20-40 LimiZoom and friends

A quick outdoor test yielded little data of value.  All four lenses produced images with great colors and decent sharpness.  Color fringing was most visible on the 17-28 but its image was also the widest so you gain more view but it's not the best part of the field.  The tests were three wide (18-55@18, 17-28@17+ and 20-40@20, then all four lenses at 28mm; all were shot iso80 f/5.6, shade WB.

The one noteworthy point was between the 20-40 and Tamron 28-75 at 28mm.  Exposure data is shown as identical but the Tamron is darker by a notch; it is clear in the leaves against the tree trunk and especially in the skyline clouds.   The other images look like the LimiZoom, only the Tamron has cloud detail.  These all were jpeg/bright so processing was the same, and focus was obtained on the notch in the left-side tree trunk.  Honestly though, these clouds were moving fast... some changes just happen with outdoor scenes.  I was not planning to shoot these but the sun came out with no early notice, so I used it!

These two shots were cropped by Picasa when converted to a collage so 

more of the scene is visible on my screen for all the images.

DA 20-40 LimiZoom - 1st images

are quite impressive.  Standing on their own the landscape images are very nice.  This copy does not show any large-scale issues that have plagued some users, but more rigorous tests will come soon.  The scene below would look good with a pinhole camera, but the 20-40 certainly caught it nicely!

Lake Sacagawea in Longview - jpeg 'bright' setting on K-5 IIs, 30mm f/8

Colors are great, details are well defined.  Some say the focus is slow, but shots like this are not big-time torture on focus speeds.  Later tests on power lines and back-lit tree branches showed very little color fringing, though I could find it near the edge at 20mm & f/2.8.  At 30 and 40mm I saw nothing of note even wide open.

comparing good lenses

It's easy to pick out a bad lens with a few revealing tests.  Focus is inconsistent, or results not sharp from one side to another.  Perhaps contrast is weak or colors appear warmer or cooler than expected.  Maybe the images are fine but areas beyond focus distract or otherwise detract from the overall shot.

If a lens passes these tests, and you pick up another design, then it gets interesting.  How does one compare lenses that each pass the basic tests?  For most of us, it becomes a balancing act between what else we already own and use, features like weather seals, the weight of one lens over another, compatible  filters, or simple cost.  If a lens costs four times as much but both give great results, was that cash well spent?

I own Pentax' 18-55 WR "kit lens" for foul-weather shooting.  It's a decent lens, can focus close and go out in the rain.  Yes it has more distortion than many at the wide end, and it's f/5.6 past maybe 40mm; these concerns will make a big difference to some, not so much to others.

Other options are available, which brings up the Big Question: if a lens costs several times as much as the 18-55, how many times 'better' should it be?  Faster, smaller, more seals, incredible optics - some combination of these or other factors will be in play.  No two people will weigh these factors quite the same, nor can they quantify  'twice as good' - so like every lens ever made the better / faster / more expensive lens is not for everyone.

I have owned Pentax' 18-135 DC WR, two or three times in fact.  Its specs are compelling relative to the 18-55: more telephoto range, a quiet focus motor, still f/5.6 but not until longer focal lengths.  Good points - yet I sold it each time.  I found issues with image quality above 100mm and did not wish to carry a bulkier, more expensive lens that I only found useful for 2/3 of its range.  I could choose to correct most of its issues in the camera with a speed penalty, or fix them on my computer which also takes time.  Or I could own the 18-55.  Many others disagree strongly that this lens has any more problems than other lenses and is better than most; that's OK as their needs are different, just as their copies are different from mine.

So it comes to this: a Limited 20-40mm zoom has arrived on my doorstep, and tests against my other lenses will commence.  It's a new open-box lens obtained for over $100 less than any price I'd seen, but still cost about six times what I paid for the used DA18-55 - all that for a narrower focal range!  Why would anyone pay that much more for this lens?

