[Kunzite]

@Kunzite

Roger Cicala from lensrentals did test the Sony 20mm f1.8 on their optical bench, which tests lenses *without* a camera: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2021/02/sony-fe-20mm-f1-8-g-optical-tests/
This means there is no software correction at play in their findings.

He's not mentioning vignetting, though. Almost 3 stops, and not going lower than 1.8 no matter what:
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1100-sony20f18?start=1

---

Based on Roger's analysis and findings, I wouldn't exactly call this lens "pedestrian"...

I would.

---

You project onto others a lot, it seems...

Where do you get that "another league" from? Just from the Pentax PR blurb?

No, the Sony does not rely on software corrections, just like any/all wide angle lens, just like this Pentax will show, even at f5.6. Perhaps the Sony will show a bit more just because the optics are closer to the sensor, but that has nothing to do with the lens  and its quality (just with the sensor and the angle the light hits the mirco lenses).

Why is a lens with more elements "much easier to make"? Because it is a stop faster?
And where is the mirror in that Pentax lens, by the way?

Why is it about you paying money, according to you? 

Questions, questions, questions....

Drop the pretense, your activity speaks for itself. You are here, bashing.

You're thoroughly incoherent. How did I dare, to attack Sony's supremacy! (weren't you a Canon user?)
- no, other brands don't automatically beat Pentax' rendering. A Pentax lens specifically designed with this in mind can actually be superior in this area.
- yes, the Sony does rely on software corrections; as proven by this site's review. To say otherwise is lying.
- obvious strawman, or unable to comprehend? I clearly said, mirrorless lens relying on software corrections.
- utter lack of knowledge, or trolling? Obviously, the mirrors are in the camera, and that means the lens must have a longer register distance - which means a more complex, retrofocus design if you're making a wide angle.

[Rover]

Uh, what does make a lens "pedestrian"? I was under the impression that - say - the Sony 20/1.8 was an extraordinary lens judging by Klaus's review (very high sharpness, well controlled CA and barely any pincushion distortion, etc., and about the only pitfall it has is vignetting if auto-correction were to be turned off)? From that review, it seemed to have nice boken/rendering, too, even in a difficult scene with grass, foliage and twigs, which form a very hard situation for most any lens?

[Kunzite]

Uh, what does make a lens "pedestrian"?

That was rhetoric, but if we go with the definition, it has to be "lacking in excitement, dull".
I would be quite happy with the Sony, from the samples I've seen. Even its automatically corrected vignetting should not be such an issue on the modern sensors.
However, I'm not inspired by its rendering... it's not bad for an ultra-wide, but a bit... dull.

The D FA... I need more information, more images; but what they're saying (and showing) about it being specifically optimized for a certain wide open close-up behavior is intriguing.
But people here are completely uninterested, they'd rather compare price lists and basic specs

[Rover]

Uh, what else can we compare if the rest is something completely subjective, or even defying definition? I for one couldn't care less about many of those things like these minuscule differences in rendering, so long as a lens provides me with sharp results and behaves well with regard to AF, unless it would exhibit something that really sticks out in a negative way (for instance, my Sigma 14mm is atrociously prone to flare, which makes it hard to use in many situations, but I'm willing to look past that for the uniquely wide view it provides, and don't have the money / the inclination to sell it for peanuts and buy something else instead).

Oh and back to that Pentax... WTF is the deal with the built-in hood???

[Kunzite]

Comparing is fine, as long as it's done smartly and fairly.
I said several posts ago, preferring a lens which is measurably good - although it has nothing special - is perfectly fine. Nobody here but me is a potential buyer for the Pentax anyway.

There is, however, value in Pentax' approach towards the Limiteds, something I'm not sure any of the mainstream brands can be bothered to do. It can be harder to sell, and harder to justify a $500 premium to a mass market brainwashed by reviews and which forgot photography.
Would I like the results, or not quite? Too early to tell, although things look encouraging. A better question is, would I be able to take advantage of its qualities?

But the reason people here aren't liking the D FA Limited has nothing to do with its qualities, and everything to do with the brand.

The FA 31 Limited has a similar hood. I actually prefer the extensible hood like on the FA 77/DA70mm, but I guess that doesn't work on an ultra wide.

[Brightcolours]

@Kunzite

Roger Cicala from lensrentals did test the Sony 20mm f1.8 on their optical bench, which tests lenses *without* a camera: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2021/02/sony-fe-20mm-f1-8-g-optical-tests/
This means there is no software correction at play in their findings.

He's not mentioning vignetting, though. Almost 3 stops, and not going lower than 1.8 no matter what:
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1100-sony20f18?start=1

---

Based on Roger's analysis and findings, I wouldn't exactly call this lens "pedestrian"...

I would.

---

You project onto others a lot, it seems...

Where do you get that "another league" from? Just from the Pentax PR blurb?

No, the Sony does not rely on software corrections, just like any/all wide angle lens, just like this Pentax will show, even at f5.6. Perhaps the Sony will show a bit more just because the optics are closer to the sensor, but that has nothing to do with the lens  and its quality (just with the sensor and the angle the light hits the mirco lenses).

