Added this lens to my arsenal because of the weather sealing, but love it for the rendering you mention. I have it paired with my K3 as my go to when walking the streets of St. Augustine Florida. It’s a wonderful setup.
Love this lens, and glad to hear your first impression of it. As someone who does (did? will do again soon?) a lot of travel/street photography, this lens is great. It’s small enough to be relatively unobtrusive. I pack the Pentax DA 55-300PLM and an ultra wide zoom and I’ve got all I need. For walking around for me, the 20-40 is pretty much perfect, and I think that’s in part because it does function a bit as a stack of primes for me. Leaving in a little bit for my first airplane trip since March 2020, and this will be my go to lens. Have upgraded my Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 to a DA*11-18 f/2.8 this month, but don’t see much that could displace the 20-40 Limited as my standard walk around lens.
I have this lens and it is my most used lens, both on my older KP and now the K-3 M3. For just a noemal carry around I can carry two lens, the 20-40 and the 50-135, as both are weather sealed.
The 20-40 practically is not a zoom but a crop lens! It helps you micro adjust the final real estate of the scene by adding or eliminating what you want or don’t. The far ends are mere starting points and at 30 you get that special focal length of FA 43 in FF that is more nifty to the human sight.
Nice first impressions review. I'm in the same boat as you where, not understanding the draw to this lens by almost every Pentaxian! Nice to have some clarification in images & video on why this lens is so popular. Looking forward to the KP video or videos!
I don't have a 20-40 but it really appeals to me. Like the look and build of it and quite impressed with the rendering I have seen in photos. If I wasn't mostly living in K-1 land, I would have bought one. Bring on the DFA 21 (and then the waiting period for deals or second hand copies - ha!)!
A while ago, I took my K-5 and all the DA Limited primes on a little trip, and I found myself using the 21/3.2 and 40/2.8 a lot. (And the 40/2.8 was a particular favourite of mine for ages.) That was mostly street photography in a big-city urban environment. When I was done, I understood what (in my opinion) the 20-40 was for... but that variable aperture with the loss of an entire stop at the 40mm end would have been a deal-breaker for me. In bright light it might not matter. It depends on what you're shooting.
@@Littletass 40mm is roughly the equivalent of 58mm on a full-frame camera; it's what standard lenses used to be when film SLR cameras were really getting into their stride. It's a bit tighter than your regular 50mm "normal" on a full-frame, but not by very much. I used to use mine for just about everything that didn't need telephoto; you might need to find yourself taking just a tiny step back compared with a modern standard prime (whose field of view is replicated approximately by 35mm APSC). The main advantage of the Pentax 40mm primes is their amazingly small size. If you have one of the smaller Pentax DSLR bodies, it's not that much bulkier than some compacts - and IIRC it will work on the K-1 and on any Pentax film camera that's modern enough to work the aperture.
I love this lens, it stays on my KP, which by the way is an awesome camera (small and solid). I love the colors I get out of this lens and the auto focus is one of the best Pentax’s lens I own.
Thanks for the vid! I pair this 20-40mm with my 15mm and 70mm Limiteds on mtn biking adventures as my "bike kit" that, along with my KP and sling bag are a portable and lightweight way of covering the range with real quality. The rendering on the 20-40mm is what I like best, those colors look closer to older manual SMC K or M lenses which are awesome. It took a while for this lens to grow on me but it has and it's a keeper that is on the KP a lot (especially on those drizzly days when I am shooting).
I had this lens with a K-S2, which I thought was a great combo. I sold them when I got out of Pentax, now wishing I hadn't. I loved the lens. I don't really get the stack-of-primes concept, but to me it was more like a "normal with leeway" lens. I always like to have a good normal lens, which on APS-C is about 30mm. This is it, except that I can also go a bit wider or a bit longer. I liked the shooting experience that gave me. This was also notable to me because it was the first Pentax lens I ever had with quiet internal focusing, rather than noisy screw-drive.
Same here. Acquired this lens recently. It's wide enough to be of use downtown and it goes a bit over normal length on APSC. For other focal lengths I own a bulk of vintage lenses that I love. The only thing I missed, was going a bit wider than my 28mm Takumar - and now I have that
I just brought one and looking forward to receiving it. I want to attach it to my KP camera, which is going to be difficult as I haven't purchased one yet. What can I say, I'm a Pentax junkie
I've never been attracted by the focal range of this lens, which is equivalent to 30 mm - 60mm on APS-C. This probably explains why I hardly ever use my 31mm Limited on the K-1. I much prefer the 16-50mm focal range on APS-C cameras. That said, you took some really lovely photos with the 20-40. Sigma did indeed make a 20-40 mm f2.8 lens, but it's a full frame lens, and that interested me more: 20mm is my favourite wide angle focal length. I bought it in Pentax mount many years ago, and I still have it. It's OK but not super sharp, as one might expect.
