Re: questions about the 20-40
Zos, my reply interspersed. I also took the liberty and used * symbols to outline some things that kind of jumped to my eyes. On 12/27/2013 8:00 AM, Zos Xavius wrote: Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the DA*16-50 its: Smaller Lighter Slower Less Range Both have WR. I wonder how come the lens that is slower and has less range is ideal walk around?! You see, I have about 5,000 images in my collection shot with DA* 16-50/2.8. It is a very good lens. I did not like its double cam barrel design and wasn't very appreciative of not knowing whether the SDM motor would quit on me. Also I did not like the sharpness towards the corner at wider zoom settings. However, when it would hit, it would hit it big. Further, for walk around, I would rather agree to lose on the long end of the zoom range rather than on the wide one. Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it rendered very nicely. Much better than the 16-50. Out of focus areas and the roll off are rather smooth and pleasing. I don't know what minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I also have a feeling this lens would look really nice on some extension tubes. This looks like nearly a stack of primes and could replace having a 21ltd, 35ltd, 40ltd with one lens. For a zoom like this, I rarely shoot wide open, but it does look very usable there. That's right. All these limited lenses are rather slow, so it would be only natural to replace them with another slow zoom lens of similar range. Re the three limited lenses you mentioned: 1. 21/3.2 - well, better close it to 4.0 or even 5.6 to get optimal sharpness. 2. 40/2.8 - the OOF rendering is not to my liking from what I've seen on the net. 3. 35/2.8 - this one looks particularly limited to me. What would be the use of a macro lens if at maximal magnification the distance between the front element of the lens and the subject would be how much? Few centimeters?! Good for inanimate subjects or reproduction. And slow like a zoom lens... So indeed, it would seem that new DA Limited zoom is preferable to these three. Beside macro capabilities of 35/2.8 - one would seem to be only gaining. *Compared to the Sigma 18-35*, it has a slightly different range and is much slower. I think they are both pretty sharp lenses, but I bet the limited resolves more. The sigma is also HUGE, lacks SMC/HD coating, and *doesn't say pentax on the barrel*. I know that if I wanted to shoot some street, I'd want the much smaller lens. I only wish it were say 16-40. The extra width would come in handy, but other than that this covers a range that is very useful, at least for landscape and outdoors shooters. I think it is way too expensive, but I have to admit that I really want one and a 15 and 70 to go along with it. The fact that average banana weighs approximately like an average apple which in turn weighs somewhat close to an orange, does not mean these fruits need to be compared. Let me suggest to you, Zos, that Sigma is a truly revolutionary breakthrough in lens design. The sharpness that is provides and other renderings qualities (except work against the light sources) are indeed worth of title stack of _high quality_ primes. Additionally, you get wonderful USB connectivity option that would allow you to fully align this lens with AF system of your very camera, which for critical applications is well - critical. I have very old 17-70/2.8-4.5 and in terms of coatings it is 100% there. I don't miss SMC/HD or whatever. I totally don't understand doesn't say pentax on the barrel argument/sentiment/mention. Let me ask you - when having to choose 85/1.4 lens, would you then immediately dismiss Zeiss 85/1.4 (in Pentax K mount, of course) or Leica R 80/1.4 (with properly applied Leitax mount conversion) just because both Zeiss and Leica are not Pentax? Granted the Sigma 18-35 is big and heavy and very much so, it is how I would want Pentax to push the envelope and not offer to me yet another slow limited lens. The FA limited lenses were brilliant in being of exceptional optical quality and optimal speed (not too fast, not too slow). The DA limited lenses are, well, how to put it - indicative of someone in Pentax non-engineering headquarters deciding - I want my new limited lenses small, nothing else matters, give me small lenses. And so we have all the pancakes... And like I said - DA 20-40 seems like a good small street shooting lens or common purpose slow around the standard focal length optic. The WR adds nicely, the barrel design would seem to ensure somewhat better than average longevity. As for optical qualities - I would very much hope to see PDMLers shots that were made with it. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On 12/27/2013 5:59 AM, Bill wrote: I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong, it's a gorgeous lens, and *the short zoom range makes it like an extended range standard lens*, it's sharp and has nice bokeh.. The problem is it's big, and at 2/3 of a pound, it isn't light, though it certainly isn't as heavy as it looks, *and it's slow*. OTOH, it *say Pentax on the bezel* and for me that is generally enough. *I just turn off the rational part of my brain and let the bit that is attracted to shiny things make the important decisions*. bill You have summed it up very nicely, Bill. I used * to emphasize the key points. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On 26/12/13, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? You have to use your legs a little bit more. #health -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
