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

I am going to be controversial here, IQ is subjective. Why? Well is comes down to what you are trying to say in the image. It all comes down to one thing that a professional photographer told me. "As long as the subject is in focus and the composition tells a story, then that is all that matters" Of course there can be subjects that are not in focus (Cartier-Bresson for example) yet tell that story and are in the end iconic images.
At the end of the day, it is the "pixel Peepers" who are more concerned about infinite sharpness, and yes, it is a desire for all of us. But the reality is that we will choose a lens that provides the effect that we all want or even need.

So the 20-40 Limited. How would that stack up? Having never seen, or even tried the lens, yet seen the rumbles on the various forums, it makes you think. Is it a bad lens? No, on the contrary, I think, looking at results posted, it is the opposite. Is it super-sharp? Well look at what I have said above.
Is it useful? Well of course it is! I have the 21mm Limited, the 28mm F, the 35mm F2.4 and the 40mm Limited. Yet having all these lenses, there are times when having to change them all on the body can be a bind. Oh it is also weather-sealed which is a major bonus. Yet it is still a small lens.

I would honestly say forget about what the internet says about this lens, it not a bad lens at all, consider what it will give to your photography and if you feel that it meets what you want, then purchase it. I am sure that a lot of us pentaxians will think about getting one.

Told you I would be controversial.

I agree completely, most of the opinions (I hesitate to call them 'reviews') on the web are just that, and most are made without having even seen the item in question.

My own minor contribution to this thread is that I've recently bought an FA20-35/4, mostly for using on film (the DA20-40 wasn't an option for this even if I could justify the cost). At first I felt the 20-35 focal length range wouldn't really work with APS-C (not wide or long enough) and I expected to keep using my DA17-70 mostly. Since using it more, I'm finding it works quite well and the extra reach of the 20-40 would make it more useful again.

When spending this kind of money, you really should check it out personally if you have any doubts though. The way it is built/handles/balances is a big part of the equation for me.

I seem to rember the 18-135mm being slated for poor performance (as well as cost) yet if you ask about a general walkabout lens this always comes out the favorite recommendation.

Well I tried one yesterday at a lovely little camera shop in Stafford, And...

Well I will not be buying one...Yet,

At best as I can see it, it does not offer me anything more then what I already own at the moment, but this situation may change in the future, the AF is slower and hunts more then my other two Ltds lenses which I suppose is to be expected, but what a lovely, lovely lens to use, the build and quality is outstanding and WR is also a major bonus.

Left the store felling a bit deflated but happy in the knowledge that Pentax still know a thing or two about making quality gear and I have a lens now that I need to start saving for.

Not controversial in my eyes - I agree with your every word but I do also accept that there are times when sharpness and detail resolution are very desirable, in the same way that having weather and dust resistance is sometimes very desirable. I'm in accord that in very very many cases it is story/message/emotions/atmosphere that are of greater importance than pin-sharpness.

Maybe this is a generation issue to some extent? I started my photographic journey using a Spotmatic loaded with Tri-X pushed to 800ASA, darkroom processed, so perhaps what I look for in a photograph is not exactly the same as someone who has cut their teeth on digital equipment and computerised processing. And perhaps that's why I find the 20-40 a joy to use without being too hung up on ultimate 'image quality' (which seems more a technical measurement than an artistic one).

MattyH - nice to have your feedback. Start nourishing that piggy bank

Mike-P - nicely put into perspective, as always.

Regards

Jim

PS: As regards AF, the 20-40 is certainly no speed demon but it's fairly quiet and adequately quick for most subjects. Frankly, if it was manual-focus-only I might still have bought it

I'll probably be getting the K-3 with an 18-135. It's a much more reasonable price now, especially so in a kit. Though I'd be tempted by the 18-270 as well - if I'm going to get something where the IQ is compromised for the general usability, I might go the whole hog and get the monster zoom range.

I had a play with a K-3 and a 20-40 in SRS last week; it's certainly nicely made. But although it's very quiet, it's nowhere near as fast focusing as the 18-135, which is the only other DC motor lens I've used.

I still don't get the zoom range at all - it's not something I'd be buying, regardless of IQ.

An interesting post which, I suspect, represents a majority view. I can certainly see the appeal of the 18-135 and why it is a favourite as a general walkabout WR lens. The 18-270 though? - hmmmm. Horses for courses I suppose.

