DA16-85WR vs DA 17-70

Tatouzou · 03-10-2015, 08:21 AM

The new DA 16-85 seems to get very good opinions, and to rise a lot of expectations among Pentaxists. I hope an in-depth staff review will come soon.

Looking at the lenses design and optical formula, focal range, aperture, size and weight, I think that the HD DA 18-85 DC WR f 3.5-5.6 uses nearly the same optical formula as the DA 17-70 SDM f4.

I own the DA 17-70, which I consider a high quality lens, well corrected from optical aberrations and exceptionally sharp for a transtandard zoom lens. Many enthusiasts Pentaxist own this lens, and I appreciated the side by side in-depth staff review with the very popular Sigma 17-70.

IMO, Pentax has designed the DA 16-85 as an evolution from the DA 17-70 design, adding a little more range at both end because it is what many users are most interested in, and, to keep the same size and weight, switched from the constant f4 to a f3.5-5.6 variable aperture.

So I think a side by side review of both the 18-85 and the 17-70 would be very interesting, since the lenses specs are so close to each other, but the new DA 16-85 is 40% more expansive as the old DA 17-70: is the WR and extra range the only real difference, or is there also an improvement as regards IQ? Is it worth to upgrade from the 17-70 to the 16-85?

I am less interested in reviews comparing side by side very different lenses, like the 16-85, 18-50 and 18-135, because the specifications and prices are so different: it is not really a surprise to discover that a compact cheaper travel lens with a 7.5x zoom range is not as good as a much more expansive 5.3x enthusiast zoom, or than a pro 3.1x f2.8 zoom that costs nearly 3 times more.
IMO, these three lenses adress very different needs. It is a little like comparing a Jeep Cherokee and a Porsche coupé: driving the Porsche is a very nice experience, but if you need to travel with wife, two kids, a dog, and luggage, maybe the Cherokee will be more convenient.

As for me, for instance, I own both the DA 17-70 and DA 18-135 WR, the first is the one I take when I want the best IQ but still with the versatility of a zoom, no matter the size and weight. The latter is the do-everything only lens I take when I want to travel light or shoot in adverse conditions and not having to change lenses. The 18-135 is "good enough" up to 70mm and its IQ is better than the 18-55 kit on this focal range. From 70 to 135, it is soft on the borders, but if I go with the 17-70, I need a second lens above 70 (for instance my DA 50-200, which is average but very light and convenient)

DSims · 03-10-2015, 02:37 PM

Why not use the F70-210/4-5.6 as the 2nd lens with the DA17-70? It's not as light, but it creates nice images - both Takumar and Pentax versions.

mbukal · 03-10-2015, 03:19 PM

I have DA17-70 / 4 and I can not wait comparison with DA16-85, not sigma 1st / 2nd / 3rd version 17-70, regrettable comparing with no comparable lenses as DA18-135 and DA18-55

Driline · 03-10-2015, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by DSims

Why not use the F70-210/4-5.6 as the 2nd lens

What DSims said. This is a sharp lens outdoors and takes beautifully rendered pictures. And for under $75 (I got mine for $40) it's a no brainer. I think much better IQ than the DA 18-135 which I owned at one time as well too.

Pentax F 70-210

Here's a shot at F 210mm from the top of a 12 story building.

Tatouzou · 03-10-2015, 05:10 PM

I use the DA 50-200 because I have it.

I bought it 9 years ago for my IST-DS, and it has served me faithfully. I like its convenient small size and its AF is faster on my K30 than on my old IST-DS.

I also have the all plastic FA 100-300 f4.7-5.8 which I use when I (seldom) need a very long range on the K30.

I know there are better telezooms than these 2, but I dont shoot a lot above 200mm. And when I do plan long telephoto shoots, I can also use my Fuji X-S1.

When I want to travel light, I am happy with the DA135 as my only lens on the K30, and a small compact as a spare and for hiking, social events or candid photography (either my X10, which is a joy to use, or the very pocketable XZ10 which looks like a casual point and shoot but has many advanced features, such as a ND filter and a very fast lens).

I consider I already have quite a lot of lenses, which suit my needs, so I am not interested in buying another zoom, even if the F 70-210 seems a good and compact AF lens.

