Originally posted by Cambo 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.