The answer is that build quality is variable. I have rejected three examples that had unacceptably wobbly barrels and sloppy focus rings (and plenty more examples of this have been reported elsewhere and even demonstrated online) but no doubt others will report that their 17-70s have tight barrels and perfectly damped rings. IMHO Pentax lens QC still has room for improvement - but that's a different thread.

Best regards

Jim

Well, it looks like the new lenses rumour proved just as accurate as , it seems, most other Pentax rumours But the silver lining is that it gives us all more time to save up for when the 135-380 does eventually materialise.

Good news for medium format fans though. Nice to see that Ricoh is still supporting that market.

Best regards

Jim

You are absolutely right. I did look at the SRS price and a few other Pentax Pro dealers before posting the Amazon link and they were all around £850. SRS must have dropped their price by £100 in the few days since then. I'd far rather recommend SRS. Thanks for spotting that. Here's the link to the SRS web page. Interestingly, SRS were offering a 10% discount a month or so ago which then made the lens around £765.

But you'd expect a large lump of plastic with no weather sealing to be cheaper. You get what you pay for.

Regards

Jim

I prefer to support Pentax Pro dealers but if anyone can't quite reach their c£850 prices for the 20-40 lens there is a big saving to be made at Amazon UK link

Regards

Jim

Thanks for posting Adrian. Good to know you are enjoying the 20-40. You did well to get decent shots in what was clearly very high wind.

I've sent you a pm.

Best regards

Jim

On the Pentax lens roadmap it has always been indicated as a DA lens, not DA*, which suggests it will probably not be in the same category performance-wise or cost-wise as the DA* 60-250. That rather supports Lancer3397's feelings.

By the way, is this launch at CP+ any more than a rumour or is there actually a trusted source of information?

Best regards

Jim

I would guess there is a good chance that the price of the 20-40 might drop by around £100 in the coming months but I'd be surprised if it dropped much more unless it fails to sell in the quantities that Ricoh anticipate, and surely they would have been realistic in forecasting sales of a niche lens. Conversely, if it sells better than anticipated we could even see a price rise. However, I suspect some owners might decide that perhaps the 2x zoom range is too limiting for them, particularly if they have come from longer zooms rather than from Ltd primes. That could lead to a trickle of 'low-mileage' 20-40s on the used market. Nice time to grab a bargain.

The only issue I have with the 20-40's price is that, having bought that and a K-3 within three months, there is very little left in the piggy bank for the predicted (and coveted) DA 135-380. I can see I'm going to have to grovel to Her Who Must Be Obeyed

Best regards

Jim

The 20-40 has taken quite a lot of flak regarding its price. In my hands-on preview earlier in this thread I clarified why I think it's cost is justified but it might be worth considering this just a little further.

Comments seem to be either 'it's too expensive for what it is' or 'it's too expensive for what I can afford (even though I'm interested)'. Well, we all have limits to what we can afford, sometimes much influenced by the opinion of her/him indoors , but too expensive for what it is? I find this critisism a little irrelevant when made by folk who have not used or even handled the lens but it warrants attention when a journalist as respected as Gary Wolstenholme makes it. Gary's main concerns regarding value seem to be the 20-40's variable aperture and limited zoom range, both of which he compares unfavourably with the DA*16-50 (at a similar price point).

Having owned both lenses I would say they are chalk and cheese. The 16-50 f2.8 is fairly large and heavy for a mid-range zoom (by APS-C standards) and made primarily of good quality plastics. The 20-40 f2.8-f4 is considerably smaller, lighter (half the weight) and and made of aluminium. Subjectively, the 16-50 feels like a nice lens whilst the 20-40 feels like precision engineering. Hopefully the DC drive of the 20-40 will have a better reliability record than the SDM of the 16-50 (tell me about it). However, I certainly agree that IF in the 20-40 would have been very welcome.

If zoom range was a factor in determining price then the 18-270 would be extremely expensive but of course it's not. Pentax have a whole bunch of zooms covering the range of the 20-40, all with their strengths and weaknesses. The 20-40 is the best constructed by a country mile but it won't appeal to those who are happy to carry extra bulk for a wider zoom range. It's horses for courses.

A few have commented that the price of the 20-40 is bound to drop. Well, perhaps a little (I already paid £85 less than the current street price thanks to an SRS special offer) but, whereas DSLR prices are guaranteed to drop over time, that is not necessarily true of lenses. For example, I paid £650 for my DA*50-135 just under three years ago and that lens now has a street price tag of £1,000!

I could rattle on about what great value we Pentaxians have in lens prices compared to our Cankon cousins but really it's immaterial. The 20-40 is a niche lens much appreciated by some as a very worthy addition to the Pentax range but others will have zero interest in it. It's nice to have the choice.

Best regards

Jim

I think mille19's assertion that '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' is not very helpful at all. What 'bad reviews'?. Gary Wolstenholme's review found very little to criticise other than reduced sharpness at the frame edges at wide apertures. Plenty of lenses at all price points suffer that. Opinions on matters like zoom range and even price are very much subjective. Other aspects of the lens' performance were favourably reported in Gary's review, as they have been generally in other reviews. This is a lens which will probably never sell in large numbers, and Ricoh will have been well aware of that, but it does very adequately meet a niche market. It's not everyones cup of tea but it is a lens very worthy of its Ltd title.

Very balanced and insightful views from John Riley, DrOrloff and Pentaxophile above contribute far more positively to its assessment.

Best regards

Jim

Not very helpful at all I'm afraid John. In fact, the second quoted paragraph is simply double-dutch. I'm glad to see that DrOrloff and LennyBloke seem to feel the same. Perhaps that paragraph lost something in its translation from Japanese More to the point, who actually reads the lens instruction manual before buying a lens. A purchaser will be informed by manufacturer's sales literature/adverts, magazine articles or perhaps salesman's recommendation. In all cases it seems that WR is a vague catch-all term that is banded about with little acknowledgement of the degree of protection. MattMatic's post and others throughout this forum suggest that there is definitely confusion regarding just what WR means for different lenses.

Anyway, talk of WR is taking the thread off-subject - which I didn't mean to do. I'll gladly start a new thread about WR if there is interest.

Best regards

Jim