I may buy new lenses in the future, but it will rather be the DA70 ltd and DA21 ltd or DA 20-40 ltd.

Driline · 03-10-2015, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Tatouzou

I may buy new lenses in the future, but it will rather be the DA70 ltd and DA21 ltd or DA 20-40 ltd

Hey if budget is not a concern I'd grab the DA 20-40 too!

**seadog** · 03-10-2015, 06:33 PM

I have the DA 17-70 and it has worked pretty well for me, but I would like to upgrade. Wider range, WR, better AF motor, less aberrations, Same or better IQ all sounds great. But I will also use the lens as my main landscape zoom and I usually use live-view magnified focus with the 17-70 and it is frustrating because the focus throw is so short and the action is so loose (no damping) that is very difficult to use that way. For those that have tried both lenses, my question is if the 16-85 is better in this respect? I know there is no distance scale on this lens and I am not happy with that but it is not a deal breaker for me.

GlennG · 03-10-2015, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Tatouzou

I own the DA 17-70, which I consider a high quality lens, well corrected from optical aberrations and exceptionally sharp for a transtandard zoom lens. Many enthusiasts Pentaxist own this lens

I have the DA 17-70 and likewise consider it to be a very high quality lens, IQ wise. I have had to replace the SDM, and, it hesitates to lock focus sometimes at 70. But the colors, contrast, and sharpness are very good.

Originally posted by Driline

This is a sharp lens outdoors and takes beautifully rendered pictures.

Well, I certainly have to agree - those pictures are very sharp and beautifully rendered! I sort of wish I had one of those lenses, even though I have the DA 55-300, and like it also. Thanks for sharing.

GeneV · 03-10-2015, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by GlennG

I have the DA 17-70 and likewise consider it to be a very high quality lens, IQ wise. I have had to replace the SDM, and, it hesitates to lock focus sometimes at 70. But the colors, contrast, and sharpness are very good.

If it weren't for that problem locking focus at 70, it would be on one of my bodies all the time. Good quality, fast and quiet. However, if you want to be sure it focuses, it is a 17-50. So, I tend to use the DA*`16-50 more these days and get the extra stop.

ChristianRock · 03-10-2015, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

If it weren't for that problem locking focus at 70, it would be on one of my bodies all the time. Good quality, fast and quiet. However, if you want to be sure it focuses, it is a 17-50. So, I tend to use the DA*`16-50 more these days and get the extra stop.

How do you think those two compare in terms of optics?

GlennG · 03-10-2015, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

How do you think those two compare in terms of optics?

I am about to find out. I just got a 16-50 and I believe I'll create my own round of tests to compare my 17-70 to the 16-50.

Originally posted by GeneV

However, if you want to be sure it focuses, it is a 17-50. So, I tend to use the DA*`16-50 more these days and get the extra stop.

Actually, I probably don't need the range of 2.8 to 4.0, nor the range of 50-70, I'll be very interested to see how the two lenses compare. How do yours compare in the overlapping ranges.

northcoastgreg · 03-11-2015, 08:48 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Tatouzou

So I think a side by side review of both the 16-85 and the 17-70 would be very interesting, since the lenses specs are so close to each other, but the new DA 16-85 is 40% more expansive as the old DA 17-70: is the WR and extra range the only real difference, or is there also an improvement as regards IQ? Is it worth to upgrade from the 17-70 to the 16-85?

I agree that a comparison of these two lenses would be interesting. In some ways, the 16-85 does seem like an upgrade of the 17-70 (particularly if you don't need the f4). It features weather and dust resistance, nano coating technology, ED glass, a more durable focus motor, and (presumably) more reliable AF. I have looked at high rez images from the 16-85 posted online, and at least in terms of sharpness, I don't see any significant difference at most focal lengths. The 16-85 does seem to be sharper at 70mm. Undoubtedly when the 16-85 gets tested, people will find differences in sharpness between it and the 17-70, and much will be made of those differences; but in terms of practical output, I don't think you'll be able to perceive differences in sharpness, short of insane levels of magnification. Because of the HD coatings, I would expect the 16-85 to feature better flare control and to exhibit more consistency in terms of lens contrast. There are also subtle differences in the way HD and SMC coatings render color. Indeed, differences in color rendering may be the most visible difference in terms of IQ between these two lenses.