It's only WR if it says so on the bezel. Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250 have no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses. On Dec 26, 2013, at 17:49 , Paul Stenquist wrote: The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant. stan MrPentaxian MrMcMac — A picture is worth a thousand words but… It occupies a thousand times more memory, not to mention storage. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
All DA star zooms are weather resistant as far as I know. Paul via phone On Dec 28, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: It's only WR if it says so on the bezel. Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250 have no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses. On Dec 26, 2013, at 17:49 , Paul Stenquist wrote: The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant. stan MrPentaxian MrMcMac — A picture is worth a thousand words but… It occupies a thousand times more memory, not to mention storage. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: It's only WR if it says so on the bezel. Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250 have no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses. The February 2007 press release says: The smc PENTAX-DA* series features a tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction to enhance durability for use in the rain or at the dusty locations. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2007/2/21/pentaxdastarlenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: It's only WR if it says so on the bezel. Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250 have no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses. The February 2007 press release says: The smc PENTAX-DA* series features a tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction to enhance durability for use in the rain or at the dusty locations. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2007/2/21/pentaxdastarlenses Joe, looks like you've been missing out on a very useful feature of your lenses. :-) If the 16-50 wasn't weather resistant, mine would be very dead by now. And my 50-135 has also been out in all kinds of wet weather, including snow and most recently freezing drizzle. That WR designation first showed up on the D-FA 100mm macro I believe. It's a much more recent marketing finesse anyway. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
I may be wrong. My three 4 DA* lenses have a rubbery seal at the lens mount that is black, and doesn't seem to stick out as far as the red seals do on the later lenses labeled WR. Perhaps Pentax was waiting to see how many defective lenses were returned before making a big deal about it with transparent drawing showing the umpteen sealing rings in their construction. I probably was fooled by the changes in the nomenclature, and I assumed construction, of the DA 18-55, which attained WR status after I already had my non-WR version. I was able to later sell that one and obtain a WR with a newer body. Though I criticize others, it does nothing to improve my own mind, or my own photography. On Dec 28, 2013, at 18:23 , Matthew Hunt wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: It's only WR if it says so on the bezel. Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250 have no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses. The February 2007 press release says: The smc PENTAX-DA* series features a tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction to enhance durability for use in the rain or at the dusty locations. Joseph McAllister Too much gear, not much time -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On Dec 28, 2013, at 18:35 , Bruce Walker wrote: Joe, looks like you've been missing out on a very useful feature of your lenses. :-) I actually do use my bodies and lenses in the Pacific Northwest Drizzleshine, but have stayed away from pouring rain, freezing cold, blowing dust sand, and temps over 85° F. Not because of the equipment's limitations, but mine. :) And realizing my own inability to realize just which camera and lens I am shooting with. I do recall the YouTube videos of the K5 and lenses in a shower, still working, back in the day. [K7? Don't remember.] If the 16-50 wasn't weather resistant, mine would be very dead by now. And my 50-135 has also been out in all kinds of wet weather, including snow and most recently freezing drizzle. See the above. That WR designation first showed up on the D-FA 100mm macro I believe. It's a much more recent marketing finesse anyway. My D-FA 100mm ƒ2.8 Macro has a hard plastic mating surface to the camera, and no mention of WR on the body or box. Ser. #5826425 49mm filter. Clamp on-off sw. I consider it a poor substitute that my insurance co. gave me for my sleek FA 100mm Macro. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com -- I couldn't remember most of what I know today if it weren't for others sharing their knowledge of my past on the Internet. Thank you… -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
