thread on the forum that invites users of the 20 - 40 to post their pictures there might be

HERE

**aslyfox** · 03-06-2017, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

HERE

thanks for helping out

MrB1 · 03-06-2017, 05:52 AM

Apete, have you considered the D-FA 28-105? It is similar in size to the 18-135. You have written that you have the 12-24 and it is your second most used lens. The 28-105 would be a good partner to make a two zoom kit. Being a full-frame lens, its image quality is very good on APS-C and, of course, it would be an investment for the future should you decide to go full-frame at some stage.

Cheers.
Philip

**pres589** · 03-06-2017, 06:59 AM

For that kind of money isn't the obvious answer a Tamron 17-50 and a DA 70?

**THoog** · 03-06-2017, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by frogfoot

IMO 20-40 is strange lens: not so fast and very limited FL range.

It's not that strange, just a different set of compromises. f/2.8 variable-aperture shorty zooms used to be more common - I used a couple in my film days. Compared to a 18-55 WR "kit" zoom, the DA 20-40 crams better IQ, 2/3 stops of light, and silent focusing into a package that's similar in size and weight. The tradeoff is a couple mm at the wide end and few more at the long end - usually within easy foot-zooming range. The 16-85 has more range, and the 16-50/2.8 has constant aperture, but the DA 20-40 is roughly a third smaller in volume and half the weight. For a travel "kit" lens, it can be worth it.

frogfoot · 03-06-2017, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by THoog

For a travel "kit" lens, it can be worth it.

Well may be.. As for me I'm fed up with switching lenses in travel. So having the opportunity of using one lens for 95% of photos without compromising IQ is a big relief

Now I usually take in travel with me only 16-85 and DA 50/1.8 (to be replaced with *55/1.4 soon). If I'm not going to safari, of course

.

**THoog** · 03-06-2017, 10:50 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by frogfoot

As for me I'm fed up with switching lenses in travel.

While I would rather carry the extra weight in my bag than "on the nose" all day - different strokes for different folks!

**mattb123** · 03-06-2017, 11:38 AM

I just replaced my lost 18-135. What did I get? Another one!

For me the reasoning was that I want a small/light yet versatile WR lens that is somewhat expendable based on having lost the last one while skiing.
The 16-85 is tempting because I like to shoot wide but the bigger size and higher price kept me away.
The 20-40 looks amazing but I wanted both wider AND longer and again it is much more expensive.

So all of that brought me back to the 18-135. I got an EX+ one via eBay from Japan for about $250 shipped. Hard to beat that!
I still may get the 20-40 sometime if I'm feeling flush when the right deal comes along.

**ffking** · 03-06-2017, 11:52 AM

According to the Ricoh execs in the PF interview, The KP was made to go with the DA Limiteds, so you don't actually have a choice

(

)

apete · 03-06-2017, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by ffking

According to the Ricoh execs in the PF interview, The KP was made to go with the DA Limiteds, so you don't actually have a choice (

)

If I go for 16-85 does it mean that I need to cancel my KP order?

OKay guys, thanks a milion for all your suggestions. I did some more research, took a look at all your proposals, including those crazy like "get both", totally different like "get k3ii + 16-85" or "get 28-105" or "get tamron + D70", did a final look through my photos collection and decided to go for ... 16-85. The main reason is that 20-40 just lacks a couple mms on the logner end for the photography that I sometimes do like for example cycling events. Though someone else that would choose 20-40 would probably also be right as from what I found both lenses present high (and similar) image quality. 20-40 is like a 30 prime with some zooming range... hmmm no no I need to stop thinking about 20-40 for now...

---------- Post added 6th Mar 2017 at 22:07 ----------

Originally posted by mattb123

I just replaced my lost 18-135. What did I get? Another one!

For me the reasoning was that I want a small/light yet versatile WR lens that is somewhat expendable based on having lost the last one while skiing.
The 16-85 is tempting because I like to shoot wide but the bigger size and higher price kept me away.
The 20-40 looks amazing but I wanted both wider AND longer and again it is much more expensive.