I suspect the main reason to "upgrade" from the DA 17-70 to the HD DA 16-85 is for the WR, the slightly wider range, better flare control, and more reliable AF. Is that worth the extra price of the 16-85? Depends on how badly you need those extra advantages. The 16-85 could prove a very fine all-in-one landscape/travel lens. The DA 17-70, on the other hand, may be better as a general, jack-of-all-trade lens, thanks to the faster aperture (although this assumes you have a copy that focuses reliably).

IchabodCrane · 03-11-2015, 09:29 AM

It's worth noting the DA 17-70 is partially weather resistant as it has a mount seal. I suppose you could say the lens itself is not WR but it does protect the body which I think most believe is more important.

GeneV · 03-11-2015, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

How do you think those two compare in terms of optics?

At f/4, which is wide open for the 17-70, and one stop down for the 16-50, the 16-50 blows it away. As the 17-70 stops down, it catches up somewhat. The 16-50 does not improve drastically below 5.6.

ChristianRock · 03-11-2015, 10:41 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by GeneV

At f/4, which is wide open for the 17-70, and one stop down for the 16-50, the 16-50 blows it away. As the 17-70 stops down, it catches up somewhat. The 16-50 does not improve drastically below 5.6.

Very interesting. Thanks. Maybe in the future I should take the advice someone posted about buying a 16-50 with dead SDM and converting to screw driver, for an affordable good zoom...

03-10-2015, 08:21 AM	#1
Tatouzou Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 175	DA16-85WR vs DA 17-70 The new DA 16-85 seems to get very good opinions, and to rise a lot of expectations among Pentaxists. I hope an in-depth staff review will come soon. Looking at the lenses design and optical formula, focal range, aperture, size and weight, I think that the HD DA 18-85 DC WR f 3.5-5.6 uses nearly the same optical formula as the DA 17-70 SDM f4. I own the DA 17-70, which I consider a high quality lens, well corrected from optical aberrations and exceptionally sharp for a transtandard zoom lens. Many enthusiasts Pentaxist own this lens, and I appreciated the side by side in-depth staff review with the very popular Sigma 17-70. IMO, Pentax has designed the DA 16-85 as an evolution from the DA 17-70 design, adding a little more range at both end because it is what many users are most interested in, and, to keep the same size and weight, switched from the constant f4 to a f3.5-5.6 variable aperture. So I think a side by side review of both the 18-85 and the 17-70 would be very interesting, since the lenses specs are so close to each other, but the new DA 16-85 is 40% more expansive as the old DA 17-70: is the WR and extra range the only real difference, or is there also an improvement as regards IQ? Is it worth to upgrade from the 17-70 to the 16-85? I am less interested in reviews comparing side by side very different lenses, like the 16-85, 18-50 and 18-135, because the specifications and prices are so different: it is not really a surprise to discover that a compact cheaper travel lens with a 7.5x zoom range is not as good as a much more expansive 5.3x enthusiast zoom, or than a pro 3.1x f2.8 zoom that costs nearly 3 times more. IMO, these three lenses adress very different needs. It is a little like comparing a Jeep Cherokee and a Porsche coupé: driving the Porsche is a very nice experience, but if you need to travel with wife, two kids, a dog, and luggage, maybe the Cherokee will be more convenient. As for me, for instance, I own both the DA 17-70 and DA 18-135 WR, the first is the one I take when I want the best IQ but still with the versatility of a zoom, no matter the size and weight. The latter is the do-everything only lens I take when I want to travel light or shoot in adverse conditions and not having to change lenses. The 18-135 is "good enough" up to 70mm and its IQ is better than the 18-55 kit on this focal range. From 70 to 135, it is soft on the borders, but if I go with the 17-70, I need a second lens above 70 (for instance my DA 50-200, which is average but very light and convenient)

