Pentax 17-70 versus...

rob_k20d · 01-13-2011, 02:01 PM

Hi,

I have got a bit trigger happy on ebay and have ended up buying more lenses than I can justify keeping. So now the question is which to keep and which to sell, and would be curious to hear other people's thoughts.

Essentially, I am looking for the best landscape lens + general photography.

I have spent probably twice as much as I meant to and want to get some of that money back.

The lenses I bought are

1 - Pentax DA 17-70 f4
2 - Pentax DA 16-45 f4
3 - Pentax f 35-70 3.5-4.5
4 - Pentax FA 28-105 f4-5.6

All were second hand, and all seem to be in good condition.

My thought is to either sell the 17-70 and keep the others, or to keep the 17-70 and sell the others.

Any thoughts?

I guess the 17-70 is the best lens and would also means less lens changing. On the other hand, it is also the heaviest lens.

Also, I like the 28-105 range as a walkaround lens. And the 16-45 gives me a slightly wider lens (though not sure how significant that difference is). And I do like the 35-70 for a light weight lens.

(I also have a 50-200, the 50mm 1.4 and Tamron 90mm macro.)

Curious to hear what others think.

**blackcloudbrew** · 01-13-2011, 02:18 PM

I don't know the other lenses very well but I have found the DA 17-70 to be one of my very favorite lenses for outdoor work adn would tend to keep it over the rest of those IMHO.

grainbelt · 01-13-2011, 03:11 PM

You have a 50-200 and a 90mm macro, so you have longer range well sorted.

The 35-70 is the odd man out here.

I could make a case for only the 17-70, other than the fact that it is fairly big.

Keeping both the 16-45 and 28-105 is an interesting option, since 28-105 could be an interesting walkaround, and you'd have the 16-45 for wider work....

I dunno. The size is what keeps me away from the 17-70.

GlennG · 01-13-2011, 04:31 PM

Interesting question. Now that you actually have them, try using them for a few days and see if any combination feels like a natural preference for you. In the OP, you mentioned weight twice - that may be a priority for you. As for my lens, I've only used 18-55 II and the DA 17-70. Though initially the 17-70 felt larger, I was used to it soon. And it did not feel to me like it was unbalanced on my K100d Super (which is small).

I continue to be intrigued by other lens combinations that I've not used. (Hopefully this is NOT early-onset LBA!

) I tend to agree with these parts from grainbelt:

Originally posted by grainbelt

The 35-70 is the odd man out here.

Originally posted by grainbelt

Keeping both the 16-45 and 28-105 is an interesting option, since 28-105 could be an interesting walkaround, and you'd have the 16-45 for wider work....

My $0.02 worth.

Glenn

rob_k20d · 01-13-2011, 09:34 PM

Yes, I agree with those comments too.

The 35-70 is the odd one out, but I have to admit I just have a real fondness for it.

But yes, I think it is essentially 16-45+28-105 v 17-70.

rob_k20d · 01-13-2011, 09:52 PM

Oh, and yes, I certainly do plan to take the lenses out and so on, and see how I get on with them, but always nice to hear other people's perspectives.

Thanks for responding.

Any thoughts on the significance of the difference between 16 and 17mm.

At the moment, I think I am leaning towards the 16-45 and 28-105, partly because the 16-45 is that bit wider.

GlennG · 01-13-2011, 11:07 PM

I've not yet experienced 16 mm wide, so I can't comment on that. I've not compared 17 & 18, though. Others have occasionally reported here and elsewhere that the difference between 16 and 17 is a big deal. So I'm led to believe that 16 mm wide is certainly desirable. Sorry that I can't give you more.

sterretje · 01-14-2011, 02:20 AM

Keep 17-70; it's the more universal one of the set on APSc. Difference between 16mm and 17mm is something that you need to judge yourself

They say 1mm makes a world of difference at the wide end, I however hardly have missed a shot with 28mm on film because it was not wide enough.

Weight wise 16-45 + 28-105 is heavier than 17-70

rob_k20d · 01-14-2011, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

Weight wise 16-45 + 28-105 is heavier than 17-70

Yes, but I won't have both on the camera at once!

GeneV · 01-15-2011, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

Keep 17-70; it's the more universal one of the set on APSc. Difference between 16mm and 17mm is something that you need to judge yourself

They say 1mm makes a world of difference at the wide end, I however hardly have missed a shot with 28mm on film because it was not wide enough.