So all of that brought me back to the 18-135. I got an EX+ one via eBay from Japan for about $250 shipped. Hard to beat that!
I still may get the 20-40 sometime if I'm feeling flush when the right deal comes along.

Matt, I am constantly admiring your winter and skiing photos across other threads (esp the main DA18-135 thread) and I am not surprised that getting this kind of results you are nothing but positive about 18-135

normhead · 03-06-2017, 02:15 PM

I have not figured out why anyone would buy the 20-40 either. I know people do , but there's the 16-50, the 16-85 and 18-135 are both excellent in the 20-40 range.Throw in the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 and you have so many lenses that cover more range, someone would have to do a real selling job just to convince me it has a place in the world.

The 18-135 at 24mm... you think you're going to top this by a notable margin?

Uh huh, believe what you want.

robtcorl · 03-06-2017, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I have not figured out why anyone would buy the 20-40 either.

But it's so pretty!

I agree about the zoom range, just buy a 35 and take two steps forward, or two steps back.
I'm another big fan of the 18-135, got mine from Amazon warehouse for $254, graded used like new, and it arrived in new condition.

03-06-2017, 11:52 AM	#27
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,039	According to the Ricoh execs in the PF interview, The KP was made to go with the DA Limiteds, so you don't actually have a choice ()

03-06-2017, 02:03 PM	#28
apete Senior Member Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 249 Original Poster	Originally posted by ffking According to the Ricoh execs in the PF interview, The KP was made to go with the DA Limiteds, so you don't actually have a choice () If I go for 16-85 does it mean that I need to cancel my KP order? OKay guys, thanks a milion for all your suggestions. I did some more research, took a look at all your proposals, including those crazy like "get both", totally different like "get k3ii + 16-85" or "get 28-105" or "get tamron + D70", did a final look through my photos collection and decided to go for ... 16-85. The main reason is that 20-40 just lacks a couple mms on the logner end for the photography that I sometimes do like for example cycling events. Though someone else that would choose 20-40 would probably also be right as from what I found both lenses present high (and similar) image quality. 20-40 is like a 30 prime with some zooming range... hmmm no no I need to stop thinking about 20-40 for now... ---------- Post added 6th Mar 2017 at 22:07 ---------- Originally posted by mattb123 I just replaced my lost 18-135. What did I get? Another one! For me the reasoning was that I want a small/light yet versatile WR lens that is somewhat expendable based on having lost the last one while skiing. The 16-85 is tempting because I like to shoot wide but the bigger size and higher price kept me away. The 20-40 looks amazing but I wanted both wider AND longer and again it is much more expensive. So all of that brought me back to the 18-135. I got an EX+ one via eBay from Japan for about $250 shipped. Hard to beat that! I still may get the 20-40 sometime if I'm feeling flush when the right deal comes along. Matt, I am constantly admiring your winter and skiing photos across other threads (esp the main DA18-135 thread) and I am not surprised that getting this kind of results you are nothing but positive about 18-135 Last edited by apete; 03-06-2017 at 02:11 PM.

03-06-2017, 02:15 PM	#29
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I have not figured out why anyone would buy the 20-40 either. I know people do , but there's the 16-50, the 16-85 and 18-135 are both excellent in the 20-40 range.Throw in the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 and you have so many lenses that cover more range, someone would have to do a real selling job just to convince me it has a place in the world. The 18-135 at 24mm... you think you're going to top this by a notable margin? Uh huh, believe what you want. Last edited by normhead; 03-06-2017 at 02:22 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hmm.. 16-85 or 20-40 +70?	jimr-pdx	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-29-2016 05:04 AM
Keep DA 16-45 or Go for DA 16-85?	Biro	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	12-31-2015 08:44 PM
20-40 vs. 16-85	Squawk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	08-22-2015 04:28 PM
Uh oh! Another should I stay or should I go thread	Kameko	Pentax DSLR Discussion	35	01-29-2015 02:51 PM
Should I go for a big tripod or...	Lars	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	23	04-19-2010 05:55 PM

03-06-2017, 01:17 AM	#16
chrisfer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Albi, Tarn, France Photos: Albums Posts: 101	The 16-85 is a big lens, the 20-40 is lighter, like the K-3 compared to the KP ... If you do not care about the size, you should go for the 16-85mm, and the K-3 II...

