http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5454&news=pentax+ricoh+20-40mm+f2.8-4+variable+aperture+zoom+K-5+IIs
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2427404,00.asp
My Conclusions: Ugly Lens Outlook, Mediocre Image Quality, Ridiculous High Price, Poor Investment for Future (of APS-C Image Circle Only)!
• News about Products and Latest Company Direction
• Summaries of Reported Problems and Potential Issues
• Technical Articles on Photographic Gear and Technologies
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Comments (21)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Loading comments...
Post a new comment
Comments by IntenseDebate
Two New Mini Reviews for the HD DA 20-40mm
2013-11-24T17:47:00+08:00
RiceHigh
Image Quality|Lenses|Prices|Reviews|Samples|
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yoku2 · 589 weeks ago
The lens has only one weakness - soft corners at 20mm@2.8. The center is sharp at all apertures and all focal ranges. The corners are sharp from f4 at all focal ranges with peak sharpness at f5.6-8. CA is very low.
RiceHigh 110p · 589 weeks ago
Yoku2 · 589 weeks ago
Bukaj · 589 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 589 weeks ago
querdenker · 589 weeks ago
<... pure speculation on my part! But why else would they provide such a joke for a lens-hood (if it not hints at a much bigger image-circle than the FOV of a APS-C size sensor would need)
pentaxfools · 589 weeks ago
Yoku2 · 589 weeks ago
davidmanze · 589 weeks ago
querdenker · 589 weeks ago
Heiko · 589 weeks ago
I tried to ignore the text and went straight to the images...
...what my eyes see is
on the positive ...
+ very pleasing contrast and colors
+ nearly-round aperture-"blobs" in shape (with the variety of working-aperture provided)
+ very, very sharp throughout, with very smooth transition to oof-areas
- pronounced "harshness" / visible outlines of the oof-"blobs" when shooting into strong (back-)light
(probably a matter of the optical design - but I am in no way a qualified expert to back up this claim)
And that's really it for the "negative" side of things - If you can justify to name it that way, anyway. So yes, this seems to be a very, very fine lens when used for what it is suited best. I probably would not want to shoot into strong backlight at f/5.6 to f/8 with finely-detailed, distinctive texture near the point of interest in the frame (as you can see on the fine-cut lawn in one of the shots at f/8 -- unless I deliberately wanted to go for this "harsh" look.
Thanks for the link, Rice!
Heiko · 589 weeks ago
Take a look at the photo of the stone-path: the withered, brown pine-tree fall-off which reflect the strong back-light which the photo is shot right into: you see corona-style artefacts in the small-ish OOF-blobs.
That's what I mean with down-side. And truth be told: many modern lenses exhibit this phenomenon. So: no big deal - if you know how to avoid it. Simply "pack" another lens for this type of shot. That is after all the secret behind Pentax limited-style lenses: small enough to take two or three with you in your coat-pocket.
Try THAT with your Sigma f/1.8-zoom! (You might have a pocket big enough to fit one - but it will look rediculous so don't expect me to hold my laughter when you do^^ - that said: I am the first to admit: I'd rather have both of these special, luxury lenses)
Bukaj · 589 weeks ago
yeez · 589 weeks ago
This sentence can not be repeated too often. Kudos to you for putting it in a nutshell ;).
pentaxfools · 589 weeks ago
Joe · 589 weeks ago
Anonimity is Great · 589 weeks ago
It is a bit more expensive than it should, I think it should not be priced more than 50 dollars more expensive than the sigma 1.8, but-oh my god-even at that price I still would like to own one more than the sigma 1.8.
tipentax · 589 weeks ago
But those who can't buy a $1000 lens, just get a M 24-35mm, it's quite the same (may be less contrasty, but with old pentax cooler color) ...
zosX · 589 weeks ago
zosX · 589 weeks ago
Some excellent points made here.
foton · 589 weeks ago