Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-21-2010, 12:59 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 839
Original Poster
No, I've only tried it briefly...

QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
So, if you are not talking about measurebating (on which the DA17-70 does quite well), then what is the basis for saying that the IQ of the 17-70 is not worthy of being a comparison for zooms in the range we are talking about? Have you actually used it?

I've taken a few thousand shots with it, and found it up to the task. I'll probably have an 18-135 as well, someday, as it appears to be a nice lens, but I see that lens as serving a different purpose. It seems like we've both participated in other threads where the consensus was that one should not expect IQ from a 7x zoom that you find in a 2x or 4x.
but there must be some reason that it's a DA rather than a DA* series lens. And having been used to the stunning optics of the FA* 28-70 f=2.8 and the 85 f1.4, I was wondering if I'd be satisfied with the performance of the 17-70 at f=4 over the 16-50 f 2.8. I know I'll like the weight advantage.

Similarly, is there a really big difference between the 50-135 and the 60-250? They're BOTH designated * lenses, so aside from the one stop of speed, is there a lot of difference in real world performance between these two?

Thanks,
Cameron

12-21-2010, 02:35 PM   #32
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
but there must be some reason that it's a DA rather than a DA* series lens. And having been used to the stunning optics of the FA* 28-70 f=2.8 and the 85 f1.4, I was wondering if I'd be satisfied with the performance of the 17-70 at f=4 over the 16-50 f 2.8. I know I'll like the weight advantage.

Similarly, is there a really big difference between the 50-135 and the 60-250? They're BOTH designated * lenses, so aside from the one stop of speed, is there a lot of difference in real world performance between these two?

Thanks,
Cameron
The DA* is weatherproof and one stop faster. That is definitely worth something.

My comments pertained to the 17-70 as compared to the 18-135, based upon my experience with the 17-70 and threads already posted with examples and comparisons from the 18-135. I've never owned the DA* 16-50 and would not venture to comment on whether someone else would be satisfied with the 17-70 after owning the DA*.

There are more zooms, and more zooms of quality, in the approximate range of the DA*16-50 than other DA* lenses. I don't think Pentax makes another zoom with anything like the performance of the other DA* zooms. For example, in published tests, the DA*60-250 is much more clearly superior to the well-regarded 55-300 or the less regarded 50-200 than the 16-50 is to the 17-70 or 16-45. In photos posted here, the 18-135 was clearly not up to the performance of the DA*50-135 at ranges they share.
12-22-2010, 04:54 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
I was wondering if I'd be satisfied with the performance of the 17-70 at f=4 over the 16-50 f 2.8.
You'd be satisfied, it's IQ is as good as the 16-50's in the comparable focal lengths and apertures. I was using DA 17-70 for 20 months, now I have DA* 16-50 and its IQ isn't noticeably better (in fact it's worse at the wide end, performance at f/2.8 also not very good).

Get the DA* 16-50 only if you need full weather resistance and f/2.8, otherwise DA 17-70 is a good choice for much lower price (here the price is half of the 16-50's, not sure how it is over there.)
12-22-2010, 09:02 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
I'd say get the f2.8 double. You can always add a da*200 or 300 later
QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote
Or, if you don't need the longer end, split the difference! I've been quite happy with the Tamron 17-50 and DA*50-135.
I agree with both these guys...

12-22-2010, 09:08 AM   #35
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Ubuntu_user Quote
I agree with both these guys...
Optically the 50-135 is a nice lens, but it is a liability with a short warranty. The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is almost $200 cheaper here in Canada with a much longer warranty.
12-22-2010, 10:00 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 839
Original Poster
WR...

I didn't realize the 17-70 wasn't weather sealed. That lets it out of the running then.

And the 55-300 that I tried was TERRIBLE - VERY VERY noisy screw drive focus, worst I've ever heard, plastic lens mount, and when I added the photos in iPhoto, the lens wasn't recognized (all the others I tried were).

So it's a battle now between the 50-135 and the 60-250 in terms of IQ. Any more thoughts?

Thanks,
Cameron
12-22-2010, 10:07 AM   #37
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
I didn't realize the 17-70 wasn't weather sealed. That lets it out of the running then.

And the 55-300 that I tried was TERRIBLE - VERY VERY noisy screw drive focus, worst I've ever heard, plastic lens mount, and when I added the photos in iPhoto, the lens wasn't recognized (all the others I tried were).

So it's a battle now between the 50-135 and the 60-250 in terms of IQ. Any more thoughts?

Thanks,
Cameron
The original 55-300 comes in a metal mount; you must have tried the DA L version that comes with the K-x/K-r. Regardless, the AF is a bit noisy so if it bothered you the fact that it comes in a metal mount is moot anyway.

