Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2011, 12:39 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 70
16-45 or 17-70 ?

I'm considering to buy a replacement for my kit lens. which one is better?
my main concern is about sharpness.

thanks in advance

10-21-2011, 02:18 AM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,249
I do not know about the 17-17, but I have the 16-45, and mine is razor sharp. Also it has fabulous close focus abillities.
It aslo depends do you need the extra reach from 45 to 70mm? if yes, then the 17-70 is the go
10-21-2011, 03:40 AM   #3
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 70
Original Poster
for me 16 to 45 is enough. what I'm curious is about the sharpness. thank Macario for your input
10-21-2011, 05:00 AM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,784
I'm kind of the other way. Until I picked up the DA* 50-135, my DA 17-70 was my second best lens (and I own more than a few). What I like about it is that the length covers a very useful range when I'm out an about. It was my first SDM lens and after 3 years it's still going strong. My only complaint about this lens is lens creep. When I'm hiking with it, it tends to extend by itself. It's annoying but that's my only complaint about it.

10-21-2011, 05:43 AM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Leeds
Posts: 152
To a large extent, it is just personal preference (and budget), but this was my experience.

I bought both the 16-45 and the pentax 17-70. (I bought both second hand, and always intended to sell one of them.)

I kept the 16-45, for the following reasons:

The 16-45 is cheaper
The 16-45 is lighter
The 17-70 had a bit of lens creep
I liked the extra width of the 16-45. (I like that it is the widest lens you can get that also has enough of a range to be a decent walk around lens, being okay for people photography as well as landscapes.)

But in short, I'd say, if you want the lens most for landscapes/buildings, with occasional photos of people, get the 16-45. If you want more emphasis on people, or just on versatility, get the 17-70.

Also, is this going to be your only lens, or do you have others. I have a 90mm 2.8 and a 28-105 and a 50-200 if I want longer range. If I didn't have any other lenses, and had to choose between the 16-45 or the 17-70, I would have got the 17-70. (Incidentally, the Sigma 17-70 - the new one in particular - gets very good reviews too.)

Also, do you want a faster lens? If so, the sigma 18-50 2.8, and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 are supposed to be good - but I haven't used either, and I have heard the Tamron isn't as durable as it could be.)

So in short, what are you priorities:
Do you want a light lens?
Is 4 fast enough, or do you need a 2.8?
What will you use it for most: landscapes, people, or a bit of everything?

Hope that helps.
10-21-2011, 09:19 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,838
The 16-45 is way ahead on (used) price, which is the huge reason I bought it. Second was the 16mm end, since I did not have anything rectilinear and wider. The 17-70 would not have had AF on my *ist DS, so that wasn't a real consideration. Tests show the 16-45 is really close on IQ to the 17-70, close enough I think so it wouldn't matter.

The 16-45 is either a perfect fit into a lens plan or a redundant extra. For me, it covers wide angle perfectly well, and the longer end stops exactly in the right place. But if you eventually plan to get an ultrawide zoom or 14-15mm prime, those lenses would take over the wide end. The 16-45 would be Left Behind a lot.
10-21-2011, 05:08 PM   #7
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
I owned the DA 16-45mm and still have the DA 17-70mm.
Yes the former is a little wider but in every other respect the DA 17-70mm is the better lens imo (build quality, zoom range, quietness, image quality).
10-23-2011, 02:40 PM   #8
Senior Member
campdog's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bonny Hills, NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 202
I had the 16-45 as my first lens with my K10D. I sold it and got the Sigma 17-70,It was a good lens but not exactly what I wanted.Sold it and got a Pentax FA*28-70 2.8. Now Im happy.
John

10-25-2011, 07:42 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,072
DA16-45/4 + Tamron 28-75/2.8

QuoteOriginally posted by tohax Quote
I'm considering to buy a replacement for my kit lens. which one is better?
my main concern is about sharpness.

thanks in advance
I had the same dilemma two years ago. After a lot of thinking and reading I ended up with double lens solution: DA16-45/4 + Tamron 28-75/2.8. And I consider the overlap in focal length as an advantage sometime: there is less lens change needed; you change them when you need extremes or when indoors. I usually take one with me depending on situation (alone with Sigma 10-20 or DA*60-250). It looks like I use Tamron more often then Pentax, but it's bulkier.
10-25-2011, 08:20 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,346
i think the answer to the question 16-46 or 17-70 depends on what other lenses you either a) have, or b) plan to purchase.

if you plan at some point to add an ultra wide lens (either zoom like the sigma 10-20 or pentax 12-24 or a prime) then the loss of 1mm at the wide end is not an issue.

If you don't plan to add an ultra wide, the difference between 16 and 17 mm may have an impact.

Same issue at the long end, what other lenses dou you have/plan.

before you make a decision, you need to think of how the lens fits into your overall kit.

Personally, I think an ultra wide plus 17-70 would be the way to go, because you will usually want longer than 45 even if city bound
10-26-2011, 05:53 PM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 137
I love my 16-45mm f4, and never owned the 17-70. It is plenty sharp, but I like to stop it down to 5.6 to 11.

Here's an example of it using a tripod (fb resized, so its been compressed to all hell):



10-27-2011, 07:25 AM   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 70
Original Poster
thank you for all the inputs!
actually what I need is wide to normal lens, for replacing my kit lens.
16-45 is enough for me, I was just thinking if the 17-70 is better then why not, plus the extra FL.
but I just found out that 16-45 is no longer available in the local market. so I think I will go for 17-70.
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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