[caliscouser]

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.

Simple, they are all either bigger and or heavier. Some are not WR, some are screw-drive, some are not as fast in the 20-40 range, some do not give the full Limited rendition: saturation, contrast and sharpness.
Some may get you close or close enough, but not the same.

YMMV

[cali92rs]

I have had both the 20-40 and the 16-85.
Yes, the 20-40mm is smaller, but not by a lot. It is not like comparing a prime like the 21 or 40mm to a zoom.
It is about the same size as the 31mm.
And, I found that the IQ of the 16-85 was as good (or better than) the 20-40mm at those focal lengths. Additionally, i find the 16mm wide end invaluable on a "do everything lens".

[normhead]

Simple, they are all either bigger and or heavier. Some are not WR, some are screw-drive, some are not as fast in the 20-40 range, some do not give the full Limited rendition: saturation, contrast and sharpness.
Some may get you close or close enough, but not the same.

YMMV

They are not bigger or heavier if you add in the additional lenses you have to add in to match their range. The reason I still have an 18-135, incredible range, best combination of range and IQ. I can own fewer lenses because i have it. As for the limited rendition.....ya, lets bring up an argument we can't even quantify, of find a way to even demonstrate. Testable theories only please.

The only lens I'd consider to be "brand along-able" based on size with no penalty would be my 40 XS, Considering size without considering range, it's the king of all lenses.

[mattb123]

They are not bigger or heavier if you add in the additional lenses you have to add in to match their range.

True but you could make the same argument about also having to bring faster lenses in addition to the 18-135 to match the speed of the 20-40. I don't think either is a very compelling argument.
Since photography is a game of compromise, the differences just need to be factored in as compromises you traded for other compromises unless part of the problem to solve is matching the range exactly. If that were case you would need to carry a 135mm prime with the 16-85 as well.

[normhead]

True but you could make the same argument about also having to bring faster lenses in addition to the 18-135 to match the speed of the 20-40. I don't think either is a very compelling argument.
Since photography is a game of compromise, the differences just need to be factored in as compromises you traded for other compromises unless part of the problem to solve is matching the range exactly. If that were case you would need to carry a 135mm prime with the 16-85 as well.

I think you can work around 16-85 or 18-135 much easier than you can work around 17-50 forget about 20-40. The 20-40 gives you almost nothing to work with. After all, 20-40 is sort of wide to sort of standard. Both the 18-135 or 18-135 are wide to telephoto.

Just wondering, did your FAJ 18-35 turn out to be as bad as mine did?
Mine was my worst lens purchase ever. Absolutely no redeeming qualities.

I also gambled on an FA 28-200, one of the older Tamron rebadges, and lost on that one too, but ti's better than the FAJ 18-35.

The DFA 28-105 stopped the losing streak.

[caliscouser]

16-85 is 70 % heavier and 50% bigger by volume. And that is not counting the hood.
To match the same focal range you would of course have to carry extra lenses (and bulk and weight), absolutely true.
However you have options to supplement or not supplement your 'normal' lens depending on the task at hand. Meaning you don't have to carry extra glass that you don't need.

Different lenses for different problems. Nothing wrong with the 16-85, It looks stellar, I'd love to have one myself.
Nothing wrong with a convenient high quality walk around zoom either. I have the 18-250 and love it. It has its place.
Some things are measurable, some are intangible.

It's all good people, lots of choices for everyone.

[mattb123]

16-85 is 70 % heavier and 50% bigger by volume. And that is not counting the hood.
To match the same focal range you would of course have to carry extra lenses (and bulk and weight), absolutely true.
However you have options to supplement or not supplement your 'normal' lens depending on the task at hand. Meaning you don't have to carry extra glass that you don't need.

Different lenses for different problems. Nothing wrong with the 16-85, It looks stellar, I'd love to have one myself.
Nothing wrong with a convenient high quality walk around zoom either. I have the 18-250 and love it. It has its place.
Some things are measurable, some are intangible.

It's all good people, lots of choices for everyone.

Right, this was the point I was getting at. It's all about which tradeoffs work best for you and what you want/how to shoot.

[normhead]

16-85 is 70 % heavier and 50% bigger by volume. And that is not counting the hood.
To match the same focal range you would of course have to carry extra lenses (and bulk and weight), absolutely true.
However you have options to supplement or not supplement your 'normal' lens depending on the task at hand. Meaning you don't have to carry extra glass that you don't need.

Different lenses for different problems. Nothing wrong with the 16-85, It looks stellar, I'd love to have one myself.
Nothing wrong with a convenient high quality walk around zoom either. I have the 18-250 and love it. It has its place.
Some things are measurable, some are intangible.

It's all good people, lots of choices for everyone.

But I do wonder, who uses the 20-40, and what do they use it for. If it had been an FF lens I would have loved it, but on APS-c it just seems to me to be too long.

All I can do is think of things i don't do. Maybe it's a great indoor in small space and low light zoom. I don't do that and maybe that's where it excels.