My DA*50-135 has worked a very rainy wedding or two. It has played in other inclement conditions. During a photography workshop, that same 50-135 took a shower in a sink after it and the K20D to which it was attached received a bath of fizzy, sticky root beer. I rushed into the ladies room to wash off the soda. (BTW, you would have loved the expression on the face of the photographer carrying Canon gear when she saw me shove the gear under running water. My face was probably priceless, too, because she nearly scared me half to death by yelling, What are you doing?!) I've not tested the weather seals so severely again. Yonnie On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: On Dec 28, 2013, at 18:35 , Bruce Walker wrote: Joe, looks like you've been missing out on a very useful feature of your lenses. :-) I actually do use my bodies and lenses in the Pacific Northwest Drizzleshine, but have stayed away from pouring rain, freezing cold, blowing dust sand, and temps over 85° F. Not because of the equipment's limitations, but mine. :) And realizing my own inability to realize just which camera and lens I am shooting with. I do recall the YouTube videos of the K5 and lenses in a shower, still working, back in the day. [K7? Don't remember.] If the 16-50 wasn't weather resistant, mine would be very dead by now. And my 50-135 has also been out in all kinds of wet weather, including snow and most recently freezing drizzle. See the above. That WR designation first showed up on the D-FA 100mm macro I believe. It's a much more recent marketing finesse anyway. My D-FA 100mm ƒ2.8 Macro has a hard plastic mating surface to the camera, and no mention of WR on the body or box. Ser. #5826425 49mm filter. Clamp on-off sw. I consider it a poor substitute that my insurance co. gave me for my sleek FA 100mm Macro. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com -- I couldn't remember most of what I know today if it weren't for others sharing their knowledge of my past on the Internet. Thank you… -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
on 2013-12-28 20:10 Joseph McAllister wrote That WR designation first showed up on the D-FA 100mm macro I believe. It's a much more recent marketing finesse anyway. My D-FA 100mm ƒ2.8 Macro has a hard plastic mating surface to the camera, and no mention of WR on the body or box. Ser. #5826425 49mm filter. Clamp on-off sw. as you may know, there are two D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macros; the initial version (yours) with the wider focus ring; and the subsequent WR version, with a narrower focus ring, no aperture ring, and WR; the best used prices put the WR version $150 more i'm well aware of the differences as i am attracted by the lighter weight of either of these (vs. my Sigma EX 105/2.8), and it's been hard for me to weigh the trade-offs between the two -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Paul via phone On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the DA*16-50 its: Smaller Lighter Slower Less Range Both have WR. Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it rendered very nicely. Much better than the 16-50. That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither . The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close range. For moderately small subjects like flowers or leaves I opt for it in place of my macro. Out of focus areas and the roll off are rather smooth and pleasing. I don't know what minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I also have a feeling this lens would look really nice on some extension tubes. This looks like nearly a stack of primes and could replace having a 21ltd, 35ltd, 40ltd with one lens. For a zoom like this, I rarely shoot wide open, but it does look very usable there. Compared to the Sigma 18-35, it has a slightly different range and is much slower. I think they are both pretty sharp lenses, but I bet the limited resolves more. The sigma is also HUGE, lacks SMC/HD coating, and doesn't say pentax on the barrel. I know that if I wanted to shoot some street, I'd want the much smaller lens. I only wish it were say 16-40. The extra width would come in handy, but other than that this covers a range that is very useful, at least for landscape and outdoors shooters. I think it is way too expensive, but I have to admit that I really want one and a 15 and 70 to go along with it. On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/12/2013 5:54 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong, it's a gorgeous lens, and the short zoom range makes it like an extended range standard lens, it's sharp and has nice bokeh.. The problem is it's big, and at 2/3 of a pound, it isn't light, though it certainly isn't as heavy as it looks, and it's slow. OTOH, it say Pentax on the bezel and for me that is generally enough. I just turn off the rational part of my brain and let the bit that is attracted to shiny things make the important decisions. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Bill wrote: On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then K20D, and now K-3. My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers rarely, if ever, have problems with the SDM. It's those of us who don't use them often that have problems. I don't believe this is true. My 16-50 has sat on the shelf unused for 6 months at a stretch and never had an issue. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bill wrote: On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then K20D, and now K-3. My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers rarely, if ever, have problems with the SDM. It's those of us who don't use them often that have problems. I don't believe this is true. My 16-50 has sat on the shelf unused for 6 months at a stretch and never had an issue. And this is why I've always considered your 18-50mm to be imbued with magical properties, Mark. Cheers, —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Miserere wrote: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bill wrote: On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then K20D, and now K-3. My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers rarely, if ever, have problems with the SDM. It's those of us who don't use them often that have problems. I don't believe this is true. My 16-50 has sat on the shelf unused for 6 months at a stretch and never