Weight wise 16-45 + 28-105 is heavier than 17-70

I agree. The 17-70 is my default lens on the K20d. It works well wide open, but if you stop it down a bit and treat it like the kit lens, it can be stunning. I'd rather pack a DA15 to supplement the wide end.

pb_red · 01-15-2011, 12:18 PM

i considered an all-purpose lens for a long time, looked at the various options, and finally decided on the 17-70mm.

the other options either didn't have the range i was looking (17-50mm) for or constant aperture (18-200mm, etc) or were out of my price range (16-50mm).

that said, my 17-70mm has been great! it's on the bigger side but only when compared to smaller pentax primes.

my only complaint is that it's not WR. otherwise it's a great lens that offers a good focus range and constant aperture (albeit only f4) at a descent price.

rob_k20d · 01-15-2011, 01:51 PM

Thanks for the comments - I have now made a decision.

The consensus seems to have been in favour of the 17-70. However, I have gone against that advice, and decided to keep the 16-45, 28-105 and 35-70.

I went out with the 17-70 and the 16-45. It wasn't a huge difference, but the 16 was just a little wider, and I did appreciate that. I set up the tripod. Took a shot with the 17, and then took it again with the 16, and the difference was enough to think I might want that extra wide angle occasionally.

Also, I don't like neck straps and use a B-grip instead, and the 16-45 felt just a little bit more comfortable on the B-grip. And I have the 28-105 if I want longer, so...

I'm sure the 17-70 is an excellent lens, but just had a slight preference for keeping the other lenses.

Thanks for the comments.

Rob

creampuff · 01-15-2011, 04:38 PM

I had the DA 16-45mm and use the DA 17-70mm currently but if I had to choose between the two it would definitely be the newer DA 17-70mm. The one area that shows up clearly is build quality of the DA 16-45mm is not as robust compared to the DA 17-70mm. I've seen so many used copies at my local Pentax tech with extremely loose zoom and focus rings.

01-13-2011, 02:01 PM	#1
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152	Pentax 17-70 versus... Hi, I have got a bit trigger happy on ebay and have ended up buying more lenses than I can justify keeping. So now the question is which to keep and which to sell, and would be curious to hear other people's thoughts. Essentially, I am looking for the best landscape lens + general photography. I have spent probably twice as much as I meant to and want to get some of that money back. The lenses I bought are 1 - Pentax DA 17-70 f4 2 - Pentax DA 16-45 f4 3 - Pentax f 35-70 3.5-4.5 4 - Pentax FA 28-105 f4-5.6 All were second hand, and all seem to be in good condition. My thought is to either sell the 17-70 and keep the others, or to keep the 17-70 and sell the others. Any thoughts? I guess the 17-70 is the best lens and would also means less lens changing. On the other hand, it is also the heaviest lens. Also, I like the 28-105 range as a walkaround lens. And the 16-45 gives me a slightly wider lens (though not sure how significant that difference is). And I do like the 35-70 for a light weight lens. (I also have a 50-200, the 50mm 1.4 and Tamron 90mm macro.) Curious to hear what others think.

01-13-2011, 04:31 PM	#4
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Interesting question. Now that you actually have them, try using them for a few days and see if any combination feels like a natural preference for you. In the OP, you mentioned weight twice - that may be a priority for you. As for my lens, I've only used 18-55 II and the DA 17-70. Though initially the 17-70 felt larger, I was used to it soon. And it did not feel to me like it was unbalanced on my K100d Super (which is small). I continue to be intrigued by other lens combinations that I've not used. (Hopefully this is NOT early-onset LBA!) I tend to agree with these parts from grainbelt: Originally posted by grainbelt The 35-70 is the odd man out here. Originally posted by grainbelt Keeping both the 16-45 and 28-105 is an interesting option, since 28-105 could be an interesting walkaround, and you'd have the 16-45 for wider work.... My $0.02 worth. Glenn

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM versus Pentax FA 77	Tommot1965	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	112	12-17-2011 04:51 PM
Pentax K-7 video versus Canon T2i	justtakingpics	Video Recording and Processing	11	07-16-2010 04:01 PM
Pentax FA 20-35 versus DA 16-45	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	10-28-2009 12:34 PM
Tamron 28-80 AF Versus Pentax 28-90 FA	Nowhere Matt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	02-03-2009 09:27 AM
Please help- Sigma versus Pentax flashes	kdkai	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	7	10-07-2008 03:35 PM

01-13-2011, 02:18 PM	#2
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	I don't know the other lenses very well but I have found the DA 17-70 to be one of my very favorite lenses for outdoor work adn would tend to keep it over the rest of those IMHO.

