The 135-380 WR is something I've been eagerly awaiting since it appeared on the Roadmap quite some time ago. It's just the lens to pick up from where my excellent DA* 50-135 stops off. Pentax made a great job of the DA* 60-250 with its approx 4x zoom factor so hopefully the 2.8x factor of the 135-380 bodes well for performance and reasonable compactness. And IF should make the most of the DC drive.

An 18-70WR is also a welcome addition. Hopefully it might be better built than the current 17-70 .

On the subject of WR, I'd like to see Ricoh Pentax actually designating levels of weather and dust resistance rather than, as they do now, vaguely implying that some lenses (eg DA*) have better protection than others.

Regards

Jim

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

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

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

Thanks for the link Conqueror. The review makes interesting reading.

MattyH I think it's fair to say the 20-40 could replace your 21mm Ltd but I'd think twice about parting with the 40mm Ltd. I'm keeping my 35mm f2.4 because, although it's a horrible piece of plastic, it has pretty impressive optical performance even wide open. As found in the American review (link posted by Conqueror) sharpness suffers at the 40mm end of the 20-40. It really depends whether sharpness is critical to the shot. A camera with the resolution of the K-3 deserves the very best glass but I have found that for very many real-world subjects the 20-40's IQ is quite acceptable even at 40mm. This is borne out in some of the sample images in the review. Some forms of photography require critical sharpness but I'm more concerned with image subject and message, and I find this a useful zoom range. I'm not into pixel-peeping so if an image looks acceptable for its purpose at the largest size I'm likely to reproduce it then that's good enough for me.

I'd say it's pretty clear that the supplied metal lens hood is best replaced with a rubber hood as per posts above and the reviewer's findings. It's a shame because the supplied hood is a quality item but it's clearly a triumph of aesthetics over practicality.

Because of its high price it is well worth trying the 20-40 before buying if you can. I think you'll find there's something really special about holding and using the 20-40 - it harks back to the pre-plastic days, only better

Best regards

Jim

Thanks Adrian and others who commented favourably on my preview. I would stress that it is just a hands-on preview, not a 'review'. The latter are best left to the likes of Photozone.de who have essential specialist knowledge and test equipment.

I have yet to verify just how good (or otherwise) the 20-40's IQ is. It needs time and conditions that I have struggled to find but I will post images as soon as I can. I also want to check first whether the 20-40 requires any AF fine tuning on the K-3 to be sure that autofocus is spot-on before taking test shots. I wonder how many of the self-styled 'reviewers' actually did that?

I was very interested in Richard's post. Firstly, the lens 'hood' provided with the 20-40 is indeed beautifully crafted in metal but really quite shallow. Richard's suggestion of using a wide-angle rubber hood to give more protection is sound advice, but just bear in mind that the wider the lens hood the more it will affect on-camera flash coverage, particularly for close-ups. Whether a stepping ring is necessary will depend on what filters you may already own. (Personally, I'll get a new 55mm polariser and then use my system filters with a 55mm adapter ring for anything else - ND grads, etc). As regards issues with infinity focussing, its not something I have noticed so far but I will certainly be checking for that.

Finally, as regards purchase in Japan I'd reiterate DrOrloff's warning re warranty. By buying from a Pentax Pro dealer in the UK I benefit from a two-year warranty - which is a lot of peace of mind. It's worth just double-checking what protection a Japanese warranty is likely to give you.

Best regards

Jim

Not sure how the barrel distortion might compare but hopefully I will be able to post a couple of 20-40 images @ 21mm focal length f2.8 and f5.6 so 21mm f3.2 owners can directly compare. I do not own a 21mm f3.2.

As regards use on a film body, I'm afraid I don't have a K-mount body - only older M42. Being a DA lens I would not be too optimistic about usefulness on 35mm SLRs.

Regards

Jim

HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm f2.8-4ED Limited DC WR hands-on preview.

In response to Chaude’s original post here are my initial thoughts on the new Pentax 20-40 after a short period of ownership:

Cost: £764 was SRS Microsystems’ special offer price that I jumped at. There have been many adverse on-line comments about the price of the lens but I’ll come back to that.

Size: We all know the DA Limiteds are tiny and the FA Limiteds less tiny. A zoom lens is inevitably going to be a little larger but that’s what the 20-40 is – just a little larger. In fact, it is very slightly larger than the FA 31mm Ltd but actually 60g lighter. To show the 20-40 in context the photo below shows (L-to-R) 50-135 f2.8, 17-70 f4, 20-40 f2.8-4, 35mm f2.4 and 70mm f2.4 Ltd.




Construction: Pentax Ltd-series lenses are renowned for their excellent build quality and the 20-40 is no exception. Simply put, it is superbly constructed and certainly to a higher standard than my 15mm and 70mm DA Ltds. When I bought the K-3 I willingly paid a lot of money for a DSLR that is incredibly well built and splendidly rugged. There are no current sub-£600 Pentax lenses built to that same standard and, indeed, very few at any price. Yes the DA* lenses are really nice and also weather/dust resistant but not built as well as the 20-40. The 31mm FA Ltd is a piece of precision engineering but it is not weather/dust sealed, nor are any other Ltd primes. It seems to me at the moment that the 20-40 is the only lens that matches the K-3’s very high standards of build and robustness and that, in my mind, surely justifies its cost.