03-10-2015, 05:10 PM	#5
Tatouzou Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 175 Original Poster	I am hapy with the lenses I already have I use the DA 50-200 because I have it. I bought it 9 years ago for my IST-DS, and it has served me faithfully. I like its convenient small size and its AF is faster on my K30 than on my old IST-DS. I also have the all plastic FA 100-300 f4.7-5.8 which I use when I (seldom) need a very long range on the K30. I know there are better telezooms than these 2, but I dont shoot a lot above 200mm. And when I do plan long telephoto shoots, I can also use my Fuji X-S1. When I want to travel light, I am happy with the DA135 as my only lens on the K30, and a small compact as a spare and for hiking, social events or candid photography (either my X10, which is a joy to use, or the very pocketable XZ10 which looks like a casual point and shoot but has many advanced features, such as a ND filter and a very fast lens). I consider I already have quite a lot of lenses, which suit my needs, so I am not interested in buying another zoom, even if the F 70-210 seems a good and compact AF lens. I may buy new lenses in the future, but it will rather be the DA70 ltd and DA21 ltd or DA 20-40 ltd. Last edited by Tatouzou; 03-10-2015 at 05:20 PM.

03-10-2015, 06:33 PM	#7
seadog Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Anacortes, WA Photos: Albums Posts: 97	16-85 manual focus I have the DA 17-70 and it has worked pretty well for me, but I would like to upgrade. Wider range, WR, better AF motor, less aberrations, Same or better IQ all sounds great. But I will also use the lens as my main landscape zoom and I usually use live-view magnified focus with the 17-70 and it is frustrating because the focus throw is so short and the action is so loose (no damping) that is very difficult to use that way. For those that have tried both lenses, my question is if the 16-85 is better in this respect? I know there is no distance scale on this lens and I am not happy with that but it is not a deal breaker for me.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 17-50/2.8 vs DA16-45 or 17-70	NitroDC	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	02-18-2013 03:52 PM
sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50 vs Pentax 17-70	dr_romix	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	07-01-2012 10:15 PM
Tamron 17-50 (€300) VS. Sigma 17-70 f4.5(€380) VS. DA 18-135 (€450)	Tomm	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	03-25-2012 10:01 PM
DA 15mm vs DA 14mm vs Pentax 17-70	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-02-2010 09:03 AM
Wedding zoom? Da16-50/Da16-45/Da17-70/Fa28-70/Sigma17-70???	JayR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	03-18-2010 10:30 AM

03-10-2015, 02:37 PM	#2
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Why not use the F70-210/4-5.6 as the 2nd lens with the DA17-70? It's not as light, but it creates nice images - both Takumar and Pentax versions.

03-10-2015, 03:19 PM	#3
mbukal Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: zagreb Posts: 668	I have DA17-70 / 4 and I can not wait comparison with DA16-85, not sigma 1st / 2nd / 3rd version 17-70, regrettable comparing with no comparable lenses as DA18-135 and DA18-55

03-10-2015, 03:30 PM	#4
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Originally posted by DSims Why not use the F70-210/4-5.6 as the 2nd lens What DSims said. This is a sharp lens outdoors and takes beautifully rendered pictures. And for under $75 (I got mine for $40) it's a no brainer. I think much better IQ than the DA 18-135 which I owned at one time as well too. Pentax F 70-210 Here's a shot at F 210mm from the top of a 12 story building.

03-10-2015, 05:24 PM	#6
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Originally posted by Tatouzou I may buy new lenses in the future, but it will rather be the DA70 ltd and DA21 ltd or DA 20-40 ltd Hey if budget is not a concern I'd grab the DA 20-40 too!

03-10-2015, 06:59 PM	#8
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Originally posted by Tatouzou I own the DA 17-70, which I consider a high quality lens, well corrected from optical aberrations and exceptionally sharp for a transtandard zoom lens. Many enthusiasts Pentaxist own this lens I have the DA 17-70 and likewise consider it to be a very high quality lens, IQ wise. I have had to replace the SDM, and, it hesitates to lock focus sometimes at 70. But the colors, contrast, and sharpness are very good. Originally posted by Driline This is a sharp lens outdoors and takes beautifully rendered pictures. Well, I certainly have to agree - those pictures are very sharp and beautifully rendered! I sort of wish I had one of those lenses, even though I have the DA 55-300, and like it also. Thanks for sharing.