I agree that the 16-50 seems more appealing. The new announced 16-50 2.8 PLM should be very good, though it's unclear when it will be released. I think it is quite a bit larger and heavier though, so I suppose that argument could always work. But I think as a package it provides a much better value. I'd rather have the weight and size.
@@snappiness I find my 16-50 to be too heavy. I take my camera out less because of the weight and bulk. I've recently been using a 40 mm XS which is brilliant. I am going to borrow the Tamron 17-50 I bought used on Amazon for $150 for my son. It's 5 OZ lighter than the 16-50 and images are as good or better.
I have sold mine. The reason was the short focal range and the sharpness. I was very disapointed specially by the loss of sharpness of my copy. Perhaps i was unluky with my copy. The build quality is fantastic, the only good thing for me. I used it with my KP and they make a good pair but for all arround lens i have my 18-135 wr from my k3. Regards.
I always come back to this lens. It is not an ultra sharp lens, but some 60/90cm prints made with it are perfectly fine. Colors and contrasts are great and the focals it covers are perfect for me most of the time. I love this lens so much that I wonder if I should buy a spare one...
In my (very) short time shooting it, I would definitely feel comfortable printing large. It's only at certain focal lengths that it seems less sharp than others, but probably not enough of an issue to make a practical difference. At some focal lengths I thought it was quite sharp in the center.
I bought mine open box at pretty good price, but I would say that I didn’t enjoy it in the beginning. But as time passes it has grown on me, and now it is always in my KP.
I was thinking about a 21mm Limited, but I found a 20-40 on my local FB marketplace for $340 CAD. Decided that it was worth a try at that price. I sold my 18-135 a month later :)
Minolta made a 20-35 which is pretty close to 20-40. I am a Minolta AF user, but I never really considered it because, what do you even do which such an odd zoom range? Personally it just makes more sense to me to have the 20mm f2.8. EDIT: Also pretty sure Tamron made a 20-40 for Minolta AF, probably other mounts too.
Interesting! It looks like Canon made a few versions of the 20-35 and Nikon too! Never realized that. I think the big difference there is those (and the Minolta too) looks like they covered FF format. In that case 20mm is pretty wide, so I could see that being pretty helpful range. Especially with the constant 2.8 that Nikon and Canon offered. Maybe not as much as 15-30's that seem more popular now. But I agree.
I know people often refer to the A 35-105 as a stack of primes. That one has been on my list for a while. I guess there's also the 24-50 that's a little closer in range. Also made an AF version too.
@@snappiness Yeah, I almost bought one of the A-series 35-105's once for like next to nothing, but it was in the 'this is going to cost me like $125+ to restore' category.
I've bought 2 of the 35-105 .Both were in excellent condition optically and functionally as well, weird for such old lenses. Maybe the fact that it was a pro-lens means that many of their owners took good care of them. The only issue the first one had is that it cant quite reach infinity focus. (This is actually an issue I have in no less than 3 old lenses I own). So I got a 2nd one. Later I found a video showcasing how this could be fixed on vintage pentax lenses. Haven't tried it yet but I'm about to eventually. So......what's this lens like? Well....I love it! Like you mentioned here....something with the rendering combined with sharpness .
Oh, and as far as the "weird apsc 20-40 range" is concerned..... Pentax on film days actually always had lenses that were "not that wide" to "very short tele". The 35-70 lenses (M-A-F series for FF cameras) were exactly that! In apsc terms today they would be 23-46mm lenses. Btw the M-35-70 2.8-3.5 (even its aperture sounds similar to the 20-40 limited) is also an amazing lens (unfortunately, infinity focus issues with mine as well)
Greatly influenced by your comments, I ordered a 20-40 tonight. Which should work fine with my K-70. Am hoping that the K-70 will become a treasured $100 used camera 10 years from now, like the K10 and others you've mentioned... the 6 megapixel club. You know, in 10 more years, our base cameras could be 100 MP! And I guess we will have editing computers that can keep up, if the grid doesn’t crash from Teslas and Bitcoin miners. Images - quality commercial printing will stay constant at 300 ppi, which allows an 8 MP photo to cover an 8.5x11 page, at 2400x3300 image size. This is larger than an image to fill the new iPad screen, at 2160x1620... with their Retina display at 326 ppi... but it's marketing noise, as we can't perceive screen pixels over about 250 ppi. Takeaway... any image larger than 8 MP - the only benefit from larger size is cropping. And it's a whole other day's discussion as to what is the best practical image size for that... I'd probably go with 16 MP, like on the GR II. Anyway, thanks for your excellent videos!
