[Vejas]

Hello dear Pentax users,

I'm, choosing between:
Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8,
DA 16-45mm F4,
DA 17-70mm


I think what i want from lense is good walkaround quality lense, good colors, charpness, accurate auto focus.
For most times would be used like walk around lense, want something better than my 18-55wr. I guess it would be great improvement from 18-55. For portrait use i have DA 50mm f1,8

What would you choose or maby there is other lenses ?

[seventysixersfan]

all three you mentioned are good choices and should offer better image quality than your 18-55 WR. You may also want to consider Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 contemporary lens, especially as an alternative to the DA 17-70. What you need to think about is whether you prioritize speed (in which case the Tamron 17-50 would be better), having a wider FOV (DA 16-45 would be excellent for that), or zoom range flexibility (either 17-70 lens models)

[Adam]

Hello dear Pentax users,

I'm, choosing between:
Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8,
DA 16-45mm F4,
DA 17-70mm


I think what i want from lense is good walkaround quality lense, good colors, charpness, accurate auto focus.
For most times would be used like walk around lense, want something better than my 18-55wr. I guess it would be great improvement from 18-55. For portrait use i have DA 50mm f1,8

What would you choose or maby there is other lenses ?

I'd recommend the 17-70mm, as it's better in all areas compared to your kit lens, plus you get silent AF and a fast aperture at the wide end.

[MSL]

Questions like this one come up often, so you should dig through the older posts a bit, as well as the lens reviews

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/246913-pent...n-17-50-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/225662-wann...s-17-70-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/215478-sigm...5-17-70-a.html

or the formal comparison they did here
Pentax 17-70mm Lens Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

I realize not all the lenses in these threads match your list, but better to have more info than not enough

[DSims]

They're all good lenses.

The one I went to from the DA18-55 was the DA17-70, because it took nice images near wide open (at f/4.5) and offered a zoom range closer to what I was looking for.

If wide angle is your highest priority, then consider going with the DA16-45 - it's fairly strong at the wide end.

And naturally the Tamron has a faster aperture. But you mentioned colors, among other attributes. Be aware that the Tamron will have deliver different colors compared to a Pentax DA lens, and a Sigma will be even more different. In some Pentaxian's eyes (myself included) the colors are better from the Pentax lenses.


I think the DA17-70 is the better overall lens, and it's a great upgrade from the kit lens.

[j2photos]

I'd recommend the 17-70mm, as it's better in all areas compared to your kit lens, plus you get silent AF and a fast aperture at the wide end.

I am going to agree with Adam here. I had the Tamron and it was only marginally better than my kit lens. From what I have seen/read of the 17-70 it is a fantastic lens.

[mikemike]

I got the 16-45 because I ultimately want to get the 16-50 and at half the price of the 17-70 it made good sense as a bridge lens. Additionally, the 17-70 isn't renowned for its performance at the long end while the 16-45 performs from the beginning of its range to the end.

I bought my DA17-70 here a couple of years ago. KEH grades very conservatively, my EX looked new. Six month warranty too.

Good IQ, very versatile. I've no problem shooting it wide open. Paid for itself quickly.

[Low&Slow]

I've had the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 C lens for about a week now and there's couple of things I've noticed. The images straight out of the camera aren't as vibrant and the micro contrast is a little weaker than the ones taken with the DA 16-45mm f4. The softness at 17mm is well known, though mine is softer than I expected. I don't mean to knock the lens just some observations. I shoot RAW and enjoy post processing so getting the most out of the Sigma is part of the process. I bought the DA* 16 -50mm f2.8 during black Friday last fall and found it too expensive and heavy for the benefits it offered. I sold the DA 16-45mm f4 to buy the DA*16-50, I kinda miss that lens

[MSL]

I've had the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 C lens for about a week now and there's couple of things I've noticed. The images straight out of the camera aren't as vibrant and the micro contrast is a little weaker than the ones taken with the DA 16-45mm f4. The softness at 17mm is well known, though mine is softer than I expected. I don't mean to knock the lens just some observations. I shoot RAW and enjoy post processing so getting the most out of the Sigma is part of the process. I bought the DA* 16 -50mm f2.8 during black Friday last fall and found it too expensive and heavy for the benefits it offered. I sold the DA 16-45mm f4 to buy the DA*16-50, I kinda miss that lens

You raise a good point which probably should be echoed any time somebody is looking for a zoom in this range - which range of focal lengths are most critical. I'm certainly hoping to replace or supplement the kit 18-55 some day, primarily to get something that works better at the wide angles. If a particular zoom is known to be weak in that range, I should nix it from my list pretty quick. Not sure if all the sigma's are soft at 17 as there have been 3 varieties. Anyone know about this?

[reeftool]

I have just purchased the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C and the little I have used it, I'm impressed. My limited shooting has been in poor and difficult light, high ISO, and wide open apertures at shutter speeds that are at the limits of hand holding. I will have a better opinion in a few days but my initial impression is very good. Certainly better than the 18-55 kit lens in these conditions. My few 17mm shots seem acceptably sharp but I certainly need to mount it on a tripod and do a few landscapes to come to any opinion. I didn't buy this lens for it's 17mm but as a general walk around and I will use the 55-70 mm range quite a bit. This is replacing an F 35-70 that broke

[Low&Slow]

Again, I hope I didn't come across as bashing the Sigma because I plan on keeping it. Maybe I'm having focusing problems with my particular lens/camera combo. At close distances I'm getting sharp images at all focal lengths, at infinity it gets a little soft. Need to play around some to see if some improvements can be had, if not, it's still a good versatile lens that is quite stylish IMO if that matters.

Maybe I'm creating an excuse to try out that 14mm Bower that's on sale at B&H!

[reeftool]

I have the DA 15 and I have no illusions that my Sigma will in any way be a substitute. That isn't why I bought it. It has a longer range than the 18-55 kit lens and it's faster and at least from what I see so far, it's quite good wide open. I have been able to get some good results with a little tweaking in Lightroom. Zooms are always a compromise. Every one of the 3 zooms the OP mentioned are very good lenses but also different. The Tamron is a fast f2.8 throughout the range. The DA 16-45 is slower at f4 but slightly wider and is known for it's excellent IQ. The DA 17-70 has a bigger range as a walk around as does the Sigma 17-70. You could also add the DA 18-135 to the mix here too. It's slower but has good IQ and weather sealing. I have never disliked my 18-55. For my uses, a 17-70 is a very practical size and the Sigma is very well priced.