Well, it has the weather seals but includes a DC motor.  It's faster at f/2.8-4.0.  Stopping at 20mm avoids the worst of zoom distortions.  Primarily though, it's a Limited lens which means great build and superior image quality.  Until now it also meant primes; this is the first Limited zoom so it's the proverbial odd duck.  Many current Limited users cannot bring themselves to accept a zoom as deserving the Limited label while others have found it too expensive to bother with.  Let's pretend that I replaced both the DA21/3.2 Limited (slightly faster at f/2.8) and the DA40/2.8 Limited (slower at f/4) for less money.  You could say I replaced the 35 Limited too but it's a 1:1 macro, so not quite an even trade - but the Limited primes have no weather seals.

Given its uniqe nature, should the LimiZoom be tested against primes, zooms, Limited lenses only?  That's a problem for pro review websites,  professional users or geeked-by-gear folks; I'll skip that question and just compare it with what I have.  Its 'competition' in my bag comes from the 18-55WR and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, with a Pentax F 17-28mm fish-eye thrown in despite its fishiness.  I shall also just let the 20-40 be itself on a solo jaunt or two, unencumbered by the abilities of other lenses.

How do these four zooms compare?
17-28: really wide fisheye view, fairly slow at f/3.5-4.5, compact & light, fairly inexpensive
18-55: weather seals, 1:3ish close focus, ~$100, slow f/3.5-5.6
20-40: Limited metal build, weather seals, 9 aperture blades, DC silent focus, f/2.8-4
28-75: fast f/2.8 = relatively large and bulky, 7 aperture blades

On to the 'tests', at which I'm pretty poor.  I shall try to keep them on common levels re. shooting parameters but I always leave something out that makes a difference.  Oh well...

seeking balance

In the never-ending quest for both optical excellence and cost savings, ... I spent more money?

Wait hear me out, this might make sense!

I found a great deal on the F 17-28 fisheye online.  This lens was cheaper than the K17, has data contacts for FL and exposure data, and actually shoots a smidge wider at 17mm!  This would free up both K17 and 28mm primes, and its small size is nice too.  I lose some close focusing and all focal lengths are a bit fishy, plus its f/3.5-4.5 design is a 'light compromise' especially at 28mm.  Images show better color rendition than the 17.  So the zoom has several advantages... but the prime is really nice too, and the manual lenses have their own special fun about them.

Sadly (perhaps) that wasn't my only deal, in fact it was my third.  Now comes the messy part.

First off I picked up a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 at a great price; I owned this before and liked a lot.  This of course is now a fine fit with the 17-28... but I didn't know the 17-28 was coming when I bought it!  It allows most all my primes to depart including the m85 f/2.  Money saved!  But wait, don't I love my primes?  Isn't the KatzEye screen ideal for primes?  Hmmm...

Then the real deal came along: an open-box Limited 20-40mm f/2.8-4 for well under $700 - generally that's at least a $200 saving.  Add 12 months to pay off w/o interest, so this is likely my best lens bargain ever. Wow!!  Owners love this thing, reviewers dislike it - but what a lens if centering issues are absent!  Hmm, it's a better match to the k17 than the 17-28 -- though the overlap isn't a huge deal.

Having  17, 20-40, 50 and 55-300 sounds nice and minimal, and the 18-55 can go as the LimiZoom is equally weather resistant along with DC motor and nine aperture blades.

Decisions to make while the return-clock ticks on the 17-28 and 20-40:

• 17-28 28-75 55-300?  no wr..
• 17-28 (40?) 55-300?  no wr..
• 17 20-40 55-300?  wr/dc
• 17 28 50 18-55wr 55-300 that I already have?

All good kits, some great lenses, all ... different.

So here I am, not saving money quite yet.  The 17-28 and Limited zoom can go back within 14 days from dates of purchase.  I am now marketing several of my lenses so the decision can be made as other items leave - I cannot lose really.