Yeah, the F 24-50 f/4 is on my wish list for sure. Seems especially prone to fungus, though, at least the eBay listings I see. The 20-40 Limited, though, I've always viewed with some suspicion. Every other DA Limited and HD Limited takes a 49mm filter. So tiny! So consistent! Does this zoom Limited really think it deserves special treatment and a 58mm filter size? #OKZoomer
I had considered it when I buying it when I was initially getting my KP this past Nov. But I opted for the 15 & 35 macro limited since they both cost the same for this single lens alone. But I found myself wondering what I would use it being such a small focal range.
That seems like the route I would opt for too. I really like the 15mm, and I hear awesome stuff about the 35 macro. 20mm on APSC is just not quite wide enough for my wide end tastes.
I definitely use my 35 Limited macro less since getting the 20-40, but I wouldn't call the 20-40 a replacement for the macro. It's slower and less sharp. The main benefit for me is not having to change lenses when walking around. I won't be going up my 15 or 35 anytime soon :)
No, I ended up selling it recently because I wasn't using it much. My consensus is that it really is a nice lens, just wasn't one I'd reach for much. I did make some nice images with it though. Well, I mean I liked them, lol.
That lens doesn't make sense to me, being a DA lens. If it were an FA lens I think it would be a great and useful wide-angle zoom. Prices in my country (Norway) are too high at the moment. That one is listed at over the equiv. of 1200 USD, whilst I can get one for around 4-500 USD on ebay. The 31mm is even higher at around USD 1500 here. Do they think they are Leica or something? I stopped buying Pentax 5 years ago, except for a used K200D with the little, but very good (I woud say underrated) kit-lens 18-55 II , (because I like the CCD sensor cameras). Oh - and I love the shots you got there. Beautiful colours (even to me with Daltonism).
I didn't have any strange AF issues. Worked consistently and at all focal lengths. I was just doing simple stuff though. With the exception of some shots with my kids running around. But no hunting or totally missed focus when it confirmed or anything.
@@tjompen1968 I think that was it's list price, but b&h and adorama have it for $500 new now since it's been so long. I'm not sure if you're ordering in the US or not. The new 16-50 2.8 PLM that is slated for release in a month or two looks very good, but quite a bit larger and I'm sure quite expensive.
I hate your sound mixing. You sound super sibilant with this asmr type compression applied, and I can't focus on anything but the hissing in your voice
Added this lens to my arsenal because of the weather sealing, but love it for the rendering you mention. I have it paired with my K3 as my go to when walking the streets of St. Augustine Florida. It’s a wonderful setup.
Great! I have visited St. Augustine many times when living in Jacksonville for a number of years. Really fond of that place.
Love this lens, and glad to hear your first impression of it. As someone who does (did? will do again soon?) a lot of travel/street photography, this lens is great. It’s small enough to be relatively unobtrusive. I pack the Pentax DA 55-300PLM and an ultra wide zoom and I’ve got all I need. For walking around for me, the 20-40 is pretty much perfect, and I think that’s in part because it does function a bit as a stack of primes for me. Leaving in a little bit for my first airplane trip since March 2020, and this will be my go to lens. Have upgraded my Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 to a DA*11-18 f/2.8 this month, but don’t see much that could displace the 20-40 Limited as my standard walk around lens.
Makes sense you wouldn't replace it with the 11-18 now. That's a nice sensible setup. 11-18, 20-40, 55-300. Sometimes I wish I had some sense... 😄
@@snappiness I’ve started accumulating Takumars now, so I’m pretty sure no one can accuse me of sense!
Had to sell this moving to the K1... but it was my favorite lens for rendering in the way you described. Really a fantastic picture that came from it!
I have this lens and it is my most used lens, both on my older KP and now the K-3 M3. For just a noemal carry around I can carry two lens, the 20-40 and the 50-135, as both are weather sealed.
