DA 20-40mm Ltd - anyone had a go yet?

Thought I'd ask if anyone here has had a go at one of them.
I've got a friend who can get me one for much cheaper than UK prices when he's visiting Japan soon, and for my upcoming trip to Armenia, having the 20-40 would make perfect sense and I won't have to take multiple lenses along, leaving me with more space in the rucksack for clothes and things I'll need to survive with. My travel set up tends to be the 10-17mm fisheye, 31mm and da 70mm, but really, the fisheye doesn't have to tag along.

Have read a few reviews and there seem to have some mixed comments, but overall the cons seem to be relating to sharpness, which, I don't think is needed at every single aperture.

So, anyway, if you've had your hands on one, what did you think?

I really like the idea of that lens but there are conflicting reports on its performance. That might be down to sample variation so I would be a little wary on one without a warranty.

The US forums published a review of it recently. Their reviews tend to be poor and very biased but this one seemed fairly reasonable from what I read. I think the biggest point against it was poor performance at 40mm.

I've read a few reviews too, interestingly they seem to whinge a bit about sharpness, mostly corner to corner sharpness, at all apertures .
Stopped down, the performance looks pretty on par with da ltd standards if one takes into account it's a zoom...
Since when have people been just so concerned about getting every single grain sharp...

One of the most notable things I've noticed since getting into the online photography community is a laerge obsession with sharpness at all costs from a lot of people.

Photography is so much more to that for me.

On this 20-40 thing, there seems nothing about it to get excited. It's such a limited zoom and I've already got a Sigma 17-70 which is more than crisp enough for everyday shooting and a far better zoom capability.

what we've seen in the reviews, this lens is big, expensive, slow (focus and aperture), prone to flare and far from usable sharpness (not the most important, sure, but the threshold of usefulness is). if pentax forum says so, it means that is really really bad... any 17-50 2.8 kind of zoom is imho better choice. and not really bigger. with 31 an 70 i would take something wider, 15 or 21. better both actually i have 15, 31 and 77 but i always somehow missed 35ish fov...

That's not a fair representation of what the reviews say at all. The lens is certainly not 'big'. It certainly offers 'usable' sharpness.

sure. agree. every lens in this world has 'usable' sharpness. people took photos with single lens or triotars or petzvals, toy lenses...
and sure not big. many lenses are much bigger.
both things were merely my opinion. sorry.
let me put it correctly. it is too big and not sharp enough for what it offers and for the price. and it is my opinion. based on the reviews. never saw it. sorry for misleading comment. adrian was actually asking if anybody tried it...
bye, janko

[quote:3496ace15f="jane7l"adrian was actually asking if anybody tried it...
bye, janko[/quote]Indeed. Have you?

Reviews suggest the lens varies from meh to very good depending on focal length and apertures, and is small and beautifully constructed. Obviously this is a mixed bag but a toy lens it surely ain't.

I'm also looking forward to hearing some real-world experiences of this lens.

I should be the perfect target market for it:

1) I love/obsess over the DA Ltds - it's just so satisfying to use such well made lenses, and compact lenses are important to me as most of my photography is travel/hiking related.

2) I have, ahem, sometimes been guilty of membership of the 'more money than sense' brigade. You know. If I buy that lens it will definitely make me a brilliant photographer.


But I find I'm not hankering after this lens. The current price is obviously an issue, even for a delusionist like myself, but I also just can't see it replacing either of the two lens 'setups' I take out:

a) If I need WR I take the 18-135 and just the 18-135, on the basis that if you are going to need WR you really do not want to be switching lenses. Even for a landscape bore like myself, 20-40 is too restrictive as a one lens setup.

b) My other travel/hike setup is DA 15-21-40-70, which together with the K5 fits into a Thinktank 20 holster. The 20-40 could replace the 21 and 40... but would be (slightly) heavier and bigger than them combined, and I'm sure I'd still be changing between it and the 15 and 70 quite a bit. And based on reviews up to now I have questions on how the 20-40s IQ compares to that of the 40 and 21 (how close to the IQ of these lenses it is in real use?).

So... like Adrian I'll be interested in reports from anyone who gets to use one!

Is it really 12+ times better than the kit 18-55WR as the price would suggest, or does it just have 12+ times the poser value ?

Going off reviews it certainly is a mixed bag, for me, it's merely a fact of practicality, especially when I'm off the beaten track, the fewer lens changes I can get away with the better, since I'm literally very far off the track, and conditions can get grim, which also means WR is a very big selling point, as I'd love not to have stuff seeping into the 31mm!

My normal set up is, 31mm when it's a fair weather day, and the standard kit lens if it's foul. The 20-40 will most likely replace the kit lens, and also means I'll still get Ltd quality on foul days, and on long trips like the one coming up where space/weight is of a premium, it'll be the only thing I take along.

Looking at sample pictures they don't seem bad, off a guess looks like this might be a bit of a Marmite lens...probably will suit myself quite well, as it covers practically the vast majority of focal lengths I ever shoot at.

I would even know how to measure 12 times better , but we all know it's the law of diminishing returns when it comes to spending money.

I would imagine it's much better than the kit lens though, which in my experience, I've had two of them, is one of the most boring performing lenses ever.

IQ aside, my question to the OP is do you really feel 20-40mm is going to give the freedom you need for travel photography? You said you had a trip coming up, and you normally use focal lengths between 10 and 70mm. Thats a massively bigger range, but more in line with the general requirements for travel photography.

I'm not a fan of superzooms, but is there not something in the 17-70 sort of (mid) range that could do the trick? I do like my 18-55 WR - light, reliable and good IQ IMO - but even that range is restricting for general 'out & about' shooting, both at the short & long ends.

I tend to shoot mainly around the 30mm, or slightly wider end, the 70mm hardly ever gets used, I think I've used it on a few occasions but none that I absolutely needed it, and given the nature of the trip, the 20-40mm suits me well. I'm very used to using just the 31mm, so not having the extra 2mm on the wide end, and losing the 40-55mm bit from the standard kit isn't much of a bother.

I have owned the 17-70, as well as a super zoom at some point, but have decided to trade them off and stuck with primes. I somewhat found zooms restricted my thoughts a lot. With a prime, or something like the 20-40mm, I'm often forced to walk, or change positions, so I actually get to look at what I'm picturing a lot more than just picturing it. Afterall what's the point to travel and come back with photos and know nothing else about it. I also admit that I do miss out on various opportunities to picture things, but, again, that doesn't bother me a lot, whatever I can't photograph I'll remember.

The 18-55 has served as a great lens for my mountain adventures, I was never worried about breaking it, and it has certainly delivered quality, as well as held up to my abuse!