It should be an interesting ten days or so!

p.s. just to add confusion to the mix, I traded a Q06-lens for an early-AF Tamron 90mm f/2.5, making the M85 slightly more expendable.  It never ends, only slows down now&then...

• Best-guess kit: 17-28fe, 20-40, 50, 90, 135, 55-300

primal group photo

All the primes* sitting at the window, awaiting the K5 IIs' arrival.  

*Sadly the 400mm Hanimar would not fit on the sill :( but it will get its camera-time!

smc17/4fe, vivitar28/2, A50/2, m85/2, m135/3.5.  Coming soon : smcM 28/2.8 vs Vivitar/Kiron 28/2!

The camera arrived soon after, and the 135mm lens had a fine test drive.  This camera comes gently used at ~13k clicks and includes a KatzEye screen implant with split focus and microprism-glass collar to assist with precise focusing, just like the "good old days" - as William Clark once said (from very near here) O! the joy!  The DAL55-300 tested the AF system with good results too, showing plenty of details on Mt Rainier 80+ miles away.  The IIs really amazes with its abundance of fine detail; the absence of a just-in-case AA frequency filter really makes a difference!

reloading, again

Well I'm dSLR free - for a week at least.  The K-50 is an excellent camera but not the step diagonally upward that I had hoped from the K-5; it turns out that I really do use some of those external buttons, most notably the AE metering switch.   One bit of good news from this is that I am now mostly cured of the K-s1 bug, as that newest model has neither AE switch nor custom button to assign that to.  I really like the small size of the K-s1 but really it's best not to retrain myself to work with a poorer ergonomic fit.

The K-3 has dropped in price recently which made it very appealing, but it has many more features than I seek plus a few interface tweaks I don't really want to learn.  In the end I bid the right amount on a K-5 IIs with bonus battery grip And split-image focusing screen.  The win came as quite a surprise, in fact, as my bid was the only one submitted; had this not won I had vague plans of waiting until November for a K-3.  I learned later that another PK-Forum member had been chatting with the seller about the camera, but once my bid went in all conversation had to end.  Perhaps he will get my K-3 in 'revenge'!  :^)  

I have no real interest in the extra bulk of a grip, but since it's coming anyway I shall give it a try now and then. Since it holds a battery and not a motorized film-winder it really won't weigh much, but more bulk is less appealing most of the time. However, the focusing screen breathes new life into my manual-prime lenses, especially the 85mm f/2 speedster.

I need to hide a few sale-webpages from myself now - but my favorite Pentax camera is returning to my hands, hooray!

cutbacks

Well I had not planned for a property-tax bill in October, but here it is.  Given that new reality I felt compelled to visit the KEH buyer (who was in Vancouver WA this week) and parted with some well-liked gear.  Some items they offered little or nothing for, so I didn't lose all my best items - but the DA40 and A50 macro are gone, replaced by an SMC-A 50mm f/2.  Faster and more compact, but no more 1:2 shots except with the Quantaray 28-90; thankfully that lens does 1:2 quite well so no major issues.  Another option is the macro TC which yields 100mm f/4 at the macro setting of my choice!  The offer price for my other f/2 lenses (28 and 85) were not worthy so my kit didn't change much.  They had no interest in the Quantarays so they are still here too.

Despite the low offer for the K-5, I let that great camera go: it needs repair for the mirror-flip which would take longer to fix than the tax bill allows, and may in fact be deemed outside of warranty and cost me more money to fix!

Despite all this activity, the kit still looks good :^)

• bodies: just K-50 for now, plus film bodies and Q
• primes: 17-28-50-85-135 and 400
• zooms: Pentax 18-55 DA wr, 55-300DAL + Sigma 21-35 + Quantarays 28-90 1:2, 100-300 + JCPenney 80-200/3.5  (all of the above lenses except the Pentax zooms work for 36x24 imaging)
• extras: Pentax  AF280T flash, O-GPS1, and -- well, I have a nice tripod around here somewhere...