03-06-2017, 02:27 AM	#17
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	The 20-40 seems the logical match for the KP to me. 55mm vs 72mm filter diameter. Faster aperture at both ends. "Limited" rendering. Put a 15 and 70 prime at each end and you have a superb three lens kit. I considered a 16-85 for an upcoming overseas trip (with the KP), but its size has completely put me off; it's only marginally smaller than my DA*16-50. At the moment I'm leaning towards little primes and maybe the DA55-300 as a long option.

03-06-2017, 04:39 AM	#18
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,583	Since I have been taught not to make assumptions, I am posting links which might of help and/or interest HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - PentaxForums.com https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-20-40mm-f2.8-4-limited-dc-wr.html HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited Review - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews I don't know if there is a thread on the forum that invites users of the 20 - 40 to post their pictures there might be

03-06-2017, 04:48 AM	#19
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Originally posted by Aslyfox I don't know if there is a thread on the forum that invites users of the 20 - 40 to post their pictures there might be HERE

03-06-2017, 05:15 AM	#20
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,583	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock HERE thanks for helping out

03-06-2017, 05:52 AM	#21
MrB1 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Hertfordshire, England Posts: 845	Apete, have you considered the D-FA 28-105? It is similar in size to the 18-135. You have written that you have the 12-24 and it is your second most used lens. The 28-105 would be a good partner to make a two zoom kit. Being a full-frame lens, its image quality is very good on APS-C and, of course, it would be an investment for the future should you decide to go full-frame at some stage. Cheers. Philip

03-06-2017, 06:59 AM	#22
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	For that kind of money isn't the obvious answer a Tamron 17-50 and a DA 70?

03-06-2017, 10:08 AM	#23
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by frogfoot IMO 20-40 is strange lens: not so fast and very limited FL range. It's not that strange, just a different set of compromises. f/2.8 variable-aperture shorty zooms used to be more common - I used a couple in my film days. Compared to a 18-55 WR "kit" zoom, the DA 20-40 crams better IQ, 2/3 stops of light, and silent focusing into a package that's similar in size and weight. The tradeoff is a couple mm at the wide end and few more at the long end - usually within easy foot-zooming range. The 16-85 has more range, and the 16-50/2.8 has constant aperture, but the DA 20-40 is roughly a third smaller in volume and half the weight. For a travel "kit" lens, it can be worth it.

03-06-2017, 10:43 AM	#24
frogfoot Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow Posts: 70	Originally posted by THoog For a travel "kit" lens, it can be worth it. Well may be.. As for me I'm fed up with switching lenses in travel. So having the opportunity of using one lens for 95% of photos without compromising IQ is a big relief Now I usually take in travel with me only 16-85 and DA 50/1.8 (to be replaced with *55/1.4 soon). If I'm not going to safari, of course .

03-06-2017, 10:50 AM - 1 Like	#25
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by frogfoot As for me I'm fed up with switching lenses in travel. While I would rather carry the extra weight in my bag than "on the nose" all day - different strokes for different folks!

03-06-2017, 11:38 AM	#26
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	I just replaced my lost 18-135. What did I get? Another one! For me the reasoning was that I want a small/light yet versatile WR lens that is somewhat expendable based on having lost the last one while skiing. The 16-85 is tempting because I like to shoot wide but the bigger size and higher price kept me away. The 20-40 looks amazing but I wanted both wider AND longer and again it is much more expensive. So all of that brought me back to the 18-135. I got an EX+ one via eBay from Japan for about $250 shipped. Hard to beat that! I still may get the 20-40 sometime if I'm feeling flush when the right deal comes along.

03-06-2017, 02:24 PM	#30
robtcorl Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: St Louis, MO Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,606	Originally posted by normhead I have not figured out why anyone would buy the 20-40 either. But it's so pretty! I agree about the zoom range, just buy a 35 and take two steps forward, or two steps back. I'm another big fan of the 18-135, got mine from Amazon warehouse for $254, graded used like new, and it arrived in new condition.

Should I go for 16-85 or 20-40?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!