01-13-2011, 03:11 PM	#3
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	You have a 50-200 and a 90mm macro, so you have longer range well sorted. The 35-70 is the odd man out here. I could make a case for only the 17-70, other than the fact that it is fairly big. Keeping both the 16-45 and 28-105 is an interesting option, since 28-105 could be an interesting walkaround, and you'd have the 16-45 for wider work.... I dunno. The size is what keeps me away from the 17-70.

01-13-2011, 09:34 PM	#5
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152 Original Poster	Yes, I agree with those comments too. The 35-70 is the odd one out, but I have to admit I just have a real fondness for it. But yes, I think it is essentially 16-45+28-105 v 17-70.

01-13-2011, 09:52 PM	#6
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152 Original Poster	Oh, and yes, I certainly do plan to take the lenses out and so on, and see how I get on with them, but always nice to hear other people's perspectives. Thanks for responding. Any thoughts on the significance of the difference between 16 and 17mm. At the moment, I think I am leaning towards the 16-45 and 28-105, partly because the 16-45 is that bit wider.

01-13-2011, 11:07 PM	#7
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	I've not yet experienced 16 mm wide, so I can't comment on that. I've not compared 17 & 18, though. Others have occasionally reported here and elsewhere that the difference between 16 and 17 is a big deal. So I'm led to believe that 16 mm wide is certainly desirable. Sorry that I can't give you more.

01-14-2011, 02:20 AM	#8
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Keep 17-70; it's the more universal one of the set on APSc. Difference between 16mm and 17mm is something that you need to judge yourself They say 1mm makes a world of difference at the wide end, I however hardly have missed a shot with 28mm on film because it was not wide enough. Weight wise 16-45 + 28-105 is heavier than 17-70

01-14-2011, 10:50 AM	#9
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152 Original Poster	Originally posted by sterretje Weight wise 16-45 + 28-105 is heavier than 17-70 Yes, but I won't have both on the camera at once!

01-15-2011, 08:38 AM	#10
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by sterretje Keep 17-70; it's the more universal one of the set on APSc. Difference between 16mm and 17mm is something that you need to judge yourself They say 1mm makes a world of difference at the wide end, I however hardly have missed a shot with 28mm on film because it was not wide enough. Weight wise 16-45 + 28-105 is heavier than 17-70 I agree. The 17-70 is my default lens on the K20d. It works well wide open, but if you stop it down a bit and treat it like the kit lens, it can be stunning. I'd rather pack a DA15 to supplement the wide end.

01-15-2011, 12:18 PM	#11
pb_red Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 194	i considered an all-purpose lens for a long time, looked at the various options, and finally decided on the 17-70mm. the other options either didn't have the range i was looking (17-50mm) for or constant aperture (18-200mm, etc) or were out of my price range (16-50mm). that said, my 17-70mm has been great! it's on the bigger side but only when compared to smaller pentax primes. my only complaint is that it's not WR. otherwise it's a great lens that offers a good focus range and constant aperture (albeit only f4) at a descent price.

01-15-2011, 01:51 PM	#12
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152 Original Poster	Thanks for the comments - I have now made a decision. The consensus seems to have been in favour of the 17-70. However, I have gone against that advice, and decided to keep the 16-45, 28-105 and 35-70. I went out with the 17-70 and the 16-45. It wasn't a huge difference, but the 16 was just a little wider, and I did appreciate that. I set up the tripod. Took a shot with the 17, and then took it again with the 16, and the difference was enough to think I might want that extra wide angle occasionally. Also, I don't like neck straps and use a B-grip instead, and the 16-45 felt just a little bit more comfortable on the B-grip. And I have the 28-105 if I want longer, so... I'm sure the 17-70 is an excellent lens, but just had a slight preference for keeping the other lenses. Thanks for the comments. Rob

01-15-2011, 04:38 PM	#13
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	I had the DA 16-45mm and use the DA 17-70mm currently but if I had to choose between the two it would definitely be the newer DA 17-70mm. The one area that shows up clearly is build quality of the DA 16-45mm is not as robust compared to the DA 17-70mm. I've seen so many used copies at my local Pentax tech with extremely loose zoom and focus rings.