Optically, the 50-135 and 60-250 are both excellent, I don't think either one would let you down optically. The 50-135 is nice because it's smaller, doesn't expand (IF) and is a stop faster. The 60-250, OTOH, has an excellent range and is very sharp from wide open on up. In terms of focus speed, the AF of the 60-250 is a bit faster than the 50-135. Neither are blazing fast though, so if super fast AF is critical then you might need to try one out and determine if it's fast enough for you.
12-22-2010, 04:18 PM   #38
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,065
The 16-50 weatherproofing is a big deal in my book. Little moisture does not send it home crying. (And yes, the 540 still works.)


Last edited by Ex Finn.; 11-11-2014 at 05:49 PM.
12-22-2010, 05:49 PM   #39
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
Weather sealing is normally not a big deal to me. I don't have a single WR lens out of a couple of dozen that I own. I very seldom shoot in conditions where that is an issue. Even when I've shot in the rain, all the non-WR equipment came through it just fine. However, if I do buy a WR lens, it is likely to be the 18-135. I, personally, would sacrifice the ultimate degree of IQ for a WR lens that I am unlikely to need to change in inclement conditions.
12-22-2010, 06:41 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,065
It is a compromise between IQ and weather proofing IMO. There is no point in pixel peeping something shot in a blizzard. What matters in that situation is that the lens/rest of the gear survives, to be used the next time. So far Pentax has done well in that department.

My choice would be the 16-50 and 60-250 combination.

Last edited by Ex Finn.; 12-22-2010 at 06:49 PM.
12-22-2010, 06:56 PM   #41
Veteran Member
kcmadr's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 614
QuoteOriginally posted by Ex Finn. Quote
...

My choice would be the 16-50 and 60-250 combination.

YES!!!

I would love to have this combination. If only it weren't for the 16-50's history and the fact that the 16-45 does a pretty darned good job. The 16-50 is also a monster compared to the 16-45. I know, the 16-45 doesn't have weather sealing, but my ideal setup will probably end up being 16-50 + 60-250.

JMTC
12-22-2010, 07:43 PM   #42
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,065
The 60-250 is no light weight either. Images from it are very good for a zoom.

Last edited by Ex Finn.; 12-22-2010 at 07:54 PM.
12-22-2010, 08:17 PM   #43
Site Supporter
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 839
Original Poster
Tried the 60-250

QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
The original 55-300 comes in a metal mount; you must have tried the DA L version that comes with the K-x/K-r. Regardless, the AF is a bit noisy so if it bothered you the fact that it comes in a metal mount is moot anyway.

Optically, the 50-135 and 60-250 are both excellent, I don't think either one would let you down optically. The 50-135 is nice because it's smaller, doesn't expand (IF) and is a stop faster. The 60-250, OTOH, has an excellent range and is very sharp from wide open on up. In terms of focus speed, the AF of the 60-250 is a bit faster than the 50-135. Neither are blazing fast though, so if super fast AF is critical then you might need to try one out and determine if it's fast enough for you.
very nice lens, quiet, extremely CHEAP lenshood for a lens that costs almost $2,000.00, and I didn't realize it was an external zoom, which I actually hate. So it looks like 16-50 and the 50-135, later on the 200 or 300.

Thanks, everyone. And a merry Christmas or whatever you celebrate this time of year.

Cheers,
Cameron
12-22-2010, 08:22 PM   #44
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,065
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
and I didn't realize it was an external zoom, which I actually hate
There is that little caveat, not fan of it but can live with it

And merry Christmas.
12-22-2010, 08:34 PM   #45
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
very nice lens, quiet, extremely CHEAP lenshood for a lens that costs almost $2,000.00, and I didn't realize it was an external zoom, which I actually hate. So it looks like 16-50 and the 50-135, later on the 200 or 300.
Keep in mind the 60-250 and 50-135 share the exact same hood.

Didn't know the 60-250 was $2k up in Canada. If you change your mind and end up considering the 60-250, you may want to consider importing one from the US where it's about 1200. Even with potential taxes/shipping it might be worth considering.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da*, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 18-250/ 18-135 compare shots Fl_Gulfer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-10-2010 08:49 PM
DA* 50-135 or 60-250? photoholic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 07-28-2010 01:53 PM
da*50-135 vs da*60-250. Need help choosing bfo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 44 03-06-2010 04:53 PM
Has anyone compared DA*50-135 vs DA*60-250? HermanLee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-26-2009 11:50 PM
TAKUMAR 135 vs PENTAX 18-250 charliezap Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 04-04-2009 07:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top