The 20-40 practically is not a zoom but a crop lens! It helps you micro adjust the final real estate of the scene by adding or eliminating what you want or don’t. The far ends are mere starting points and at 30 you get that special focal length of FA 43 in FF that is more nifty to the human sight.
Nice first impressions review. I'm in the same boat as you where, not understanding the draw to this lens by almost every Pentaxian! Nice to have some clarification in images & video on why this lens is so popular. Looking forward to the KP video or videos!
Thanks. The KP is treating me well :)
I'm using a Sigma 20-40 2.8 lens for Canon EF. I find it a very good lens for landscape (on full frame). It is indeed like having several primes.
I don't have a 20-40 but it really appeals to me. Like the look and build of it and quite impressed with the rendering I have seen in photos. If I wasn't mostly living in K-1 land, I would have bought one. Bring on the DFA 21 (and then the waiting period for deals or second hand copies - ha!)!
Eagerly awaiting that one myself :)
A while ago, I took my K-5 and all the DA Limited primes on a little trip, and I found myself using the 21/3.2 and 40/2.8 a lot. (And the 40/2.8 was a particular favourite of mine for ages.) That was mostly street photography in a big-city urban environment. When I was done, I understood what (in my opinion) the 20-40 was for... but that variable aperture with the loss of an entire stop at the 40mm end would have been a deal-breaker for me. In bright light it might not matter. It depends on what you're shooting.
I have the k-5 as well and have looked at a 40mm. Since the k5 is an apsc camera - how and when do you use the 40mm?
@@Littletass 40mm is roughly the equivalent of 58mm on a full-frame camera; it's what standard lenses used to be when film SLR cameras were really getting into their stride. It's a bit tighter than your regular 50mm "normal" on a full-frame, but not by very much. I used to use mine for just about everything that didn't need telephoto; you might need to find yourself taking just a tiny step back compared with a modern standard prime (whose field of view is replicated approximately by 35mm APSC). The main advantage of the Pentax 40mm primes is their amazingly small size. If you have one of the smaller Pentax DSLR bodies, it's not that much bulkier than some compacts - and IIRC it will work on the K-1 and on any Pentax film camera that's modern enough to work the aperture.
Wonderful autumnal colours. That lens has soul!
Even if use my GR3 more often. But the 20-40 Ltd, one of my favourite Street Lenses for my K3.
I like my 20-40 Ltd; covers 80% of my snaps, and pairs nicely with the 70mm Ltd in a small travel kit.
I love this lens, it stays on my KP, which by the way is an awesome camera (small and solid). I love the colors I get out of this lens and the auto focus is one of the best Pentax’s lens I own.
The colors/contrast of this lens look really good. All part of that nice character it gives, instead of being flat but clinical.
Thanks for the vid! I pair this 20-40mm with my 15mm and 70mm Limiteds on mtn biking adventures as my "bike kit" that, along with my KP and sling bag are a portable and lightweight way of covering the range with real quality. The rendering on the 20-40mm is what I like best, those colors look closer to older manual SMC K or M lenses which are awesome. It took a while for this lens to grow on me but it has and it's a keeper that is on the KP a lot (especially on those drizzly days when I am shooting).
I had this lens with a K-S2, which I thought was a great combo. I sold them when I got out of Pentax, now wishing I hadn't. I loved the lens. I don't really get the stack-of-primes concept, but to me it was more like a "normal with leeway" lens. I always like to have a good normal lens, which on APS-C is about 30mm. This is it, except that I can also go a bit wider or a bit longer. I liked the shooting experience that gave me.
This was also notable to me because it was the first Pentax lens I ever had with quiet internal focusing, rather than noisy screw-drive.
I like the idea of normal with leeway. Also a good way to think of it :)
Same here. Acquired this lens recently.
It's wide enough to be of use downtown and it goes a bit over normal length on APSC. For other focal lengths I own a bulk of vintage lenses that I love. The only thing I missed, was going a bit wider than my 28mm Takumar - and now I have that
The sharpness was not a issue for You ?
@@tarikyahouni8929 No, I didn't see any problem with that.
I just brought one and looking forward to receiving it. I want to attach it to my KP camera, which is going to be difficult as I haven't purchased one yet. What can I say, I'm a Pentax junkie
I've never been attracted by the focal range of this lens, which is equivalent to 30 mm - 60mm on APS-C. This probably explains why I hardly ever use my 31mm Limited on the K-1. I much prefer the 16-50mm focal range on APS-C cameras. That said, you took some really lovely photos with the 20-40. Sigma did indeed make a 20-40 mm f2.8 lens, but it's a full frame lens, and that interested me more: 20mm is my favourite wide angle focal length. I bought it in Pentax mount many years ago, and I still have it. It's OK but not super sharp, as one might expect.