[apete]

But I do wonder, who uses the 20-40, and what do they use it for. If it had been an FF lens I would have loved it, but on APS-c it just seems to me to be too long.

All I can do is think of things i don't do. Maybe it's a great indoor in small space and low light zoom. I don't do that and maybe that's where it excels.

I am definitely not familiar with primes (in this range) so not my experience, but if some is happy with 35mm on APS-C for street or so, why would not some use 20-40 similar way?

[mikesbike]

Size is an issue for some situations, less so for others. As one might guess, I sometimes bicycle around with camera and a lens (or more if small enough). I use a belt holster and its shoulder strap as well for extra stability. Last summer I bought the 20-40mm Ltd, put it on my K-S2 and found it is perfect for both the subject matter and my carrying conditions. I did not have need for the reach of my DA 18-135mm. I found the image quality- sharpness, contrast, etc of the 20-40mm to be excellent. I also found having some f/2.8 availability in a small zoom package to be useful at times. I also carried a 77mm f/1.8 Ltd in its leather case in a jacket pocket.

I'm looking forward to having a KP as well, specifically for this type of activity, where the 20-40mm Ltd will be even more fitting.

[caliscouser]

Personally I run the 15, 20-40, 70 Limited in a m43 sized bag that I can carry around all day.
It meets 90% of my shooting needs with little compromise in image quality. That's the appeal.

Yes I could take something like the 18-250 instead (or 18-135), and I have done that before. But it is just not the same shooting experience, and the quality of the final results (my subjective assessment) are not the same.

[mattb123]

If the conditions look ok for lens changing, I'll take my K-3 and 15/40/77 primes and I like that combo very much. I prefer the rendering of those lenses to most zooms and I like how they handle.
I just don't want to change lenses while skiing or have extra stuff. Mountain biking can be easier to deal with lens changes if it's not too windy and dusty but if it is either of those things the WR zoom comes instead.

[normhead]

Well yes, you're always going to be able to make a lighter package by shooting shorter focal lengths. And comparing an 18-250 to an 18-135 is not a good sign for your street cred. The 18-135 is excellent in 13 of it's measured fields. You won't find an 18-250 that's excellent in even 4 measured fields. So, have you carried an 18-135 or an 18-250? They are quite different. I gave away my 18-250, I still carry my 18-135.

I own a lot of primes. I don't consider them travel lenses. I consider them fixed location lenses.

There's a difference between saying you get better image quality with the primes. No one ever tells me how many shots they passed on because the lens was too wide or too narrow. I think a lot of folks just get used to not seeing the long shots and end up believing they didn't exist. And it's not just long shots. The 16-85 and 18-135 both have great pseudo macro capability.

When I set up in a certain location and have time to analyze exactly what I want, out come the primes. If we are on the move, zooms all the way.

No matter what DA ltds I might own, my 50 macro would have to come along.

[THoog]

someone would have to do a real selling job just to convince me it has a place in the world.

Okay, I'll bite (Note - I'm not trying to convince anyone to BUY the lens, only that it has a place in the world, and it's in my camera bag):

Edit: Apparently, several others took the bite in the hours between me starting to write this, getting distracted, and hitting send.

I've owned the 18-135, the Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the DA 20-40 all for at least a couple years. I like the 18-135 - it WAS my stay-on-the-camera travel lens and it's still my preferred outside walkaround lens, but I found that f/3.5 just wasn't fast enough for dim museums, where tripods and/or flash are not an option and even AF assist lights can be annoying to others. The Tammy 'workhorse' 17-50 has been my go-to lens for inside shooting for a long time, but these days, the screwdrive is noisier than I like in a quiet place like an art museum. I could (and did) use manual focus, but my eyes and patience aren't up to it any more. I'd prefer a lens under 1lb for various reasons.

So, I have a use for a lens roughly in the "shorty zoom" range (28-75mm FF, 18-50mm APS-C) that is faster than f/3.5, has silent AF, and weighs less than 1lb. Only two K-mount lenses meet these criteria: the DA 20-40, and the Sigma 17-70 'C'. The Sigma has a good reputation, is less expensive, and has more reach (not that I need it). It weighs a hair over 1lb. The DA 20-40 is significantly smaller and lighter, and throws in weather sealing (although that's not a deal-maker or breaker). In primes, 50mm on APS-C is too narrow in most museums; the only silent-AF wide-normal prime under 1lb is the Sigma 30 Art (and yes, I own it). It has its own set of issues. In museums, you can't always take two steps forward or two steps back; the range on the DA 20-40 is frequently just enough. (Yes, I could crop-to-zoom or stitch shots - I've done plenty of THAT, too.) I haven't mentioned IQ because there were so few options to begin with, but the 20-40 is pleasing to my eye.

I can't believe that Pentax is trying to cater just to ME (although the KP makes me wonder...); there must others that want a light, quiet, kind-of-bright shorty zoom. And Pentax made one!

[normhead]

Well there we go, we have a satisfied customer. I knew there was one somewhere.