Focussing: The 20-40 has an integral dc motor – I would imagine perhaps similar to the one in the 18-135. It is not SDM nor noisy screw-drive. As I’d dug out a bunch of lenses for the size comparison photo I thought I’d use them also for AF evaluation. Taking shots indoors and outside with close and distant subjects the 35mm f2.4 was consistently the fastest, albeit a little noisy. The 17-70 f4 SDM was not quite so fast but very quiet. Just slightly behind it came the 20-40 (we are talking milliseconds) which mainly performed well but was occasionally a little fidgety. It was also a little less quiet than the SDM system. Last by a long way was the 70mm f2.4 Ltd which very noisily twitched and fidgeted before locking on. Now, it didn’t do that with my K-5 and K-5 IIs so I need to look into that. Later moving into a fairly dimly lit room I found that the K-3 + 20-40 locked onto subjects I could barely see and with minimal fuss. No complaints there. The 20-40 employs Pentax’s Quick Shift system allowing quick manual adjustments to auto-focus. I should mention that the focus and zoom rings are very smooth and perfectly damped. The focus ring is a decent width and works a treat in conjunction with the K-3’s focus-peaking feature.

Aperture: I’ve read several on-line adverse comments about the variable f2.8 – f4 aperture. Really, that’s better than I get with the constant f4 17-70 and it’s only a stop slower than the 16-50 at the long end. F2.8 at the 20mm end is also better than the 21mm f3.2 Ltd prime manages. As far as I am concerned 20-40 is a very usable zoom range for street/travel photography and it can be backed up by wide-aperture primes if really necessary. And I’ll definitely still carry the 15mm and 70mm Ltd primes, if nothing else. The resolution of the 16.3MP K-5 IIs was more than satisfactory for most my photographic requirements so if I crop the K-3’s 24MP images to 16MP that’s better than adding a 1.4x TC to my lens (with no aperture penalty) and extends the 20-40’s long end to near 60mm.

Any new DA lens inevitably gets branded by some as a potential dinosaur ‘when Pentax FF arrives’. Well, if any manufacturer offers a FF DSLR set-up as compact and light as my Spotmatic with 50mm f1.4 ST I’ll bite their arm off but I’m not at all interested in the obese FF offerings from Cankon – they are fine for those who like to combine their photography with weight training.

Image quality: I started this post by saying it is a hands-on preview. Thanks to the dreadful weather we have been experiencing lately I’ve not had the opportunity to get out with the tripod to take meaningful test shots at various focal lengths and apertures. All I can say now is that nothing disappoints me so far in the many hand-held shots I have taken, but hand-held shots in gusting wind are not truly indicative of IQ. I’ll give the 20-40 a thorough testing when conditions improve.

I took a chance buying this lens and it might easily have been an expensive mistake, but it’s not. In fact I can very confidently say that I’m won over by it. I love the feel of it (quality engineering), the look of it and the way it balances so nicely on the K-3. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea due to its restricted zoom range but for anyone keen on street and travel photography, particularly in adverse climatic conditions, this one deserves serious consideration. I’d been finding that the weight and bulk of the 17-70 meant that I was often leaving the K-3 at home and instead taking out my little Fuji X-20. Since getting the 20-40 it is the X-20 that stays at home while the K-3 + 20-40 are regularly with me and have rekindled my enthusiasm.




I hope this might be helpful Chaude – but DO hang on to the 31mm .

Regards

Jim

I agree totally with David's comment regarding comparative colour renderings. Interestingly, I also employed the same method to overcome the slight coolness of the K-5/K-5 II and, again, have not found that necessary so far with the K-3. Colour rendition and detail resolution of the K-3 leave nothing wanting IMHO. I'll agree to disagree with mille19's comments on higher ISO image noise....

Regards
Jim

Ah yes, I can see that my response to OP's query 2) was a little ambiguous. Apologies. It was the OP who expressed a wish to use a 300mm lens at high ISO for BIF but expressed concerns regarding image noise. I cannot claim BIF expertise and therefore would not want to question the OP's use of high ISO, although dcweather's camera settings look logical to me. I should have clarified that I use ISO 3200-6400 frequently for other subjects (not BIF) and can confirm the OP's concerns that the K-3 has a little more image noise at those settings.

As regards AF, I saw a marked improvement in AF.S in the K-5 IIs compared to my previous K-5, particularly in lower ambient light levels. I do not see such a clear step forward in AF.S performance in the K-3 - its performance is only marginally better than the K-5 IIs. Perhaps performance with screw-drive lenses has improved a little but unfortunately at the expense of increased drive noise. AF.C has arguably been a weakness of all Pentax DSLRs. The K-3 shows improvement but it is not as reliable and consistent in tracking faster moving subjects as is a friend's 4-year-old enthusiast DSLR of a major brand. Hopefully Ricoh might have a firmware update or two in the pipeline to improve AF.C performance. This, of course, is my personal experience but AF.C performance has also been noted as a slight negative in some 'expert' reviews.

If the above comments seem a little critical I should make it clear that overall I am very happy with the K-3 and its very many useful features but I do wish I had also retained the K-5 IIs for its lower image noise at ISO 3200+ and for its quieter use of my screw-drive LTD-series lenses.

Regards
Jim