had an issue. And this is why I've always considered your 18-50mm to be imbued with magical properties, Mark. Other PDML members like Bruce Walker and Paul Stenquist must have lenses with the same magical properties! -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Miserere wrote: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bill wrote: On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then K20D, and now K-3. My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers rarely, if ever, have problems with the SDM. It's those of us who don't use them often that have problems. I don't believe this is true. My 16-50 has sat on the shelf unused for 6 months at a stretch and never had an issue. And this is why I've always considered your 18-50mm to be imbued with magical properties, Mark. Other PDML members like Bruce Walker and Paul Stenquist must have lenses with the same magical properties! I'm glad to hear that! In the early days of the 16-50mm there were so many complaints of failed SDM motors on Pentax Forms and DPR that I gave up on that lens and bought a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 instead. On a related note, I did not appreciate Pentax's reluctance to admit the problem, which did little to improve my image of them. But that's an ailment that afflicts all Japanese camera companies and should be the subject of a different thread. May the magic stay with you and your SDM lenses, Mark! ;-) Cheers, —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013, Paul Stenquist wrote: That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither . The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close range. For moderately small subjects like flowers or leaves I opt for it in place of my macro. The reason I went with the 100mm macro for my cruise instead of the 35mm macro was because during my test drive with the 16-50, I found myself constantly wishing for more macro, and by the time I switched over to the 35mm macro, I had to drastically shift my positioning to get the closeup I wanted. You can get reasonably close with the 16-50, but I really prefer true macro. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013, Paul Stenquist wrote: That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither . The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close range. For moderately small subjects like flowers or leaves I opt for it in place of my macro. The reason I went with the 100mm macro for my cruise instead of the 35mm macro was because during my test drive with the 16-50, I found myself constantly wishing for more macro, and by the time I switched over to the 35mm macro, I had to drastically shift my positioning to get the closeup I wanted. You can get reasonably close with the 16-50, but I really prefer true macro. -- Of course. I didn't say the DA* 16-50 could replace a macro. I was responding to Zoe's leaps of logo regarding it's rendering and it's ability to focus closely. Paul Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Miserere wrote: I did not appreciate Pentax's reluctance to admit the problem, which did little to improve my image of them. But that's an ailment that afflicts all Japanese camera companies I think you could remove Japanese and camera from that sentence without reducing its accuracy much... -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Miserere wrote: I did not appreciate Pentax's reluctance to admit the problem, which did little to improve my image of them. But that's an ailment that afflicts all Japanese camera companies I think you could remove Japanese and camera from that sentence without reducing its accuracy much... I didn't want to get too off topic :-) —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
questions about the 20-40
I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
The SDM on my 16-50 never failed. Exposure count is probably well over10k. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses. On Larry's question - why the 20-40? For me, it is two things. I've bought and sold many lenses; one of the few that I really regret selling is the FA20-35. The 20-40 allows me to have a renewed acquaintance with an updated form of that lens. Second, one word: lens hood. Now that I have the 20-40 in hand, and I think about what goes into the travel bag, the 20-40 wins hands down because of the unobtrusive hood. I'll tuck the 15mm in a corner of the bag someplace in the off chance I need to go that wide, and I'll have the 50-135 for the 50mm (and beyond) range. Oh by the way, it helps that the 20-40 is WR, the 16-50 not so much. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The SDM on my 16-50 never failed. Exposure count is probably well over10k. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
WR?? Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses. On Larry's question - why the 20-40? For me, it is two things. I've bought and sold many lenses; one of the few that I really regret selling is the FA20-35. The 20-40 allows me to have a renewed acquaintance with an updated form of that lens. Second, one word: lens hood. Now that I have the 20-40 in hand, and I think about what goes into the travel bag, the 20-40 wins hands down because of the unobtrusive hood. I'll tuck the 15mm in a corner of the bag someplace in the off chance I need to go that wide, and I'll have the 50-135 for the 50mm (and beyond) range. Oh by the way, it helps that the 20-40 is WR, the 16-50 not so much. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The SDM on my 16-50 never failed. Exposure count is probably well over10k. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: WR?? Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses. On Larry's question - why the 20-40? For me, it is two things. I've bought and sold many lenses; one of the few that I really regret selling is the FA20-35. The 20-40 allows me to have a renewed acquaintance with an updated form of that lens. Second, one word: lens hood. Now that I have the 20-40 in hand, and I think about what goes into the travel bag, the 20-40 wins hands down because of the unobtrusive hood. I'll tuck the 15mm in a corner of the bag someplace in the off chance I need to go that wide, and I'll have the 50-135 for the 50mm (and beyond) range. Oh by the way, it helps that the 20-40 is WR, the 16-50 not so much. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The SDM on my 16-50 never failed. Exposure count is probably well over10k. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: WR?? Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses. On Larry's question - why the 20-40? For me, it is two things. I've bought and sold many lenses; one of the few that I really regret selling is the FA20-35. The 20-40 allows me to have a renewed acquaintance with an updated form of that lens. Second, one word: lens hood. Now that I have the 20-40 in hand, and I think about what goes into the travel bag, the 20-40 wins hands down because of the unobtrusive hood. I'll tuck the 15mm in a corner of the bag someplace in the off chance I need to go that wide, and I'll have the 50-135 for the 50mm (and beyond) range. Oh by the way, it helps that the 20-40 is WR, the 16-50 not so much. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The SDM on my 16-50 never failed. Exposure count is probably well over10k. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then K20D, and now K-3. On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference. Plus, the SDM will never fail on you cos it's a DC AF motor. This was the main issue that kept me from buying the 18-50mm back in the day (Mark is the only person I know who's never had an issue with that lens and its SDM). Oh, and let's not forget the fondle factor of the 20-40mm :-) Those are my thoughts, which are mostly useless given I'll never buy either. Cheers, —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Weather Resistant, I presume. The 20-35 was brilliant and a ver practical lens. I hope the 20-40 takes that role. Godfrey On Dec 26, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: WR?? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Right. All DA* lenses are weather resistant. I know that. Momentary brain cramp. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain. Paul via phone On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant. stan On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: WR?? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then K20D, and now K-3. My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers rarely, if ever, have problems with the SDM. It's those of us who don't use them often that have problems. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
On 26/12/2013 5:54 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong, it's a gorgeous lens, and the short zoom range makes it like an extended range standard lens, it's sharp and has nice bokeh.. The problem is it's big, and at 2/3 of a pound, it isn't light, though it certainly isn't as heavy as it looks, and it's slow. OTOH, it say Pentax on the bezel and for me that is generally enough. I just turn off the rational part of my brain and let the bit that is attracted to shiny things make the important decisions. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the DA*16-50 its: Smaller Lighter Slower Less Range Both have WR. Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it rendered very nicely. Much better than the 16-50. Out of focus areas and the roll off are rather smooth and pleasing. I don't know what minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I also have a feeling this lens would look really nice on some extension tubes. This looks like nearly a stack of primes and could replace having a 21ltd, 35ltd, 40ltd with one lens. For a zoom like this, I rarely shoot wide open, but it does look very usable there. Compared to the Sigma 18-35, it has a slightly different range and is much slower. I think they are both pretty sharp lenses, but I bet the limited resolves more. The sigma is also HUGE, lacks SMC/HD coating, and doesn't say pentax on the barrel. I know that if I wanted to shoot some street, I'd want the much smaller lens. I only wish it were say 16-40. The extra width would come in handy, but other than that this covers a range that is very useful, at least for landscape and outdoors shooters. I think it is way too expensive, but I have to admit that I really want one and a 15 and 70 to go along with it. On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/12/2013 5:54 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong, it's a gorgeous lens, and the short zoom range makes it like an extended range standard lens, it's sharp and has nice bokeh.. The problem is it's big, and at 2/3 of a pound, it isn't light, though it certainly isn't as heavy as it looks, and it's slow. OTOH, it say Pentax on the bezel and for me that is generally enough. I just turn off the rational part of my brain and let the bit that is attracted to shiny things make the important decisions. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: questions about the 20-40
on 2013-12-26 23:00 Zos Xavius wrote I don't know what minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I fwiw, maximum magnification of the two lenses is about the same -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