I agree that the 16-50 seems more appealing. The new announced 16-50 2.8 PLM should be very good, though it's unclear when it will be released. I think it is quite a bit larger and heavier though, so I suppose that argument could always work. But I think as a package it provides a much better value. I'd rather have the weight and size.
@@snappiness I find my 16-50 to be too heavy. I take my camera out less because of the weight and bulk. I've recently been using a 40 mm XS which is brilliant. I am going to borrow the Tamron 17-50 I bought used on Amazon for $150 for my son. It's 5 OZ lighter than the 16-50 and images are as good or better.
Tamron also has 2 20-40 zooms, 20-40 F2.7-3.5 for DSLR and 20-40 F2.8 for mirrorless.
I have sold mine. The reason was the short focal range and the sharpness. I was very disapointed specially by the loss of sharpness of my copy. Perhaps i was unluky with my copy. The build quality is fantastic, the only good thing for me. I used it with my KP and they make a good pair but for all arround lens i have my 18-135 wr from my k3. Regards.
Cool lens. Reminds me of my Tokina ATX 24-40mm F 2.8 A strange range but a great walk around lens.
I always come back to this lens. It is not an ultra sharp lens, but some 60/90cm prints made with it are perfectly fine. Colors and contrasts are great and the focals it covers are perfect for me most of the time. I love this lens so much that I wonder if I should buy a spare one...
In my (very) short time shooting it, I would definitely feel comfortable printing large. It's only at certain focal lengths that it seems less sharp than others, but probably not enough of an issue to make a practical difference. At some focal lengths I thought it was quite sharp in the center.
I bought mine open box at pretty good price, but I would say that I didn’t enjoy it in the beginning.
But as time passes it has grown on me, and now it is always in my KP.
It grew on me too. Once I stopped complaining mentally about it and just shot it. :)
I was thinking about a 21mm Limited, but I found a 20-40 on my local FB marketplace for $340 CAD. Decided that it was worth a try at that price. I sold my 18-135 a month later :)
That's a fantastic price. Great!
Minolta made a 20-35 which is pretty close to 20-40. I am a Minolta AF user, but I never really considered it because, what do you even do which such an odd zoom range? Personally it just makes more sense to me to have the 20mm f2.8. EDIT: Also pretty sure Tamron made a 20-40 for Minolta AF, probably other mounts too.
Interesting! It looks like Canon made a few versions of the 20-35 and Nikon too! Never realized that. I think the big difference there is those (and the Minolta too) looks like they covered FF format. In that case 20mm is pretty wide, so I could see that being pretty helpful range. Especially with the constant 2.8 that Nikon and Canon offered. Maybe not as much as 15-30's that seem more popular now. But I agree.
They say the Pentax 35-105 is called a stack of primes when I bought it in 1985 this looks like a great lens .
Thanks
I've heard that in reference to that lens :) on my list to try eventually.
It’s in the mail!😁
There is an original version of a "stack o' primes" in the A-series zooms if I am not mistaken.
I know people often refer to the A 35-105 as a stack of primes. That one has been on my list for a while. I guess there's also the 24-50 that's a little closer in range. Also made an AF version too.
@@snappiness Yeah, I almost bought one of the A-series 35-105's once for like next to nothing, but it was in the 'this is going to cost me like $125+ to restore' category.
Right. I used to hop on those more often and I *think* several stalled projects and much money lost later I've learned my lesson :)
I've bought 2 of the 35-105 .Both were in excellent condition optically and functionally as well, weird for such old lenses. Maybe the fact that it was a pro-lens means that many of their owners took good care of them.
The only issue the first one had is that it cant quite reach infinity focus. (This is actually an issue I have in no less than 3 old lenses I own).
So I got a 2nd one. Later I found a video showcasing how this could be fixed on vintage pentax lenses. Haven't tried it yet but I'm about to eventually.
So......what's this lens like? Well....I love it! Like you mentioned here....something with the rendering combined with sharpness .
Oh, and as far as the "weird apsc 20-40 range" is concerned.....
Pentax on film days actually always had lenses that were "not that wide" to "very short tele". The 35-70 lenses (M-A-F series for FF cameras) were exactly that! In apsc terms today they would be 23-46mm lenses.