I do acknowledge that the 20-40 may have limited potential uses and perhaps limited appeal and it could hardly be described as a general walkabout lens. However, in its niche the 20-40 is very appealing.

As an owner of a DA* 50-135, an 18-135 would be pointless for me but something is needed to complement the 50-135. A DA* 16-50 fell from favour due to SDM problems, to be replaced (not ideally) by a DA 17-70. Then along came the 20-40 that is not only vastly better built than the 17-70 but also WR, light and compact and complements the 50-135 very well, if not in quite the same optical class.

I see the 20-40 as best suited to street/documentary and travel photography (which the 18-135 also suits). In towns and cities the 20-40 suits 90% of my needs, with the 15mm and 70mm Ltd primes meeting the other 10%. A light and pocketable set-up. Then there's the excellent 50-135 for out-of-town travel and, according to the Pentax lens road map, a planned 135-370ish DA lens if greater length is needed.

So, we have those who like to cover a wide range of focal lengths with just one lens and others, like me, who favour particular set-ups for specific needs. Both equally valid viewpoints.

As regards AF speed I suspect the 18-135 might be faster because it is IF, which the 20-40 is not. It's also possible that the superior weather sealing and tighter build tolerances of the 20-40 may adversely affect AF speed. However, although the 20-40's AF speed is slowish in low light I have found that outdoors in good light it lags only very slightly behind the SDM AF of the 17-70. I wonder whether MattyH and ChrisA were able to try the lenses outside the shops in good light?

I applaud Ricoh Pentax for producing a lens more than worthy of the Limited name, and ideal for a particular group of Pentaxians, when they surely know that it is not likely to sell in significant numbers.

Best regards

Jim

Hi Jim, Yes tried the lens outdoors as I know the owner of the store very well as I worked there for 3 years when I left school, Spent a good 30 minutes with it, comparing it to my 18-135mm and 40mm Ltd which I took with me for comparison.

I found that both the lenses I took stated above were both quite a bit faster and with less hunting in the AF department then the 20-40mm, outside in good light and used on my K5iis, maybe better on the K3?

But like I said before, I still want but maybe not need one, and like yourself, lightning fast AF is not my number one concern.

Several have mentioned the 18-135 WR, so just wondering here (the written equivalent of thinking out loud) how the 20-40's image quality might compare with the 18-135 over those same focal lengths. I couldn't find any evidence yet, but the Photozone website does show the MTF values for the 18-135 at 24mm and 50mm on a K-5. The nearest Limited lenses to those focal lengths are the 21 and the 43 - now other factors will also affect image quality, but their MTF values make interesting comparisons with the 18-135's 24mm and 50mm results.

http://www.photozone.de/pentax

The 20-40 will probably prove to be a great lens, but I have been pleased with the performance of the 18-135 and will stick with that. The latter is heavier but not much bigger, only just about a stop slower at 20-40mm, the extra lengths are useful in a general purpose lens, the image centre is almost always sharp, and the edge softness at longer FL doesn't seem to matter in the sort of shots for which they are used.

Philip

more content that may be of interest

http://steevemarcoux2.com/2014/01/15/hd-pentax-da-20-40mm-f2-8-4-ed-limited-dc-w...

I've got the same thermos cup at the right at home

You haven't been controversial at all IMO.

If some people's main element of photography that floats their boat is infinite sharpness/detail then that's their prerogative.

I can appreciate a nice crisp image, but it's way down on the list of things that make a good image for me.

some flare handling seen here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreassundell/11037787296/

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/245597-da-20-40...

My sentiments entirely Smeggy.

Conqueror: Thanks again for the links. It's all building up a picture (no pun intended).

Having now seen many images posted across the net it's looking like the 20-40 is also not at all bad for landscapes when stopped down to around f8/f11, although 20mm at its widest might be a little too limiting for some (maybe team up with a Siggy 10-20?). It's also clear that one of its strengths is close-ups, where it produces nice crisp images with decent bokeh. The macro images from the 20-40 with 25mm extension tube look pretty good too IMO.

Although I've been getting out with the lens as much as posssible it seems that any opportunity I have to take some meaningful test shots for posting here is thwarted by horrid weather. First chance I get....

Regards

Jim

Looking at the review by Gary Wolstenholme I don't think it merits the £850 price tag, I'll keep hold of my primes for the moment.

If the 20-40mm keeps getting bad reviews I think the cost will have to drop if Ricoh want to sell them in any quantities.