21mm limited comparison

21mm ltd being a 10 (on a scale of 1-10), what's a worthy, more economical alternative for those of us who cannot afford the limited series?
i'm still rockin the 50mm/1.4
i love it; it's my only lens.
thx. y'all are the best forum participants. in the whole world.

When you say "economical", how much (or little) are you looking at spending?

16-45mm

If the 21mm F3.2 is a 10 then the 16-45 must be at least a 12.

Another option would be to look for the Tokina ATX-Pro 20-35mm F2.8. It's slighty faster and significantly more versatile than the 21mm ltd and not significantly (it at all) less sharp. It is lots bigger though, if you feel that's a bad thing.

I don't want to spend more than $500 US. Thank you.

For $500 US you could have the DA 21 that you're lusting after: http://search.ebay.co.uk/pentax-21mm_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQflocZ1QQfromZR40QQsaslcZ2Q...

For that price, I would look for either the 20/2.8 A or FA. They are both faster and from results I have seen produce better results than the 21 DA. With such a wide angle, even with the crop factor, MF is not a problem.

Kim

Personally I prefer the DA21 on digital, hence I recently sold my A20 to another
forum member.

The A20 is very sharp in the centre, but rather soft round the
edges on digital. Whereas the DA21 has a very consistent edge-to-edge sharpness
and is also a lot smaller. In my opinion, landscape-type lenses need to be sharp
in the corners

I've had 2 A20/2.8's over the years and they both behaved the same
way, so I don't think this is sample variation.

The other, much cheaper option, is to use a Zenitar 16/2.8 and de-fish
in software. The Z costs around £65 and the results are very good on
digital.

R

I always much preferred the SMC Pentax-M 20mm f4. Sharper and more compact.

I had one of the earlier 20/4 and sold it to replace it with the 2.8 a version. Although slightly larger, I find it to be a much better lens.

Kim