Btw the M-35-70 2.8-3.5 (even its aperture sounds similar to the 20-40 limited) is also an amazing lens (unfortunately, infinity focus issues with mine as well)
Greatly influenced by your comments, I ordered a 20-40 tonight. Which should work fine with my K-70. Am hoping that the K-70 will become a treasured $100 used camera 10 years from now, like the K10 and others you've mentioned... the 6 megapixel club. You know, in 10 more years, our base cameras could be 100 MP! And I guess we will have editing computers that can keep up, if the grid doesn’t crash from Teslas and Bitcoin miners. Images - quality commercial printing will stay constant at 300 ppi, which allows an 8 MP photo to cover an 8.5x11 page, at 2400x3300 image size. This is larger than an image to fill the new iPad screen, at 2160x1620... with their Retina display at 326 ppi... but it's marketing noise, as we can't perceive screen pixels over about 250 ppi. Takeaway... any image larger than 8 MP - the only benefit from larger size is cropping. And it's a whole other day's discussion as to what is the best practical image size for that... I'd probably go with 16 MP, like on the GR II. Anyway, thanks for your excellent videos!
Yeah, the F 24-50 f/4 is on my wish list for sure. Seems especially prone to fungus, though, at least the eBay listings I see.
The 20-40 Limited, though, I've always viewed with some suspicion. Every other DA Limited and HD Limited takes a 49mm filter. So tiny! So consistent! Does this zoom Limited really think it deserves special treatment and a 58mm filter size? #OKZoomer
Hahaha! And of you take the provided hood off, it's 55mm. A very strange filter size indeed.
So I was gifted a manual 27 or 28mm Pentax lens, which made me buy a k10d, which made me buy this. Thanks. 😂
I am grabbing a K-70. Stuff knows what lenses I will get
Just bought that today.
The SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 is referred to as, "a box of primes"
Just in time for the premiere!
Thanks for stopping by! :)
I love this lens, I get the most pics that make me go wow! with it.
I had considered it when I buying it when I was initially getting my KP this past Nov. But I opted for the 15 & 35 macro limited since they both cost the same for this single lens alone. But I found myself wondering what I would use it being such a small focal range.
That seems like the route I would opt for too. I really like the 15mm, and I hear awesome stuff about the 35 macro. 20mm on APSC is just not quite wide enough for my wide end tastes.
I definitely use my 35 Limited macro less since getting the 20-40, but I wouldn't call the 20-40 a replacement for the macro. It's slower and less sharp. The main benefit for me is not having to change lenses when walking around. I won't be going up my 15 or 35 anytime soon :)
Awesome review...where is this stream located
In terms of rendering,how it compares to the 31 limited?
Thanks for the first impressions video. Did you do a follow up video after you’d been able to put it through its paces?
No, I ended up selling it recently because I wasn't using it much. My consensus is that it really is a nice lens, just wasn't one I'd reach for much. I did make some nice images with it though. Well, I mean I liked them, lol.
That lens doesn't make sense to me, being a DA lens. If it were an FA lens I think it would be a great and useful wide-angle zoom. Prices in my country (Norway) are too high at the moment. That one is listed at over the equiv. of 1200 USD, whilst I can get one for around 4-500 USD on ebay. The 31mm is even higher at around USD 1500 here. Do they think they are Leica or something? I stopped buying Pentax 5 years ago, except for a used K200D with the little, but very good (I woud say underrated) kit-lens 18-55 II , (because I like the CCD sensor cameras).
Oh - and I love the shots you got there. Beautiful colours (even to me with Daltonism).
Great review, thank you. I’m going to give it a miss.
Do the Limited lenses cover Full Frame?
I bought a used 20-40 and found the AF to be unpredictable with my K-3 III so I sent it back. Is this your experience or did I get a bad copy
?
I didn't have any strange AF issues. Worked consistently and at all focal lengths. I was just doing simple stuff though. With the exception of some shots with my kids running around. But no hunting or totally missed focus when it confirmed or anything.
@@snappiness Ok, maybe I should try it again, this time new. The downside is that it costs approx: 1000 USD...
@@tjompen1968 I think that was it's list price, but b&h and adorama have it for $500 new now since it's been so long. I'm not sure if you're ordering in the US or not. The new 16-50 2.8 PLM that is slated for release in a month or two looks very good, but quite a bit larger and I'm sure quite expensive.
I hate your sound mixing. You sound super sibilant with this asmr type compression applied, and I can't focus on anything but the hissing in your voice