Why is a lens with more elements "much easier to make"? Because it is a stop faster?
And where is the mirror in that Pentax lens, by the way?

Why is it about you paying money, according to you? 

Questions, questions, questions....

Drop the pretense, your activity speaks for itself. You are here, bashing.

You're thoroughly incoherent. How did I dare, to attack Sony's supremacy! (weren't you a Canon user?)
- no, other brands don't automatically beat Pentax' rendering. A Pentax lens specifically designed with this in mind can actually be superior in this area.
- yes, the Sony does rely on software corrections; as proven by this site's review. To say otherwise is lying.
- obvious strawman, or unable to comprehend? I clearly said, mirrorless lens relying on software corrections.
- utter lack of knowledge, or trolling? Obviously, the mirrors are in the camera, and that means the lens must have a longer register distance - which means a more complex, retrofocus design if you're making a wide angle.

I am making fun of you, and not bashing. Poking fun is not bashing.

Your attack on this Sony (and Nikkor) only illustrates your total lack of objectivity. I acknowledge the awesomeness of the Sony 20mm f1.8, even if I do not want a Sony camera. 

This particular Sony renders really well for 20mm. Yet you bash it, and claim the Pentax is "special" even though not even a single sample image has been published.

The Sony lens will be retro focus too, at 20mm with all these elements. Talking about utter lack of knowledge... Projecting again?

[Kunzite]

I am making fun of you, and not bashing. Poking fun is not bashing.

Your attack on this Sony (and Nikkor) only illustrates your total lack of objectivity. I acknowledge the awesomeness of the Sony 20mm f1.8, even if I do not want a Sony camera. 

This particular Sony renders really well for 20mm. Yet you bash it, and claim the Pentax is "special" even though not even a single sample image has been published.

The Sony lens will be retro focus too, at 20mm with all these elements. Talking about utter lack of knowledge... Projecting again?

"Making fun" in this manner is how a troll (or an idiot, but you're the former) would lower the discussion to the desired level (or the only level he can work on).

Attack Sony? You're here, on the Pentax section, bashing Pentax - and you're saying that I attack Sony?
Why, because I don't sing praises for Sony? That I don't say it's oh so much better than Pentax by default? That I dare to prefer Pentax to Sony?

I'm not impressed by the Sony's OOF rendering. It's indeed not bad for a 20mm, but it doesn't look that good - very few ultrawides do IMHO.
Then we have a lens made to perform better, particularly wide open and at close distances.

"Not a single sample image has been published" - you're saying this without bothering to check the product page... of any lens?
Of course they published sample images; they always do. Then there's knowing they intentionally altered the optical parameters - going as far as making a special, adjustable test barrel - just to evaluate the bokeh rendering.
I stand by my words: this lens seems to be in another league.

The Sony E mount has a register distance of 18mm. The Pentax K, of 45.46mm. That's more than double.
Don't enter into technical arguments; stay with "making fun" - that is your level of competence.

[Rover]

"mass market brainwashed by reviews and which forgot photography." <-- wow, that's really out there.

That made me think however, how many lenses have I bought based on reviews (mostly at Photozone, by the way). That's not to imply you were directing that at me; even if you had, that's beside the point. But in my list, it'd probably be down to just Canon 16-35/4 (I sold the 16-35/2.8 II that I had for it) and the Tamron 85/1.8, both of which have been found extraordinary performers.

I did consult the PZ reviews before getting the Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 10-17 fisheye, but the reviews were not the primary factors in my purchasing decisions.

[Brightcolours]

Lol, Kuznite. Wondering why Pentax misuses the word "Limited" is not "bashing Pentax". Wondering why a slow prime from a mainstream manufacturer should cost 1500 USD is also not bashing Pentax.
Making a typo when writing Tok... Pentax is making poking fun at you, and disputing your nonsensical remarks about this particular Sony lens and this particular Nikkor lens is just... correcting the nonsense you wrote.

The product page was not up when I wrote that, and now it is we can see it renders nicely, like the Sony does.

[Kunzite]

"mass market brainwashed by reviews and which forgot photography." <-- wow, that's really out there.

It's true though

---

The product page was not up when I wrote that, and now it is we can see it renders nicely, like the Sony does.

The product page was up when you wrote that; you're lying once again. Twice, because IMHO the D FA's rendering is not merely "like the Sony". Not because the Sony is bad, but because the Pentax was intended to soften the bokeh.

The rest of your post is just trolling. There's the typical pattern: first someone says "Sony/Nikon/whatever is oh so much better than Pentax!", I offer counterarguments, and then the shouts begins: "you're attacking Sony/Nikon/whatever!!!111oneoneone". That's ridiculous.

Limited is just a product line name. It means what Pentax decides it means; and the D FA Limited is truer to its name than the DAs.
What some random dude on the Internet thinks it should mean is irrelevant.
Otherwise, Canon L series can only designate Large lenses (but not the eXtra Large ones, and definitely not the Small ones).