03-10-2015, 07:26 PM	#9
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by GlennG I have the DA 17-70 and likewise consider it to be a very high quality lens, IQ wise. I have had to replace the SDM, and, it hesitates to lock focus sometimes at 70. But the colors, contrast, and sharpness are very good. If it weren't for that problem locking focus at 70, it would be on one of my bodies all the time. Good quality, fast and quiet. However, if you want to be sure it focuses, it is a 17-50. So, I tend to use the DA*`16-50 more these days and get the extra stop.

03-10-2015, 08:21 PM	#10
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by GeneV If it weren't for that problem locking focus at 70, it would be on one of my bodies all the time. Good quality, fast and quiet. However, if you want to be sure it focuses, it is a 17-50. So, I tend to use the DA*`16-50 more these days and get the extra stop. How do you think those two compare in terms of optics?

03-10-2015, 08:40 PM	#11
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Originally posted by ChristianRock How do you think those two compare in terms of optics? I am about to find out. I just got a 16-50 and I believe I'll create my own round of tests to compare my 17-70 to the 16-50. Originally posted by GeneV However, if you want to be sure it focuses, it is a 17-50. So, I tend to use the DA*`16-50 more these days and get the extra stop. Actually, I probably don't need the range of 2.8 to 4.0, nor the range of 50-70, I'll be very interested to see how the two lenses compare. How do yours compare in the overlapping ranges.

03-11-2015, 08:48 AM - 1 Like	#12
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by Tatouzou So I think a side by side review of both the 16-85 and the 17-70 would be very interesting, since the lenses specs are so close to each other, but the new DA 16-85 is 40% more expansive as the old DA 17-70: is the WR and extra range the only real difference, or is there also an improvement as regards IQ? Is it worth to upgrade from the 17-70 to the 16-85? I agree that a comparison of these two lenses would be interesting. In some ways, the 16-85 does seem like an upgrade of the 17-70 (particularly if you don't need the f4). It features weather and dust resistance, nano coating technology, ED glass, a more durable focus motor, and (presumably) more reliable AF. I have looked at high rez images from the 16-85 posted online, and at least in terms of sharpness, I don't see any significant difference at most focal lengths. The 16-85 does seem to be sharper at 70mm. Undoubtedly when the 16-85 gets tested, people will find differences in sharpness between it and the 17-70, and much will be made of those differences; but in terms of practical output, I don't think you'll be able to perceive differences in sharpness, short of insane levels of magnification. Because of the HD coatings, I would expect the 16-85 to feature better flare control and to exhibit more consistency in terms of lens contrast. There are also subtle differences in the way HD and SMC coatings render color. Indeed, differences in color rendering may be the most visible difference in terms of IQ between these two lenses. I suspect the main reason to "upgrade" from the DA 17-70 to the HD DA 16-85 is for the WR, the slightly wider range, better flare control, and more reliable AF. Is that worth the extra price of the 16-85? Depends on how badly you need those extra advantages. The 16-85 could prove a very fine all-in-one landscape/travel lens. The DA 17-70, on the other hand, may be better as a general, jack-of-all-trade lens, thanks to the faster aperture (although this assumes you have a copy that focuses reliably).

03-11-2015, 09:29 AM	#13
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	It's worth noting the DA 17-70 is partially weather resistant as it has a mount seal. I suppose you could say the lens itself is not WR but it does protect the body which I think most believe is more important.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2015, 10:39 AM	#14
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by ChristianRock How do you think those two compare in terms of optics? At f/4, which is wide open for the 17-70, and one stop down for the 16-50, the 16-50 blows it away. As the 17-70 stops down, it catches up somewhat. The 16-50 does not improve drastically below 5.6.

03-11-2015, 10:41 AM - 1 Like	#15
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by GeneV At f/4, which is wide open for the 17-70, and one stop down for the 16-50, the 16-50 blows it away. As the 17-70 stops down, it catches up somewhat. The 16-50 does not improve drastically below 5.6. Very interesting. Thanks. Maybe in the future I should take the advice someone posted about buying a 16-50 with dead SDM and converting to screw driver, for an affordable good zoom...